Fruggums - Filed under 'articles'

December 28, 2009

Semester of a Photographer, Part 2

Once again all my classes were 3 hours (except Studio which was four) and this time I had class five days a week. So here we go again.

1. 21st Century History

The first of my humanities courses, this course aimed to answer some seemingly simple questions about human civilization and how we got here. Things like - why does most of the world speak English? Or why the Industrial Revolution began in England ; and how did they manage to conquer a big chunk of the world? It also encompassed current issues such as climate change and the evolving relationships between developed and developing countries and the powers that are shaping them (a big part of the study was based on multinational corporations).

10 assignments and a final project. Part of what I did for my finals is here.

2. The Myth of Self-Creationism in American Literature

Yes, the course is as impressive as it's title. This course was all about the myth of the American dream and how it has manifested itself in American literature right from the start. Readings (and there was a lot of reading) ranged from Thomas Paine to Saul Bellow to William Faulkner to Ralph Waldo Emerson to WIlla Cather to Fitzgerald to - oh you know what I mean.

Two exams. Fantastic course, the professor was extremely engaging so he managed to pull it off.

3. Critical Eye

Probably the most intellectually stimulating of my courses, this one is a mix between photographic theory and philosophy. It deals with how we absorb, interpret and understand photographs. It's a crash course on the photograph as an object, how it functions and how we engage with it. There was a lot of Susan Sontag and Roland Barthes thrown into this course, obviously. Class was sometimes at MoMA, galleries or museums.

Three (challenging) papers and a midterm exam.

4. Digital Photo

Ah finally, here come the more photo-photo-photo courses where I can show you work (you wouldn't want to read my dense lengthy papers from the above three). This is the intermediate Photoshop class that aimed at stepping up our digital skills. My final portfolio is the first group of images at the end of the post.

There was a midterm and a sprinkle of in-class assignments.

5. Critique

Quite simply the class of all classes. The central focus of the semester always lies in Crit class. This is the class where we work on a project for an entire semester and bring in work each week to receive (constructive) feedback and further develop the idea. It's the second portfolio below.

6. Studio

Perhaps the most fun class of all. What's better than learning how to shoot beautiful photos in the studio? Models, lights, cameras, all flying about and great pictures coming out of it. It's the last portfolio at the end of the post.

That's it folks.

Compared to the previous edition of this post I haven't punched in the blood, sweat and tears that has to go in behind all of the work up here. It's the finished product that counts this time around.

Welcome to 2010.

Click here to download:

Semester_of_a_Photographer_Par.zip (3275 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles college photography

Comments [1]

November 16, 2009

$15 and a Year of Jail

"The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world - by far" (here's an excellent read about that). Today I got a first hand experience of that.

No, I'm not blogging from jail (though I would throw a pretty sick 'Free Az All' campaign online if I was)

A month ago I ordered a roundtrip to Jamaica station for a trip to Canada. Its cheaper and it means I don't have to wait in a line with luggage. Tickets arrive in 1-3 business days, usually.

So when they didn't show up for a month I called to ask them to refund me. I thought this would be straightforward but it isn't. Now, things get lost in the mail. Its impossible for every single envelope to be delivered successfully given the volume of mail USPS handles and the sometimes ragged appearance of the people walking around with the mail. So mine was one of those unlucky ones. Ok, they can grasp that concept, even though this a government company.

They send tickets in unmarked non-privacy (which means you can hold it against the light and see its a ticket in there) plain white envelope.

A few days later I get a form. The usual regrettance-inconvenience schmitz part and then a form I have to send back. It just scared the wits out of me.

Essentially its a legal document that makes me swear that they're actually lost in the mail and I didn't get them. If I'm lying here, I'm lying to the government. There's a lot of the word 'perjury' sprinkled all over this thing. Swearing is alright, I guess. Its the penalties that really got me.

If it turns out, if the ticket that I don't have i.e. somebody else might, gets used, they can prosecute me and fine me $1000 and... send me to prison for a year.

A year.

That's a ridiculous penalty for cheating a railroad company out of $15. For one if the postman who nicked my ticket decided to use it, there's no way to track the person who actually used the ticket, all that's known is that someone used it, someone lied about getting it, someone needs to go to court.

