Rosie Hardy: naturally talented photographer, plagiarist, or silly lovestruck teen?

May 7, 2010 3:42 PM

Rosie Hardy is a 19 year-old photographer from Derbyshire, UK. Having first got into photography at age 16, she built a large following on flickr. She detailed her romance and ultimate breakup with another photographer through her photos. As early as 2008 there was suspicion that her romance and photography skills were more than just raw talent, drawing comparisons between Rosie and Lonelygirl15. An MSNBC profile of her relationship raised questions about the veracity of her relationship with then-boyfriend Aaron Nace, who she moved to the US to be with before ultimately returning to England. She was accused of plagiarizing many of the concepts of her photos, for which she apologized. She has regular interactions with her fans and is still featured on photography websites.
posted by achmorrison (49 comments total)

There is this whole genre of pretty girls doing self portraits on Flickr that you could probably turn into an FPP. I had no idea there was such a back story to this lady.
posted by chunking express at 4:14 PM on May 7, 2010

Boy, the idea of "plagiarizing concepts of photos" is odd- especially when looking at the example pictures. Her layout is different, her proportions are different, her subject is different. Yes, the basic palette and bare bones description of the images are similar, but that is hardly the same image.
posted by dogwelder at 4:39 PM on May 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

this is narcissistic as fuck if it isn't just straight-up viral marketing
posted by p3on at 4:47 PM on May 7, 2010 [7 favorites]

Wow, I had no idea they broke up. Thanks for this followup of sorts, for those of us who only got the first half of the story.
posted by availablelight at 4:47 PM on May 7, 2010

There is this whole genre of pretty girls doing self portraits on Flickr that you could probably turn into an FPP.

I've noticed this too. There are a lot of good ones who do these very stylized images really well, I think some of them have to be professionals who are doing it as a sort of personal project. It's like if Cindy Sherman had a Myspace - instead of acting out stereotypes they're acting out these personal narratives and then sharing them with everyone on the internet.
posted by bradbane at 5:06 PM on May 7, 2010

An MSNBC profile of her relationship

what
posted by ODiV at 5:10 PM on May 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

Why wouldn't a talented young photographer with a narcissistic kick be on Flickr? I don't see any reason to believe this is viral marketing. Also, the example shown in the "plagiarizing" link is hardly plagiarism.
posted by oulipian at 5:14 PM on May 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

Wait, isn't this the woman who also does ALL OF THE PERFUME ADS IN ALL OF THE MAGAZINES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD RIGHT NOW PLUS A FEW TV ADS TOO?
posted by not_on_display at 5:19 PM on May 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

This happens in photography a lot - I can think of one person who's been picked for the forthcoming regeneration 2 exhibition in switzerland, a slightly higher level than flickr. So this kind of thing happens everywhere - I think people should just be honest that theyve teamed up, there's nothing wrong with it. My little dead dick were much better and honest with it - you never know who's being helped - by partners, teachers or whatever, i've seen them win prizes and then produce nothing after. To see it at flickr level is kind of funny though " you stole an idea from deviant art !" - that really is hilarious, as if deviant art is some kind of repository of originality - its usually full of psuedo gothic crap. Also the discussion threads where people start bringing guernica into it are priceless. I feel a wee bit sad that francesca woodman never got a start in these times, she would have been a millionaire by now.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:20 PM on May 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Charges of plagiarism get bandied about too freely on the Internet. I would go so far as to say that imitation is important from a pedagogical perspective, especially for something with a strong technical component like photography.

The photos though, have the chemistry of a romance novel. This is chemistry. This is not. The reporter sort of picks fun at the lack of self-awareness they seem to posses, but I mean, come on.
posted by geoff. at 5:21 PM on May 7, 2010 [7 favorites]

There is this whole genre of pretty girls doing self portraits on Flickr that you could probably turn into an FPP.

I've noticed this too. There are a lot of good ones who do these very stylized images really well...

It's not just the stylized images, it's also the titling their photos with oh-so-indie-and-dreamy song lyrics. It's all so very Manic Pixie Dream Girl with a D40.
posted by thisjax at 5:23 PM on May 7, 2010 [6 favorites]

oh, fourth photo in her stream - the one with model in the clouds/cotton wool is a rip off of that young lad who was the only flickr link ever stuck up on conscientious - cant remember his name offhand, he was on fjord as well but his name escapes me.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:36 PM on May 7, 2010

I'm slightly curious how she actually does the self-portraits - I mean how they're physically taken. Presumably someone else takes the actual photo, and then they're prettied up in Photoshop, so are they sketched out beforehand or what?

