It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I don't know if I'm alone on this one but I feel like lately its the end of the world if a photographer doesn't get photo creds when on the other hand I see no credit to the skier in the photo. I completely get that it's an art, the photog owns it and it's lame if someone doesn't credit them, but I feel like a lot of times the skiers are under credited when they're the ones hucking their bodies. I don't know if I'm wording it right, but I feel like people are more mind boggled by the photographers picture that the skier doing something insane. This is just in general from what I've seen lately. If any of that makes sense, maybe not.
I personally disagree with your stance. I have filmed and have done some photography for people that come to my local mountain and whenever the end result of an edit or picture is published I always feel like the athlete gets more credit than the photographer, and rightly so.
I couldn't huck what these kids are doing now and its great to see what people are willing to risk their bodies for, but I have only had a handful of people saying "nice shots" or "cool angle" and I have been published before, when in contrast the actual athlete will get tons of praise.
End Result is that the Athlete should and does get all credit due while photographers can take credit.
The skier and the photog should both get the credit on the captions, the skier is the one throwing down a trick worthy of picturing and the photog has to have the right sense for the timing, composition, and of course processing the pic, plus lugging gear around all day and sometimes waiting 15mins + just for a shot because you dont want to pack your bag back up and lap the lift. Yes the skier is putting forth the athleticism to throw whatever trick it is, but how many sick tricks look like shit because someone took it on their cellphone or didn't get a good angle timing etc, there's tons of factors and taking sharp good landscapes is one thing now add the element of a fast moving object that is changing position in relation to the depth of field and try to keep both crisp, or a shallow depth of field and not making a ski or part of them out of focus. Its a total collaboration but the skier hucks the meat for 5 seconds while the photog spends the day to get that couple shots for someone and goes home to edit the pics as well.
It is a synergistic experience. Ya cyant have one wit out de oder ya juss cyaant! Oh man and kid you has no idea. I am not a filmer, and thats why i know, that a good shot, farrrrr exceeds a good hit.
Earl_GlobzIt is a synergistic experience. Ya cyant have one wit out de oder ya juss cyaant! Oh man and kid you has no idea. I am not a filmer, and thats why i know, that a good shot, farrrrr exceeds a good hit.
Idk what the fuck you just said but I completely agree please pee in my butt
mantoastsometimes waiting 15mins + just for a shot because you dont want to pack your bag back up and lap the lift.
Hahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
I wish I just waited 15 minutes.
Both parties should get credit, for most photographers though, skiers are disposable, there will always be a large group of kids trying to get sponsorized and willing to huck their meat for anything. It's a numbers game, there are more shootable skiers than there are people qualified to shoot them, and there will always be another kid with disposable ACL's.
In the immortal words of one photog "Landings are for the athletes" - meaning the photog can win even when the athletes aren't.
That might come off as sort of jaded and mean, but it's the truth for a lot of people. Personally I try to cultivate actual relationships with the athletes, and work with people who I think actually deserve to be promoted.
It's also worth noting that the model is sort of changing, It used to be that the photogs were the ones hustling, pushing, promoting, now the rise of "instagram skiers" has put the spotlight more on athletes.
Sorry for the random rambling, feel free to call me out if that doesn't make sense.
Bottom line is that photos should always credit the photog and the skier, unless it's an anonymous skier.
mantoastThe skier and the photog should both get the credit on the captions, the skier is the one throwing down a trick worthy of picturing and the photog has to have the right sense for the timing, composition, and of course processing the pic, plus lugging gear around all day and sometimes waiting 15mins + just for a shot because you dont want to pack your bag back up and lap the lift. Yes the skier is putting forth the athleticism to throw whatever trick it is, but how many sick tricks look like shit because someone took it on their cellphone or didn't get a good angle timing etc, there's tons of factors and taking sharp good landscapes is one thing now add the element of a fast moving object that is changing position in relation to the depth of field and try to keep both crisp, or a shallow depth of field and not making a ski or part of them out of focus. Its a total collaboration but the skier hucks the meat for 5 seconds while the photog spends the day to get that couple shots for someone and goes home to edit the pics as well.