Suppose these ridiculous threats are just deterrents? Well then, to the person who actually had their tickets lost in the mail and signs this thing for a refund, good guts you got there. I'd never sign this thing. Even if one would never end up being convinced and given a sentence, having to land up in court for such a thing is maddening in itself. They can keep their schmeasly $15.

Think about the loss they were to make if indeed someone did cheat them using this system (whichever mad person it would be). They're hauling an extra 60-100kg (on average) for a few miles. Trains can do that pretty ok without posing much of a severe threat to their operation or others' safety. This unlike people with knives and guns walking around who are the people who happen to go to prison too, like this man who cheated the government out of $15 (which isn't enough for more than a day's living in Manhattan)

Just another one of the tales that makes this country so fascinating to study.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // articles nyc random rant travel

Comments [2]

November 13, 2009

The Block System

Click here to download:

The_Block_System.zip (411 KB)

In New York its easy to take the block system for granted. Since streets and avenues and numbers are all in logical order it's pretty hard to get lost here (in Manhattan).

Compared to Mumbai (Bombay, i.e.) which is a haphazard system of curvy roads and lines in a big mush where the names of streets hardly holds much value except for the postal service. After getting the chance to experience both, lets compare.

1. Noise

If you walk down a street in between avenues in the middle of Manhattan with no traffic on it, its completely silent. The block system is supreme when it comes to noise control between streets. The buildings on both sides act as a vertical funnel for the noise channeling it upwards so it doesn't spill into the next street and an ambulance siren will only reverberate in a street in the second it crosses the intersection at the avenue.

Unfortunately for the people living in the vertical funnel of noise, it only serves to amplify the sirens and ambient traffic. So everyone gets their fair share as the vehicle screams along.

In a non-block system (Mumbai specifically, of course), noise isolation between sections is poor. In this system, buildings aren't always facing each other, and due to the unsymmetrical (and fairly larger) plots of land, the buildings don't always take up the entire plot (leaving space for parking garages or a lawn, or as of late swimming pools and gyms). Hence there isn't much channeling of noise and depending on your situation the noise can simply travel up to your floor because it radiates all over - however, although one could possibly be on the receiving end of a larger quantity of noise due to the space involved, there's no funnel to direct and amplify it. So the overall received level of noise, is less, especially so if you aren't facing a road. Since Mumbai isn't completely flat (unlike Manhattan, which is for the most part), elevation varies, roads twist, and people can land lucky situations.

2. Transport

The block system wins in transport (both in reducing congestion and time for travel). A grid system distributes traffic extremely efficiently compared to a non-block system. Manhattan has two major arteries on the periphery of the island (FDR, Hudson Pkway), which makes it easy to skip over as many blocks are required then re-enter the system. Mumbai has similar, but these arteries are a part of the non-block system instead of being separate entities. That is, they are roads used to access housing, business etc. while Manhattan's arteries are dedicated highways.

Its easier to get around when the streets are numbered and the direction of traffic alternates. In a non-block system its just simply the opposite. Random roads become one-ways and its impossible to know the name of every street in Mumbai.

If one avenue gets clogged in a grid, the traffic can simply be diverted into adjoining streets to find alternate routes - since streets alternate in direction, the jam can dissipate easier. In a non-block system, if one main road gets clogged, it just spreads a traffic failure to connecting roads - because of the haphazard manner in which the traffic flows.

This is also complicated by signal issues. In a block system signals are timed extremely efficiently to ensure traffic flows in neat blocks (you can notice this anytime you look down an avenue in Manhattan). In a non-block system, due to major intersections composing of more than four roads (each in different directions sometimes) - signals have a hard time ensuring an efficient flow especially when the pattern reverses between the two rush hours.

3. Space & View

In a block system, there's a very good chance your view is simply someone else's window. Since every building occupies its entire space, unless you're higher than the building you're facing - your view is pretty much their view which is you (get it?). Having a-building-as-a-view-system also means getting cut off from the sun when you're in its shadow. An exception to this is (other than being higher up) is the corner view. The people in the corners of the buildings can usually see down the avenues/streets **

In a non-block system, there's a good chance your view encompasses more than just another building. Again, due to the erratic sizes of plots, spaces for garages, orientations of buildings, irregular width of roads, varying topography etc. etc. there's a good chance you're going to be able to see more. The non-block system also means that if you happen to be staring into another building, the gap is probably a bit larger. Since a non-block systems' edge artery roadways aren't highways a lot more people get a view of the sea.