They're perfectly nice, competent photographs in their way, but very bland, and very American-advertising - there are some wedding photographs on the client photography site that look like something out of a stock photo catalogue. To me anything that's valuable in photographs stems from a kind of contact between the photographer and the subject, a fascination and curiosity with it, and that unites the best photography in all genres - portrait, landscape, fashion, street, whatever. An urge to show something about the subject rather than just arrange elements pleasingly.

These are all about making nice pictures, which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. There's something almost autistically self-centred about them (even the ones that aren't of her seem to be demanding that we see how clever she is, drawing the attention to the photographer and away from the subject).

But then if she's nineteen, so that's to be expected. I suppose I'd have been just like that too, if I'd had any baseline competence in anything at all to speak of.
posted by Grangousier at 5:37 PM on May 7, 2010 [4 favorites]

ah - his name is jon edwards, sad to see his work being regurgitated like this.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:43 PM on May 7, 2010

She's posted at least one youtube video to explain a photograph. The one I saw she said she used the timer (10 second delay) to get in position to pose. Then lots of processing in GIMP.
posted by achmorrison at 5:48 PM on May 7, 2010

she's also went from attending glasgow school of art to going to staffordshire uni - which is a bit bizarre.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:51 PM on May 7, 2010

She seems to be an extremely talented retoucher. Its amazing to imagine what she could do with photos that were taken by a decent photographer.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 6:10 PM on May 7, 2010

She's not a "Photographer" she's a "photoshop illustrator". They are hardly the same thing.

Anyway, this kind of stuff could easily be put out by an amateur photoshop illustrator. I mean, who knows, but this stuff isn't all that difficult.

She seems to be an extremely talented retoucher. Its amazing to imagine what she could do with photos that were taken by a decent photographer.

Well, the example's you linked to haven't been very retouched at all, just color changes mostly. Most "decent photographers" are going to change the colors in their photos for effect anyway.

What i was talking about was stuff like this: 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on.

The photos though, have the chemistry of a romance novel. This is chemistry. This is not.

Ugh. God it is so irritating when people decide they can tell what people are thinking, or how they feel in general just looking at pictures of them. You can't. So STFU. The picture you linked too looks awkward as hell to me, frankly.

(Yes, there are situations where people are obviously emoting, but for all you know the feelings they are trying to express are not what they're actually feeling.)
posted by delmoi at 6:35 PM on May 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm slightly curious how she actually does the self-portraits - I mean how they're physically taken. Presumably someone else takes the actual photo,

You're not aware that cameras have timers? And that you can stick them on tripods?
posted by delmoi at 6:36 PM on May 7, 2010

Leave Rosie Alone!
posted by Flashman at 6:40 PM on May 7, 2010

I have a cousin who does these types of photos, around the same age. What really bugs me is there is such an echo chamber on flickr that encourages this stuff. So much so that she decided to skip college and do these types of shots full-time. Fine, until in 2 years when all of her friends getting senior portraits don't need them anymore, and she's just a high school graduate.

Not saying you have to go through photography school to be successful, but this stuff is so surface-level that it is so boring after awhile. No surprises. I don't know how you sustain a career with this, but I hope I'm wrong.
posted by Sreiny at 7:20 PM on May 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

She seems to be an extremely talented retoucher. Its amazing to imagine what she could do with photos that were taken by a decent photographer.

Well, the example's you linked to haven't been very retouched at all, just color changes mostly. Most "decent photographers" are going to change the colors in their photos for effect anyway.

The women's faces in the portraits have been changed significantly. New jawlines, cheekbones, noses, hairlines. Look more closely. Rosie obviously finds a square jaw much more attractive than a curved.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:22 PM on May 7, 2010

In Rosie's defense, I went to college with this model, and she really does look like that. Obviously, the focus/sharpness/etc. has been played with, but no jawline-reshaping or any of that business.
posted by sarahsynonymous at 8:48 PM on May 7, 2010

The schmaltz, it squishes.
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 PM on May 7, 2010

I feel a wee bit sad that francesca woodman never got a start in these times, she would have been a millionaire by now.

