Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

richardsfault · 01:04 PM

Owners of shootable properties tend to have little understanding of the artistic value of what they've got, and often photographers do a poor job of seeking and justifying usage to the owners.

What I would love to see is an owner-photographer association that brings these parties together to make shoots happen and everyone involved look good.

The benefits to photographers are obvious.

Benefits to property owners would be more subtle, such as the ability to claim support of the arts, justify retention of a distressed property, free images of their facilities, and watchful eyes on the property.

For example, if Joe's Auto Salvage became a member, they would have the right to display a "We support the arts as a POPA member". Perhaps this would even make the operation seem more desireable to some of its opponents, such as a "green" group that has artist members.

Members would have the option of exchanging cash, trading images for usage, or donating services out of good will.

The organizational structure could be as simple as a networking site or as complex as a full-blown operation with physical offices.

Could this ever happen?

Has it ever been tried?

johnastovall · 07-19-2009, 01:06 PM

I could see this for keeping a historical/cultural record of things like Frank Lloyd Wright designs or the work of O'Neil Ford but really not "Joe's Auto Salvage." The only reason I can see for photographing "Joe's" is to present it planning and zone to have it shut down or a mandate for a big tall solid fence around it.

richardsfault · 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I could see this for keeping a historical/cultural record of things like Frank Lloyd Wright designs or the work of O'Neil Ford but really not "Joe's Auto Salvage." The only reason I can see for photographing "Joe's" is to present it planning and zone to have it shut down or a mandate for a big tall solid fence around it.

Some of us actually enjoy shooting in these types of places, and face quite a bit of misunderstanding and resistance to doing so.

I suspect the inability of photographers to appreciate styles of work outside of their "box" and general unwillingness to stand together are important reasons why this will remain a pipe dream.

CaptainTom · 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I could see this for keeping a historical/cultural record of things like Frank Lloyd Wright designs or the work of O'Neil Ford but really not "Joe's Auto Salvage." The only reason I can see for photographing "Joe's" is to present it planning and zone to have it shut down or a mandate for a big tall solid fence around it.

This is exactly the attitude that makes it difficult for serious photographers to convince the owners of certain venues to allow us to shoot there.

dwilliams35 · 07-19-2009, 01:51 PM

I think that'd be a great idea: about impossible to get off the ground, I fear, but great nevertheless.

As far as Wright and Ford, et. al., I really think that's the "eye of the beholder" argument like no other: Personally, I think most of the FLW buildings I've seen or seen pictures of really need proper application of a D6 caterpillar more than they need another photo taken of them; on the other hand, there's some phenomenal design out there that for the most part exists today as rusty fenders and pitted chrome...

janikphoto · 07-19-2009, 02:00 PM

Location scouts do this for a living... sort of. A good location scout makes contacts with people/places around their area, so they have a long list of locations to pull from for the planning of a photo/video shoot. Of course, a location scout charges a fee and the places they use get a fee... the big difference between your plan and what is already available. Money makes the world go 'round. Stickers that say "I support the arts" do not.

Also, many people don't want photogs rummaging around on their property. They see photogs as just another problem, like loiterers, burglars, and vandals.

richardsfault · 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janikphoto

Location scouts do this for a living... sort of. A They see photogs as just another problem, like loiterers, burglars, and vandals.

If they were enightened, they'd realize that photographers have the best interests of the property in mind, and could be a valuable ally both in terms of provding useful images and helping to keep an eye on things.

In many ways, a photographer is a great "watchdog" in that they care about the location, are very attuned to visble changes, and know how to capture effective images of any problems.

dwilliams35 · 07-19-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richardsfault

If they were enightened, they'd realize that photographers have the best interests of the property in mind, and could be a valuable ally both in terms of provding useful images and helping to keep an eye on things.

Sounds good in theory: in practice, the owner of that property wouldn't have a clue even if they WERE enlightened. What's the odds there's a photographer out there who is an idiot in re: their own safety, is accident prone to boot and is a firm believer in the personal-injury lawsuit??? I know you'd be hard-pressed to get me to let you on my property unless I personally knew you pretty well. This would have to go well beyond just "access": the photographers would end up having to be registered, insured, and sign blanket liability releases for everywhere they went... Beyond all that, there probably isn't enough prestige in a "we support the arts" sign to convince a business owner to throw his liability to the wind....

johnastovall · 07-19-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

This is exactly the attitude that makes it difficult for serious photographers to convince the owners of certain venues to allow us to shoot there.

I'm sure Joe's junk yard will be convinced you are a serious photographer if you lay a handful of benjamins on him.

Then again, he may not want a serious photographer nosing around his chop shop operation.

CaptainTom · 07-19-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I'm sure Joe's junk yard will be convinced you are a serious photographer if you lay a handful of benjamins on him.

Then again, he may not want a serious photographer nosing around his chop shop operation.

Stereotyping people like this is so unlike a sophisticated, enlightened, gentrified person. More like a redneck hillbilly.

J Eddington · 07-20-2009, 07:19 AM

OH a perfect world. It is always good to dream. BUT in this world there are too many jerks out there who ruin it for the rest.
At the DPPA meeting Lew Everling, told us of a photographer in In. that has a photopark on his property that he takes his clients to for outside shoots. This is a fenced 10 acre property that he has build. He drove by last week and photographers had put up two 7ft ladders to get over the fence and were on his property with clients taking photos! This is after the private property signs and putting up a 6 ft fence. When he just had a short 4 ft fence it was really a problem!

sparkyjr · 07-20-2009, 07:36 AM

I'm posting to watch UFC: Stovall v. Tom.

CaptainTom · 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Eddington

OH a perfect world. It is always good to dream. BUT in this world there are too many jerks out there who ruin it for the rest.
At the DPPA meeting Lew Everling, told us of a photographer in In. that has a photopark on his property that he takes his clients to for outside shoots. This is a fenced 10 acre property that he has build. He drove by last week and photographers had put up two 7ft ladders to get over the fence and were on his property with clients taking photos! This is after the private property signs and putting up a 6 ft fence. When he just had a short 4 ft fence it was really a problem!

I can't believe your story. I searched, and there's no UTUBE video of it. There's a UTUBE video of EVERYTHING. It must be made up.

CaptainTom added 1 Minutes and 30 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparkyjr

I'm posting to watch UFC: Stovall v. Tom.

location: Stovall's Ivory Tower.