** Another exception is anyone overlooking central park, which is the best living view on the planet, that very, very few can ever afford.

And that, is the block system.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // articles mumbai nyc

Comments [0]

October 21, 2009

Apples

It was somewhere in 2003 that I was asked by my Mom's friend to rip a couple hundred CDs to her laptop so she could put it on her iPod. Being completely business-minded since a young age I charged her per CD (at the time this was a skill not many kids my age had). I didn't know what an iPod was. Heck, nobody new. I hardly even knew Apple even did anything other than that Mac thing that so totally failed - and anyone who bought one was an idiot.

So there I was with this PC laptop and a boxed third generation iPod and a big stack of CDs to get onto it. As I un-boxed the iPod, you can't imagine the sort of immense 'wow' you get out of it. They don't package iPods like that anymore. It came in a medium-sized cube which folded out, and one was greeted with the 'Designed by Apple in California' on opening it. The type on the box was glossy silver. It came with a Firewire and USB cable, along with a dock, pouch, case and cloth.

I didn't know how to use it. It only took a few minutes to figure the thing out. The backlight to the four top buttons was red. I liked that. The hold key got me confused for a second (why isn't this darn thing working?!) but then you just click it back to white and it lights up on its own. You scroll around, you punch in the center. Hey these headphones came with it... hey this sounds pretty good! Oh shit this thing lasts 8 hours?! How many GB did you say? I don't even have that much music.... Oh wow the metal back is so shiny... and there's a silver Apple etched right in the middle of it... they muse use lasers to do that...

... Holy expletive who came up with this.

So I spent a few days transferring the music onto it and careful sneaking in a couple hours of listening time in between study breaks. Eventually, since it wasn't mine, I had to let it go but the fascination continued and I found myself on Apple.com a few times a week just reading about what they were up to with all this.

I don't remember how long it was till Mom gifted me one of these. 20 gigabytes. Carry all your music in your pocket. Before this I used to listen to music on my phone or carry around a little pocket radio (those were so popular, and when they started making them look like iPods you knew radio is dying). I was addicted to it. A little treasure. Always carried in the case. No keys in that pocket, ever.

Having an iPod in 2003 was very different from having an iPod in 2009 (wow, six years huh). I'm not talking about it being a status symbol. It wasn't just that. Sure, you had to be quite fortunate to have one, but there was more to it. iPods weren't popular at all. Especially in India. Not many people even knew what Apple was all about (me included). So this exciting new device came fresh without any background and could just stun people. If you had an iPod then, you were unique (and again, not only because your parents could afford it). There was something about it that said you knew what good design was all about. It was almost as if you knew Apple was going to take over the world at that point. And you had the first bits of it. The iPod wasn't a trend, it wasn't cool necessarily, it was what is was because of design and function. No other player could carry as much music. No other player was as thin, sleek and well thought out in doing so. As simple as that.

So there was something special in being part of the Apple culture at the time. Was it because it was so small? That's one of the reasons. Another reason is you had to be smart to have one. This is a time when (in my surrounding humanity) the knowledge on how to properly copy a CD wasn't very widespread (this also because most people didn't have CD burners). Sure the thing came with a manual, and everything you needed - but you just had to be a geek of sorts to really use it (this is how we started - with me getting the work of somebody who didn't have a clue about using it). You had to know how to obtain music (P2P was still quite new back then and CDs were expensive) then get it on the thing and then keep it there while knowing how to avoid breaking this delicate glossy godly creation. Not everyone knew it back then, and at age 13 in 2003. You were, essentially, part of the technological elite. And that was something. To this day I consider the 3rd gen iPod the best design Apple has produced for its iPod line.

Today's iPod has retained nothing of the sort. Now, I'm not saying this in a bad way. If iPods didn't become popular, Apple wouldn't have rejuvenated Mac - and the iPhone simply wouldn't exist today. So it was definitely a great thing to happen to the company. But along with this came popularity. Mass popularity. It wasn't because suddenly everyone knew how to use iPods i.e. they became geeky enough to evolve into the culture, its simply because the average-everyday-daily-Joe-Windows2000user people started buying it, and rattled their way around and somehow got it to work. Then it became cool. Then everyone had one. So it became a necessity. A requirement. Not a choice, a requirement (and how and why is another long story).