If Francesca Woodman had lived today she might have ended up like Rosie Hardy. God help us when we have to say that a strange and fierce talent really might be better off dead.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 9:44 PM on May 7, 2010

Especially because of the heavy Photoshopping, her photos look like any number of photos in any number of galleries on deviantArt. Nothing very amazing, all very staged in appearance. Pretty, for sure, but not what I consider 'true' photography (any shooping automatically takes the picture out of the 'real photography' category for me and into something more like non-photograph art).
posted by Malice at 9:47 PM on May 7, 2010

What's funny is that the photos that are, IMHO, much better than the others are the ones not favorited nearly as often as the photos that are, IMHO, polished glurge.

She's not a bad photographer AT ALL considering that she's only 19. The photos are very much not my style, but she clearly has an audience for her work. I prefer other photographers, but you know what? Ms Hardy will probably always be employed.

That said, if these photographs were from a dumpy 45-year-old and not a pretty 19-year-old with a visible online relationship to a handsome young man, we wouldn't be talking about them. Then again, who cares.

It's like if Cindy Sherman had a Myspace - instead of acting out stereotypes they're acting out these personal narratives and then sharing them with everyone on the internet.

Yyyyyyyyeah, except Cindy Sherman had a subversive point to make. Her work was the Buffy to these girls' Twilight.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:56 PM on May 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

any shooping

riiiighhht. Like those blanket statements. I bet you can always tell the difference between something that came straight out of the camera (and manipulation inside the camera?) and otherwise. These are heavily processed, but the idea that photography is only photography if you don't correct for color or bring out highlights or take out a wire or whatever is ... well, stupid.
posted by raysmj at 11:46 PM on May 7, 2010

I can understand the fascination with her work, but on a personal level it creeps me out. There's no atmosphere to it whatsoever, it's like someone cut the scene out of cardboard and whacked through Photoshop. The lack of any kind of feeling is unsettling, especially for how over the top the implied romanticism is. The backstory however, is exactly why I come to Metafilter - there's nothing like a FPP detailing a sequestered little internet subculture.
posted by saturnine at 11:56 PM on May 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

If Francesca Woodman had lived today she might have ended up like Rosie Hardy.

She would be the number one at Deviant Art : )

I mind startin out taking photos and thinking some guy on flickr was a staggering genius because he used a holga and took a few pictures of coney island. Whatever floats your boat at the time I suppose - if it gets you interested in making pictures and you enjoy it then good on ye. Flickr can be very, very supportive and helpful, much more so than an art school - that thing of not needing to go is 50/50.
Whoevers taking these pictures is alright by me - i'm getting some ideas out of them anyway so whatever.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:08 AM on May 8, 2010

Welcome to a participatory culture.

Kids these days have amazing tools, mind bogglingly professional environments really, for creation, perfection, and dissemination of content. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

I think Rosie's photos are beautiful, and if you don't like the whole realtime drama associated with them -- great. There's a thousand other things for you to pay attention to.

It is a little crazy if she dropped out of college to go pro immediately. That is true. But I see this case as just another sign of -- we live in the future, and it is awesome.
posted by effugas at 3:04 AM on May 8, 2010

I'm slightly curious how she actually does the self-portraits - I mean how they're physically taken. Presumably someone else takes the actual photo,

You're not aware that cameras have timers? And that you can stick them on tripods?

Now, now. I realise that the main reason for this thread is to appease the Gods of Snark, but there's no need to patronise everybody. I know what a tripod is, and even own one, and I'm sure my Box Brownie would have a timer on it somewhere. I believe there are also remote controls, but can usually see someone holding their hand in a funny way if they're using one.

What I mean is that with some of the pictures the timer + tripod strategy seems logistically unlikely - if she's standing waist-deep in a lake, I would be surprised if she set up the tripod, set the timer, trudges out into the lake, tits out, pout, wait for the click, trudge back out again, dripping, check the little screen, think "not quite right" and go through the whole procedure again, all with dramatic, chilly mists behind you. That kind of thing can be dangerous - ask Lizzie Siddal.

Actually, looking for that picture on Flickr, I see that for that session she had her bloke with her, so he probably pressed the button for that photo. There are others that for various reasons - distance from camera to model and complexity of pose as well as being taken outside - I suppose the simple answer is that all those pictures were done with the help of the aforementioned bloke, and the others are as you say.

I was only a bit interested. I was kind of hoping her mum helped her -

"You should have worn a cardie, Rosie, you'll catch your death out there in that lake, with just a nightie on!"

"Oh, mum!"
posted by Grangousier at 3:09 AM on May 8, 2010 [2 favorites]

> I would be surprised if she set up the tripod, set the timer, trudges out into the lake, tits out, pout, wait for
> the click, trudge back out again, dripping, check the little screen, think "not quite right" and go through the
> whole procedure again, all with dramatic, chilly mists behind you.