Couldn't agree with a lot of stuff said here more. I completely respect a nicely composed, in focus, quality shot. The one thing I would disagree with is the part where you're saying "the skier hucks his meat 5 seconds while the photog spends the day to get that couple shots for someone and goes home to edit the pics as well." because with your point of the photog waiting on the shot the skier is, usually, spending at least a few attempts to get the trick how they want, as well as sometimes hiking the feature for the shot. But I completely agree that it's not just soley one or another; it's a collaboration of both. I just feel sometimes the photogs receive more credit, but other times that's not the case.
Both parties should get credit, for most photographers though, skiers are disposable, there will always be a large group of kids trying to get sponsorized and willing to huck their meat for anything. It's a numbers game, there are more shootable skiers than there are people qualified to shoot them, and there will always be another kid with disposable ACL's.
In the immortal words of one photog "Landings are for the athletes" - meaning the photog can win even when the athletes aren't.
That might come off as sort of jaded and mean, but it's the truth for a lot of people. Personally I try to cultivate actual relationships with the athletes, and work with people who I think actually deserve to be promoted.
It's also worth noting that the model is sort of changing, It used to be that the photogs were the ones hustling, pushing, promoting, now the rise of "instagram skiers" has put the spotlight more on athletes.
Sorry for the random rambling, feel free to call me out if that doesn't make sense.
Bottom line is that photos should always credit the photog and the skier, unless it's an anonymous skier.
Again I agree with a lot said here, and I think it's good you actual care about putting forth a relationship with skiers worth shooting. I really agree with everything but the "landings are for athletes part". I may be interpreting this wrong but what I get from that is that you're saying it doesn't matter if they land the trick, if the photo looks good the photog is still winning. I personally feel strongly that a picture shouldn't be used if the trick wasn't landing. It's just so fake to me if not. On the other hand, if the skier takes 5 tries to land a trick, and attempt 3 looked better than the landing shot, I think that's fair because the skier did get the trick.
Again I'm rambling as well because there's a lot of stuff I bounce back and forth with in terms of this subject. I guess it's more situational than anything. Overall I think both should be credited as well; I just hate seeing a sick picture of a skier where the skiers not tagged.
JOTTOAgain I agree with a lot said here, and I think it's good you actual care about putting forth a relationship with skiers worth shooting. I really agree with everything but the "landings are for athletes part". I may be interpreting this wrong but what I get from that is that you're saying it doesn't matter if they land the trick, if the photo looks good the photog is still winning. I personally feel strongly that a picture shouldn't be used if the trick wasn't landing. It's just so fake to me if not. On the other hand, if the skier takes 5 tries to land a trick, and attempt 3 looked better than the landing shot, I think that's fair because the skier did get the trick.
Again I'm rambling as well because there's a lot of stuff I bounce back and forth with in terms of this subject. I guess it's more situational than anything. Overall I think both should be credited as well; I just hate seeing a sick picture of a skier where the skiers not tagged.
"The landing is for the athlete" means that my acl isn't the one getting torn.
But I disagree. 90% of ski photography is forced/faked at some level. How many pow shots in mags are actually the product of a skier just skiing his line where and how he wanted to?
Pretty much none. Yeah, I try to let the skier do stuff as organically as possible but straight up, that's not how the industry works. We're out there creating an image of what we think skiing should be. An imagined, utopian ideal.
If a skier is obviously going to crash in a photo it won't be used. It will look fake, the rest of the time though, it doesn't matter if the skier hot tubs ir back slaps or under rotates a little. It's art. It's an expression of how we see skiing, and clean landings aren't allways a necessary part of that.
cydwhit"The landing is for the athlete" means that my acl isn't the one getting torn.
But I disagree. 90% of ski photography is forced/faked at some level. How many pow shots in mags are actually the product of a skier just skiing his line where and how he wanted to?
Pretty much none. Yeah, I try to let the skier do stuff as organically as possible but straight up, that's not how the industry works. We're out there creating an image of what we think skiing should be. An imagined, utopian ideal.