You know what was the requirement in 2003? Windows XP.

Funny, isn't it.

So Apple has become immensely popular, people flock to the 'Mac Store' (ugh, idiots), buy up their shiny new gear and profess their genius for choosing 'an Apple'. Why did they choose it? Heck they aren't entirely sure themselves. But they knew that they couldn't go PC. Isn't current requirement.

Then Apple started catering to the mass market. Oh yes, this is optional extra. So is this. Hey, new iPod! Hey look guys, time to upgrade your Macs to this one! Yeah isn't Steve Jobs your childhood hero?

And then every time Apple releases something new the whole world goes 'Oh my... honey, get the car' and dashes off to stand in line so they can get one on the very first day, use it to a quarter of its potential, and repeat the process within the very same year. Apple is my life!

Well, I'm portraying Apple as quite evil here. Far from. They still do make better computers than any other company. A better phone. Best portable music device. The people who deny it are doing it because - Apple consumers are now either a) Normal people who bought a Mac because they're ignorant or b) The ultimate fanboys. Neither of the groups give the culture a very good standing.

You know when I used to drool over new products Apple came out with? When I was sure the entire world wasn't behind me willing to stamp me down to get to it first. Now, I'm content with my Mac (and will be for years), don't plan on replacing my iPod for a long, long time (or my iPhone) and the new releases of iMacs yesterday just flew right by me.

Its impossible to get small-company Apple back. When they were generous enough to present us with the full package rather than have us buy additional bits which should've been in the box. What I'd like to see is companies bringing back that innovative charm to technology that won't have the masses swooning - because they won't understand it. Just like the first iPod.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // apple articles geek ideas iphone rant tech

Comments [2]

October 8, 2009

Modern Criticism

Artists have to deal with it day in and day out. Well, not really 'deal' with it, but require it. Sift through a splurge of reactions to find that one person who appears to make a little bit of sense.

For some reason we require a form of validation that what we're working on happens to be acceptable (or even better, appreciable) to someone other than oneself. Here's the cool part, most of the artists we recognize today didn't need that (Robert Frank being my favorite example). They just went along and worked on what they had to.

When we ask someone for criticism we're putting them in a position of power. They are suddenly put on the pedestal and given the right to form a (hopefully unbiased) opinion on what they think about something. Part of the problem is, when someone is asked to be a critic, some people are put in this subconscious mindset that whatever they come up with has to be criticism. This is where most of the praise just withers away. To be given the title/power of 'critic' means that you obviously are regarded highly for your opinion by that person. Hence he/she expects something unique, useful and honest from you. Which means the 'critic' here, to keep up his/her won status, is going to consciously search for negatives to either balance out the positives or negate them altogether. Otherwise, what's a critic?

When I'm working on something I'm always asking people what they think. I listen to all of it. I accept around 13-17% of it. I act on about 1% of it. There are very few useful critics around. There may be several hundred good ones, but they probably aren't of much use. A large lot of people are unaware that this applies to most if not all artists and isn't just me being a narcissistic dick. For one its impossible to act on 99% of critical suggestions because 1) It doesn't fit with what the artist wants to convey and 2) Another critic already conflicted with your recommended course of action.

So really what criticism is is a little fun game we artists play. We skip along asking what you think and throw it out until we reach somebody who can actually help more than just critique. We're a confused lot. Half the time we don't know what our own vision is and sometimes we rely on other people to figure it out and scratch at it. Sometimes we just need a nudge in another direction to get things going again. And sometimes playing the criticism game is the only way to get it.

By now most of you who have ever offered me advice or opinions are probably thinking 'Hey, WTF - well, this guy doesn't need to know what I think anymore' and its probably true (even though I'll still ask you and continue to play the game). Look at that sentence again, it centers around you, not me. Those are the sort of people who are out throwing opinions (and will do so when asked) at people for their own mood. I'd like the opinions that are centered around me, because it's my work and not yours - and if you treat it the other way around anything you have to say will be useless.

And that's modern criticism. And y'know what? Guilty as charged.

P.s. It goes without saying how much worse the people who can't be honest are. Even if your opinion could turn out useless don't hide it. Lying and saying you love it is worse than saying you hate it but you're not sure why.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles photography random rant

Comments [1]

August 30, 2009

My Bio-Discography

The Bio-Disc is really, quite a stupendous product.

Click here to download:

My_Bio-Discography.zip (1476 KB)

There's nothing like it. What other device can make your cats jumpier, your hair softer, your vodka smoother, your veggies fresher, your sleep better, your car more fuel-efficient, heal Parkinson's disease, prevent jet-lag and make you the biggest dumbf**k on the planet.

This $300 piece of glass (feels like plastic, but fine, it's glass) claims to do all that and more by producing 'Beta Rhythm Resonance' (oh yes, that!) and 'Scalar Energy' using of course, nanotechnology (d'oh). And the secret to it's effectiveness? It 'restores the molecular structure of water', because obviously, there was something wrong with H2O in the first place.

In the pamphlet I've pictured above one can discover the many wonders of this amazing product. Do have a look. The last page is the best.

And then have a laugh at the thousands of people who bought it. Apparently the one aspect of your life this can't fix is extracting your brain back out of your ass.

You know, there's hardly any convincing required here. This thing is apparently made by fusing 13 types of 'technically engineered' minerals into the glass at 3000 degrees (Kelvin? Now that's convincing enough for most people). This is probably the only believable part of the entire thing because I'd assume if you mix some salt, tabasco and rat feces into the sand you make the glass with, you'd have fused some crap into it.

I assure you there is no need for you to see, touch, taste, use or test this product to believe that it is a complete and utter lie. Just look at their websites.

http://www.biodisc-energy.com/

http://bioenergiseme.com/

After ranting on for countless paragraphs about it's amazing healing power they'll cite labs and sources that don't actually exist and then slap on some testimonials about people all over the world who benefited

marvelously from a $300 piece of plastic (alright, alright - glass).

I hardly need to present my logical (like why is the entire medical community unaware of such a miraculous product?) or scientific (oh don't get me started) arguments here because anyone with a little common sense will know by looking at that pamphlet, that it is indeed, a scam.

But people still buy it. And use it. And then call me an absolute retard for not believing in it's magical powers (of course then prescribing me 3 liters of super-alpha-energized water per day). There's no point convincing them though, because people will hardly ever admit that the $300 piece of glass they just bought is made in China for $2 and has absolutely no capabilities except for making you a dumbf**k (which, mind you, not many products can do these days).

So the only thing I can say is, which f**king genius thought of this before I did.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // articles funny

Comments [1]

August 28, 2009

Semester of a Photographer

I've been asked many a time - what exactly do you do at college?

Since most (alright, all) of my friends have absolutely nothing to do with the arts it seems weird to them to study photography full time for four years. I mean, after all, anyone can take good pictures (right?)

Do I have exams? Do I have textbooks? Hell, what do you do all day?

Finger-paint.

But anyway, since I'm so sick of being asked what why and how I thought I'd outline a semester of work and then create an URL to this page and just slap it onto whoever asks next. And maybe it'd help anyone who plans on studying photography in the future.

This is the first year, so it's all about 'foundation' and basics.

1. Photography Workshop

This Monday-morning 9AM class goes on till 3PM in the afternoon.

The first 3 hours are spent Darkrooming. In the first semester, it was B&W and the second, color. When working with film and light-sensitive paper, it can take up to an hour and a half to make a perfect print. I don't want to explain the entire process in the darkroom, just know that it does, it's a lot of work and takes a lot of skill to get it done right. Just imagine making a photograph without any digital intervention and you have enough of an idea on how complex it must be.

The next three hours are spent in critique.

The bulk of this class is spent outside the classroom or the darkroom. It's coming up with a project and executing it. Working on a new segment of it every week. It requires a lot of thinking and a lot of time. Especially since I had to travel far and wide to do my project (sometimes three hours each way). So just creating work for this class takes up a good few days of the week (and if it doesn't turn out right it has to be done all over again). And then printing it before critique. I usually bring in ten prints, and those can't be made in the three hours before class.

Here's some first semester work :

Click here to download:

Semester_of_a_Photographer_tag.zip (1283 KB)

And some second semester work - the last two (see the full series here).

2. Foundation Symposium

This was the second Monday course I had from 6PM - 9PM.

This course was divided into six (I think?) parts. Each part covered a different topic. Examples were career prospect introductions and industry standards, video, photographs as art objects etc.