If a skier is obviously going to crash in a photo it won't be used. It will look fake, the rest of the time though, it doesn't matter if the skier hot tubs ir back slaps or under rotates a little. It's art. It's an expression of how we see skiing, and clean landings aren't allways a necessary part of that.
What Cy is trying to say is that if you ever see a picture of someone getting pitted it's all a lie.
Haha but really photographers get like no credit and it's a hard sport to capture
cydwhit"The landing is for the athlete" means that my acl isn't the one getting torn.
But I disagree. 90% of ski photography is forced/faked at some level. How many pow shots in mags are actually the product of a skier just skiing his line where and how he wanted to?
Pretty much none. Yeah, I try to let the skier do stuff as organically as possible but straight up, that's not how the industry works. We're out there creating an image of what we think skiing should be. An imagined, utopian ideal.
If a skier is obviously going to crash in a photo it won't be used. It will look fake, the rest of the time though, it doesn't matter if the skier hot tubs ir back slaps or under rotates a little. It's art. It's an expression of how we see skiing, and clean landings aren't allways a necessary part of that.
For the above shot, Cy skied down perhaps 30 yards from where we'd both stopped. He framed the shot, we discussed how far away he wanted me to crank the turn, and I intentionally timed the turns before and this specific turn to hit right where he wanted me to be. I even consciously pulled my downhill arm up into what I'll call "photo posture" because it looks unnatural when it's further away from the skier's body in photographs.
The point is easily taken: shooting skiing isn't skiing. There's a production to it that maximizes the energy and time the photographer and shooter put in. Close teamwork is required to make the likelihood of getting a great shot higher; I relish the fact that it takes a team, their skills, and their vision to make a good or great ski photo. The process can be really fun with the right people and attitudes, or very stressful under different circumstances.
Personally, I go skiing because it's effortless and not a thinking process. Shooting skiing is entirely the opposite. People talking about "organic shots" that "aren't staged" are bickering over small fractions of an experience that I've known to be very black and white: you're either just skiing for whatever your reasons are, or you're shooting to make a product. A broad spectrum of different practices might make one shot more "organic" than the other, but at their heart, all of it is framed and different from what you might call the "pure" experience of just skiing.
Because any photo taken is actually a depiction of something that isn't actually "pure" skiing as you or I might imagine it in that circumstance, we (as viewers of the photo) have to make a jump of believability that says, "what I see here is real, even though I'm well aware that by virtue of being captured like this, it isn't." The process behind the photo is gone, to leave only the image and most importantly, how it affects the viewer.
Which is ultimately the biggest point: what goes into making the photo/video/piece of art matters less, from a viewer's perspective, than how it leaves them feeling. I don't look at a shot of someone crushing pow on a bluebird day and think, "oh, they dug in to make that turn look deeper." Instead, I think of the times when the snow was that deep where I was skiing it, or think of how it'd be nice to be making deep turns again. The photo is a conveyor belt back to a feeling, maybe an experience, and making those fit correctly is far more my objective as a skier/writer/photographer than trying to hold to some shred of an ideal of purity while shooting.
Since I'm already procrastinating on an Intercultural Communication final, I'll dig in deeper.
David is a very good athlete to work with because he understands and appreciates the fact that you're out there making something, instead of organically capturing something.
In some ways this is similar to the Observer Effect in science, where the fact that we are observing or measuring the phenomena means that our measurements are inaccurate, the act of observation affects the outcome (usually seen when trying to research subatomic particles).
Camera Courage is a subset of this, athletes that will huck their meat, take chances they wouldn't usually because there is a camera there. That's actually a tool you can use, as well as something I'm very scared of.
I know personally I've always progressed best while being shot, I always go bigger for the camera. However I've also had to talk down friends from hits that were out of their league, or lines that were not avy safe, that they would not have considered if I hadn't been there shooting. There is a responsibility as a photographer to help your athletes progress with out endangering them.
All that aside, there are many levels to this lie we are selling you. I've seen a mag cover shot from a snowbank in the Stevens Pass parking lot. It's easy to haul lights and strobes to a shoot when they're right there. I've been on shoots where the shooting obviously took priority, I've been on shoots where we got banger pow shots without ever linking two turns, without ever really skiing.