I ended up creating a lot of fun stuff in this course.

In Video :

Drumbone from Azhar Chougle on Vimeo.

And working with text (see the full series here) :

I put in more than the required effort for this class so ended up spending quite a bit of free time working on javascripts/tiny_mce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js?1251442053" type="text/javascript"> next week's project.

3. History of Photography

I really liked this course even though it has the word 'history' in it. It was a pretty thorough two-semester long introduction to how photography got going and how it's evolved into current-day what-it-is. We got to see a lot of amazing work this class, that was education in itself. And on a field trip we got to see real photographs from the 1840s.

There was a textbook. So there was studying and exams. Two exams (mid-term and final) along with a few papers and a creative project. So it was quite a bit of work but fun work. A bit of mugging for the exam but after all it is history so it's excusable.

Was my only class on Tuesday from Noon to 3.

4. Literature

Hah, this was all reading and writing. We read some particularly strange things such as Candide and Whitman and Rumi (I liked none) but the professor was an ecstatic jumpy fellow. And we looked at a bit of art and did a bit of thinking so it was all good.

His essays were really challenging so that was what made this course for me. Relating art and literature to current events and things like that. Pretty complex stuff. Especially that really long research paper at the end of it.

5. Digital Imaging (second semester only) :

This class was basics of Photoshop. Being self-taught in most of it already I didn't learn much here, but I did pick up a few neat tricks and was forced to work in ways I wouldn't have normally. There were no tests or exams, instead weekly assignments, which for me, culminated in some (personally rewarding) and excellent work. Examples below.

Click here to download:

0Semester_of_a_Photographer_tag.zip (775 KB)

6. Intro Photo (first semester only) :

This was a course to make sure that we know everything that we should before going on to advanced things like studio. Explaining the basics of photography and dejumbling things like ASA and what film is made of and how the darkroom chemicals work.

This course also had an awesome professor who would bring in amazing cameras and show us how to use them. Like Mamiya's and Hassy's - even a view camera. So it was a lot to learn and there were only two tests which were fairly simple for me.

--

So with all the courses, work and my additional travel, concerts and such it became a good time. The next two semesters are going to be a big step up from the past year. I have studio, and two difficult humanities courses along with the usual. And work and gym.

So I hope that sufficiently illustrates what being a full-time photography student is like. All the classes above were three hours, by the way. So I'd have a straight 9-9 day sometimes with a few hours in between for a nap.

And for those who didn't know jack about my work you got a nice taste of it up there.

(I study at the School of Visual Arts. It's my second year this fall)

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles college photography

Comments [5]

May 3, 2009

The Amateur Photographer

I've been meaning to write this post for a while, especially since my position on it has changed in the past couple of months.

As an amateur soon (hopefully) turned professional photographer, I deal with and observe several amateur photographers on a daily basis.

Obviously there's a difference between a person such as me who is pursuing photography as art and career and a person for whom photography never extends beyond a hobby. There are also a certain group of people stuck in between - the 'serious' amateurs, to whom I'll devote a special paragraph later on.

How do I feel about amateur photographers? I'm quite neutral towards them actually, and probably will be going forward. There are things I love, and things I despise about them.

Realize two things here 1) I was once an amateur photographer, each professional at sometime was and 2) Amateur photography today has been shaped almost completely by the advent of affordable digital photography.

Here are the things I like about having this class of people around. For one, they give my corporations a great deal of funding to keep developing their professional line. Sony is the best example here. Without their compact camera division flourishing, their advent into the professional market would have been all the more risky. Amateurs are easily conned into spending large chunks of money (XYZ Megapixels!) which means that large corporations don't have to pay much attention to the technical aspect as much as the 'cosmetic' hype (hello Nikon D5000). More of that money can go towards their pro line.

Here are the things I dislike about amateur photographers (honestly, most of these didn't apply to people like me during my first year, but some did, which I've expanded upon). For one they buy multi-thousand dollar DSLRs they use on Auto. It's frustrating to me when someone goes ahead and buys a camera worth that much money and end up not knowing a thing about it. Even worse, some assume that they have professional cameras and then compare it to mine, which is a modest setup, but that's the thing - they will never realize that you don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get great photos. It helps, when you know how to use it, but if you don't, it's just technical jargon that you can rant about not knowing what it all means.

Next, some amateurs can be a bit stubborn at times. I can't blame them for this one though, its perfectly normal. When they get a "great shot" by their standards they get so pumped up and excited about it to the extent that they can compare it to a professional's work (yes, it happens). They aren't very down to earth sometimes. But you can't blame them here, they aren't exposed to great photography in the first place. A large part of them follow the misconception that photography is about the camera, and I'm no greater than them unless I have a better camera. Looking at my work, the first question is usually "What camera do you use?" Guess what, both my cameras are out of production, but I'm extremely happy with them and I can still make great pictures with them. Realizing that it takes the skill of a photographer and not the circuitry of a mass-produced digicam to accomplish a great photograph is a hurdle nearly every amateur (who dares proceed further than amateur) has to overcome.

This one applies to me too - amateurs think film is dated, old and nothing compared to modern day digital. Like most amateurs today, I started out with digital, so I thought the same "Why would anyone use film?" Right? Well, wrong. Film has dynamic range and resolution that hasn't been achieved in the digital world as of yet is your straight and honest answer. And well, it is a lot more rewarding, fun and skillful but that's another story. Also, amateurs, please - just because one is a photographer does not mean we know every single model and make of camera out there - we know what we work with and that's it, Google a review for yourself, but if you need assistance comparing cameras with tech specs or image quality examples, we'd be glad to help, just don't rattle off DSC-PZ10 and expect us to know anything, it isn't our realm.

Right, the 'serious' amateur. They form a minority of the amateur spectrum. And I'm glad most of the amateurs I interact with fall into this class. They are the ones who have an honest love for photography. They're down to earth people who pursue it as a passion only because their day job happens to be something a bit less adventurous (they might say otherwise, and they're right sometimes). They know their cameras and value them well. They don't make art, but they can make some damn fine pictures nevertheless. Always out to learn, very few amateurs progress to this stage, and these are the people who could turn professional if they push themselves hard enough.

So as I said - I'm neutral. Photographers wouldn't be anything without amateurs, because that's where everyone has to start, there's no trickery to evading this stage. It's just that with digital photography, everyone thinks they are a photographer now (and some of them are, and move forward) - people seem to be pushing it a bit too far sometimes.

End of thesis.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles photography rant

Comments [3]

April 24, 2009

Twitter isn't Mainstream

Of course, not too long ago, there was a point where e-mail wasn't mainstream. But, most people (if not all) who discovered e-mail, tagged along and told everyone else about it. E-mail is pretty simple. Type it out, pick who it goes to, done.

When you think about it, we've come a long way from e-mail. Most notably of course - instant messaging, which also is mainstream - essentially it's e-mail, just, instant. There's not much to it, so people got hooked?Hear me out, I'm going somewhere with this.

Then came Twitter.

Twitter isn't mainstream (yet?).

Sure, every other person now knows what it's about, but they aren't on it, because they can't be.

Why? It isn't - Type it out, pick who it goes to, done, like every other form of personal internet/mobile/physical communication out there.

It's far more open, complex and marvelous than that. Some people find it scary, others pointless. They just don't get it. Just recently I'm seeing people who criticized me for joining Twitter ("Twitter is so stupid... you're stupid") joining themselves (you know who you are). As expected, they couldn't grasp what all the fuss is about and left. Some of them didn't even get to their first tweet.

Twitter is for a different kind of person - this isn't followed by a 'for now?' because it always will be in my opinion. You don't have to be a geek to treasure everything that is Twitter. But you can't be the sort of person who owns a MacBook purely for Photo Booth (if you know what I mean). Twitter works best if you're an internet-person. Your natural tendencies are to blog - you connect, you explore. You do something more than just log into Facebook and start up that MSN Messenger thing and nudge the brains out of people (ew).

Twitter isn't straightforward - you need to learn how to use it. What @replies are, how to send a DM, what's-this-search-thing, the clients, the apps and all that shazzaz. Some people just won't make the effort, give up and scaddadle, and those are the ones who will end up coming back again when Twitter goes mainstream. Right now we're at the "Hey, what's this Twitter thing everyone is talking about" stage. If Twitter goes mainstream, people will be forced to join just because, well, everyone else already has. Which is quite a sad affair but unfortunately true. But this is only if Twitter does go mainstream.