From that I've learned two things:
A) I'm not good at those kind of shoots. I don't have the patience or technical skill to do that
B) I don't enjoy those kind of shoots. It's boring, and if there is any kind of real skiing to be done I'd rather be doing that, even if it's not photogenic.
Actually, the day after that shot David posted was taken, I had a bit of a revelation. We skied a line where I was so puckered (absolutely love using that word, can you tell I'm a baller athlete?) that I didn't take the camera out of my pack. Instead I thought I was going to die and hoped the heli would get there quickly after I fell and died. (yeah I'm a wuss)
However, I was left wanting to be able to shoot that, wanting to shoot types of skiing where the athlete isn't thinking about the camera because they have to be 100% focused on the run. I want to get shots not because I'm the most technically proficient photographer with the best gear, but because I'm the only idiot dumb enough to bring a camera out there. I'm light years away from that, but it really helped clarify my goals and vision. That's something I think Chin does well. He's a badass athlete, who can keep up with his subjects while also lugging along a camera.
I still love to "make" shots, to set them up, build a feature just for the camera, or find a tiny untracked stash to explode, but I've got other goals.
And along the way I've changed my strategies, I do a lot more shooting with a super zoom lens (18-200) that allows me to tell my athlete "I'm gonna ski down in the trees to the right so there's no tracks, when I radio you I want you to ski down the middle, if you can make a nice slash by that tree it'd be sick." That way the athlete gets to ski the line in a more organic fashion, and I get to ski my pow stash in the trees (which is often better than the wind scoured line I make them ski...)
So yeah, tag your athletes on Instagram I guess, that way they can get spanserized. You want your athletes to get spanserized, sometimes spanserized ones give you free goggles when the lenses get really scratched.
Alrighty, well, I don't really know a lot about what I'm about to say. Actually I know close to nothing lol but maybe you could consider this as myself playing devils advocate. And I hope this doesn't come out like I'm bashing on what you guys do because that's the last thing I want to do.
So basically, you go out and you take a few turns in the right spots and have to set everything up systematically to "GTS." And while you do this, there isn't really a whole lot of what T-Hall would say, "REAL" skiing.
I find this kind of ironic. All the time I hear how "free" the creative side is and how it's more about doing it for yourself. But if you're going out and spending all this time barely skiing to get a photo... is that really for yourself? Is that really skiing? To me, a super average skier, I don't think I could say that's really doing it for myself. But, obviously as a photographer and athlete you guys will see that differently for reasons I don't understand, which is totally fine.
And I know it was said before that going skiing to go skiing and going to shoot something is different. So couldn't that same logic be applied to someone who is a comp skier? The days of comps are similar to the days you guys go to take photos and then all the other days of i guess "training" are just like you guys where you're just out there to ski.
Idk if I should say this cause this might be total BS but I'm gonna say it anyways.
Lots of people generalize comp skiers as skiers who are robots who only ski to win comps(spin to win, etc etc) and they generalize the creative skiers as doing it for truly skiing. But you have days specifically for going out to get photos(a day in which you don't get a lot of real skiing in) and comp skiers have days where they go out and compete(the skiing done in comps isn't exactly representative of what skiing is either). The rest of the days are pretty much the same in a way. So I really don't think the two "types of skiers" are very far off. At least in my head, but I could be really wrong about that.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense haha. I should be writing an essay about adderall but this is more fun.
MinggAlrighty, well, I don't really know a lot about what I'm about to say. Actually I know close to nothing lol but maybe you could consider this as myself playing devils advocate. And I hope this doesn't come out like I'm bashing on what you guys do because that's the last thing I want to do.
So basically, you go out and you take a few turns in the right spots and have to set everything up systematically to "GTS." And while you do this, there isn't really a whole lot of what T-Hall would say, "REAL" skiing.
I find this kind of ironic. All the time I hear how "free" the creative side is and how it's more about doing it for yourself. But if you're going out and spending all this time barely skiing to get a photo... is that really for yourself? Is that really skiing? To me, a super average skier, I don't think I could say that's really doing it for myself. But, obviously as a photographer and athlete you guys will see that differently for reasons I don't understand, which is totally fine.
And I know it was said before that going skiing to go skiing and going to shoot something is different. So couldn't that same logic be applied to someone who is a comp skier? The days of comps are similar to the days you guys go to take photos and then all the other days of i guess "training" are just like you guys where you're just out there to ski.
Idk if I should say this cause this might be total BS but I'm gonna say it anyways.
Lots of people generalize comp skiers as skiers who are robots who only ski to win comps(spin to win, etc etc) and they generalize the creative skiers as doing it for truly skiing. But you have days specifically for going out to get photos(a day in which you don't get a lot of real skiing in) and comp skiers have days where they go out and compete(the skiing done in comps isn't exactly representative of what skiing is either). The rest of the days are pretty much the same in a way. So I really don't think the two "types of skiers" are very far off. At least in my head, but I could be really wrong about that.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense haha. I should be writing an essay about adderall but this is more fun.
You're right. The real FREEskiers truly doing it for themselves are out there shredding everyday of the season with their buddies and going to work after. For every pro skier there are dozens of other skiers just as capable who don't care about marketing themselves, because they have a different source of income. Once you are professional, you are no longer skiing for your self entirely(not saying it's not enjoyable or rewarding or that their love for skiing is anyless). For example line up at Peak Chair in whistler on sunny pow day and just watch how many amazing lines and hits get skied, and it does not take long. A lot of these guys are no names. And this exists in every genre of skiing in so many places around the world. The ski bums the true freeskier.
kirbstopperYou're right. The real FREEskiers truly doing it for themselves are out there shredding everyday of the season with their buddies and going to work after. For every pro skier there are dozens of other skiers just as capable who don't care about marketing themselves, because they have a different source of income. Once you are professional, you are no longer skiing for your self entirely(not saying it's not enjoyable or rewarding or that their love for skiing is anyless). For example line up at Peak Chair in whistler on sunny pow day and just watch how many amazing lines and hits get skied, and it does not take long. A lot of these guys are no names. And this exists in every genre of skiing in so many places around the world. The ski bums the true freeskier.
Truuuu. Dude, I've never seen so many people so stoked as I did while waiting in that line. hahah it was so gnarly.
But yeah, didn't mean to derail any discussion or anything. I just found that a bit interesting and didn't know if I was picking up on something or not haha.
Minggit for yourself. But if you're going out and spending all this time barely skiing to get a photo... is that really for yourself? Is that really skiing? To me, a super average skier, I don't think I could say that's really doing it for myself. But, obviously as a photographer and athlete you guys will see that differently for reasons I don't understand, which is totally fine.
And I know it was said before that going skiing to go skiing and going to shoot something is different. So couldn't that same logic be applied to someone who is a comp skier? So I really don't think the two "types of skiers" are very far off. At least in my head, but I could be really wrong about that.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense haha. I should be writing an essay about adderall but this is more fun.
kirbstopperYou're right. The real FREEskiers truly doing it for themselves are out there shredding everyday of the season with their buddies and going to work after. For every pro skier there are dozens of other skiers just as capable who don't care about marketing themselves, because they have a different source of income. Once you are professional, you are no longer skiing for your self entirely(not saying it's not enjoyable or rewarding or that their love for skiing is anyless).
Mingg, you're right--working to produce content of any kind, be it photos/video/writing, isn't just skiing for yourself. Sponsorship means that you give up skiing for yourself, at least some of the time, in return for some form of marketing or service that the sponsor finds valuable.
Do sponsored athletes still get to ski for themselves? Absolutely. Every sponsored skier I know still does their thing for fun even when, and especially when, the cameras aren't rolling and nobody is watching. The best ones manage to make their work look as much like skiing for themselves as possible.
Comp skiers, film skiers, photo athletes, racers--it doesn't matter whether the heli is in the air, or the snowpack seems sketchy and the light is good, or if it's your second run and you have to move up to qualify: all ski athletes have moments when the pressure is greater than others. And more broadly, anyone with skis on their feet is a skier. I think that skiers have more in common by what's on our feet than what separates us, but that's a glass half full kind of thought.
kirbstopper has the right of it too: there are an insane number of very, very talented skiers out there with no sponsors of any kind.