It's quite a strange scenario when you think about it. Maybe something like this will happen. Assume there are 100 number of Facebook users joining twitter each second. 30 of them won't get to the first tweet. Another 40 will leave after a week. 20 more after a month. 10 of them will stay on and do themselves a favor by figuring it out and joining the community. When this 10% grows to 10% (or even 5%) of the overall Facebook population, there'll be this landslide of people just falling into Twitter. That doesn't mean they're going to stay for long, but - Well, it's just a theory.

Personally, I love the fact Twitter isn't for everyone. The twitterati seems to simply be a great crowd at the moment. It doesn't have a pool of those damn YouTube commenters and Facebook "I'm bored..." -ers to send people into incessant facepalming. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being selfish ("No Twitter for you!"). Anyone is welcome, and obviously I have no way to stop you or anyone from joining. Just don't come along, join, leave and then shout out "Twitter is pointless." just because you don't get it.

Random thoughts, random thoughts.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // articles geek internet

Comments [0]

April 7, 2009

Creative Industry

I consider myself quite privileged to be able to pursue a career within the creative industry. Creatives of course include designers, photographers, artists and such, but also fellows like application developers and authors.

The Creative Industry, as I'll call it, works quite differently. Hence, anyone who happens to be a part of it, works differently too.

If you stretch it far enough, one can consider any trade creative, but you're just fooling yourself. But there's a vast difference between 'creative' and 'problem-solving'. Most careers fall into the latter, if at all. You don't have to be creative to solve a problem (though if you are creative, you end up solving it better)

There's the common myth that the creatives never end up working as hard as everyone else. Being an art student myself, I get that quite often. "Anyone could've taken that picture" - classic. Well I'm going to step up and put our case forward.

Creating a piece of art requires far more effort than studying for an exam. Sure, studying for an exam is irritating, time consuming and includes a bit of painful procrastination. But really all there is to it is reading a book over a few times (maybe more if there's something to understand). Maths isn't creative, there's a set of methods to follow, pick one, progress, find next method, move forward, and of course while doing this make sure you follow all the rules. I'm not saying anyone can ace a Maths exam, that isn't true. What I will say is that the number of people who can is far more than the number of people who could create a piece of art.

When you're creating art, there are two obstacles that no-maths-examinee will ever face.

One, you have to do it like nobody else has done it (approached it, thought of it, shown it) before. Maths would be a lot more interesting if this was possible (I'm talking student level)

Two, there's no right answer. No solution to aim for. Where you go with it is completely up to you, you're on your own.

This is besides the fact that creating art is more time intensive, brain-powered and nerve-wracking than studying. We make it look easy, I know. That's because we love what we do (its the equivalent of your 'studying') so we don't complain about it as much.

There's also competition. Sure, in non-creative industries there is too right? You apply for a job. Selected from a pool of applicants. Well, guess what, in the creative industry you aren't applying for anything. There's no real pool of applicants, but you still have to be better than them. You're pretty much standing on your own out there.

What sets people apart in the non-creative industries is the points on their CV (in most cases).

In the creative industry, the unique element you bring to the table is yourself and your art. You could have assisted the greatest photographers in the world, received a Masters Degree from who-knows-where, but if your art is rubbish or you're not a people-person there's a chance you won't get anywhere.

The inspiration for this article came from the new design I finished for my home page. In this industry, there are no rules. In fact if anything is Times New Roman, size 12, double-spaced, get out. You really have to showcase yourself to the world. Do it however you want. But show that you have something more than talent. I think the changes I made are a step towards that. It isn't targeted towards my friends or acquaintances , its targeted to someone looking for a creative person to handle their next project. Seeing that layer below a portfolio becomes essential sometimes (and sometimes I fail at doing that). Being unconventional and thinking out of the box is of course part and parcel. Creating identity, that isn't necessarily, because that takes more than creativity, it takes a unique sort of person to do that.

There's just so much to say on this. But I'll end with this. Although I made it seem the creative industry is this cruel beast, well, it is. And that's why we're in it. Its challenging. Its different. And we love it just for that. Getting to spend your career in it is the most difficult thing in the world but also the most rewarding (to me, at least).

The End.

Azhar Chougle | www.azharc.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // art articles design photography

Comments [0]

Tags

articles