LiteratureMingg, you're right--working to produce content of any kind, be it photos/video/writing, isn't just skiing for yourself. Sponsorship means that you give up skiing for yourself, at least some of the time, in return for some form of marketing or service that the sponsor finds valuable.
Do sponsored athletes still get to ski for themselves? Absolutely. Every sponsored skier I know still does their thing for fun even when, and especially when, the cameras aren't rolling and nobody is watching. The best ones manage to make their work look as much like skiing for themselves as possible.
Comp skiers, film skiers, photo athletes, racers--it doesn't matter whether the heli is in the air, or the snowpack seems sketchy and the light is good, or if it's your second run and you have to move up to qualify: all ski athletes have moments when the pressure is greater than others. And more broadly, anyone with skis on their feet is a skier. I think that skiers have more in common by what's on our feet than what separates us, but that's a glass half full kind of thought.
kirbstopper has the right of it too: there are an insane number of very, very talented skiers out there with no sponsors of any kind.
Wow, that actually all makes so much sense. haha
I honestly had no idea that so much preparation went into getting like a big mountain/ pow photo though. I thought you just skied normally and then a photographer would take a few photos and it just all worked out somehow... Then you skied like a normal day lol. Damn, thats actually so interesting.
MinggTruuuu. Dude, I've never seen so many people so stoked as I did while waiting in that line. hahah it was so gnarly.
But yeah, didn't mean to derail any discussion or anything. I just found that a bit interesting and didn't know if I was picking up on something or not haha.
Which is why on stuff like that Powder Alliance Roadtrip we ran last year, we worked really hard to be efficient.
If you think of shooting like a job, or a task, you can do it intelligently, you can say, "this resort is going to want photos of X,Y,and Z." then you can go out and basically earn your lift ticket as quickly as possible.
Unless the light is insane or I'm horning hard to shoot, I'm a big fan of trying to get all your shots you're obligated to get in the first 2-4 runs of a day. Then you can actually go skiing, for fun.
Apparently it's super "core" to not think of skiing as a job while you're a pro skier. Instead, I would argue the opposite. If you can look at yourself as what you truly are, a bag of marketing collateral, you can disconnect yourself from the situation and understand what assets you need to produce to make your current sponsors happy, and get more.
Then you can figure out the most efficient way to acquire those assets, do so, and then move on and go skiing for fun.
That way you're getting payed for fake skiing (which is still better than not skiing) and you get to go real skiing a bunch.
Again, that's all in that sponsorship paradigm.
I was lucky enough to start out with athletes (James, Ian, and Caleb) who didn't care about sponsorship or whatever, they're all actually legit artists in different mediums, and realized that they were part of my medium, and were down to help make visions reality.
I think that's part of why shooting with them was so special and worked well, they just wanted to make "art" (skiing photos) for the sake of making good art, so there was no real pressure most of the time.
May just go write an obnoxious esoteric blog post about all of this and poop it onto Facebook instead of cluttering up this thread.....
KretzschmarI once hucked my meat onto a rail for Cy at Hood. He got me hella likes on my IG photo and a date out of it. Thanks Cy.
I once shot someone hucking themselves, the results were that he got over a thousand IG Likes, and tinder girls and all that. I got 2 new IG followers who dropped the next day.
I'd like to add that for example, in the case of a blower faceshot photo, even if the skiing is slightly unnatural when setting up for a blower faceshot to GTS, it can still be a great feeling for the skier to force into a turn and dig deep to create that classic "over the head white room" for themselves while simultaneously getting a banger shot.
cydwhitSince I'm already procrastinating on an Intercultural Communication final, I'll dig in deeper.
And along the way I've changed my strategies, I do a lot more shooting with a super zoom lens (18-200) that allows me to tell my athlete "I'm gonna ski down in the trees to the right so there's no tracks, when I radio you I want you to ski down the middle, if you can make a nice slash by that tree it'd be sick." That way the athlete gets to ski the line in a more organic fashion, and I get to ski my pow stash in the trees (which is often better than the wind scoured line I make them ski...)