OTOH if the kid actually is doing that kind of thing then she's an artist, whatever else she may be. That's artist-level committment to the work and it's exactly the sort of shit real artists go through, have to go through, because the demand of capturing the effect they have in mind is so unrelenting. (The goodness or badness of the art is an entirely separate question, which comes down to "well, you shouldn't want that kind of effect, it's tacky/sentimental/pedestrian/whatever.") That unrelenting-demand monkey on your back is the single critical thing that distorts normal, healthy people into artists. Talent, training, experience--all very important, but all of them defer to the monkey.
posted by jfuller at 7:33 AM on May 8, 2010

> There's something almost autistically self-centred about them (even the ones that aren't of her seem to be
> demanding that we see how clever she is, drawing the attention to the photographer and away from the subject).

Not exactly unheard-of in teenagers, izzit? Albrecht Dürer, age 13, by Albrecht Dürer.
posted by jfuller at 7:50 AM on May 8, 2010 [2 favorites]

What I mean is that with some of the pictures the timer + tripod strategy seems logistically unlikely - if she's standing waist-deep in a lake, I would be surprised if she set up the tripod, set the timer, trudges out into the lake, tits out, pout, wait for the click, trudge back out again, dripping, check the little screen, think "not quite right" and go through the whole procedure again, all with dramatic, chilly mists behind you. That kind of thing can be dangerous - ask Lizzie Siddal.

If she doesn't have help (which does seem likely) I expect that she uses a intervalometer, set to take a picture every couple of seconds, so she can do a lot of setups.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:42 AM on May 8, 2010

Rosie Hardy from Derbyshire? Either a blatant Tess of the D'Urbervilles reference or an amazing coincidence.
posted by Devika at 9:55 AM on May 8, 2010

An essay on Plagiarism and Photography.
posted by chunking express at 9:57 AM on May 8, 2010

I have to confess, I knew about tripods, didn't know about intervalometers, at least not affordable ones. That would probably do it - switch on the intervalometer, strike as many poses as you like, contract pneumonia at your leisure.

And yes, teenagers... I'd love to see an ugly, fat, middle-aged man throw himself into this, posting romanticised, skin-revealing self-portraits of himself every day (I'd do it myself, as I definitely qualify in the ugly, fat, old stakes, but I don't have the time or the monomania or the technical ability to pull it off). It would be interesting to see how the Flickr and deviantART communities would respond.
posted by Grangousier at 11:38 AM on May 8, 2010

> It would be interesting to see how the Flickr and deviantART communities would respond.

Maybe not too negatively even considering the current state of net.snark, considering that pretty much the same thing (allowing for the difference in productivity rate between cameras and oil-on-canvas portraits) was done by, y'know, Rembrandt. Upwards of a hundred self-portraits from this age (youthful, romantic, dashing) to this one (which surely places somewhere high up in the ugly-fat-old stakes.) The largest collection I can find is here, and that's only a third of them.

As a matter of strategy, though, you would probably wouldn't want to start your series when you were already at the u-f-o stage. Much better to start when you're still young and hot (as the lady in the fpp is doing) and grab your audience. They'll be much more forgiving as they become u-f-o at the same rate you do. Mick and Keef still pull in the chix, don't they! even though they're all grandmothers now. (N.b. you can find self-portraits of Imogen Cunningham at pretty much any age you want, though--sensibly--only nude when young.
posted by jfuller at 12:52 PM on May 8, 2010

pretty much the same thing (allowing for the difference in productivity rate between cameras and oil-on-canvas portraits) was done by, y'know, Rembrandt.


You're joking, you're seriously comparing this person to rembrandt ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:00 PM on May 8, 2010

Looks like Aaron's moved on.
posted by amro at 4:18 PM on May 8, 2010

im waiting for some other headbanger to compare this one to van gogh or perhaps its more like francis bacon, i could be wrong.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:34 PM on May 8, 2010

> You're joking, you're seriously comparing this person to rembrandt?

No. This was a side conversation that had nothing to do with Rosie. Grangousier's hypothetical notion (in the post immediately, immediately before mine) of a fat, ugly middle-aged person putting lots self-portraits out there reminded me of all the ones Remb. actually did put out there even when he had reached the fat, ugly (big-nosed wasn't mentioned previously, but there it is) age, and I linked one. Here's another. And another, and another, and another. So to reassure G. about this, if somebody on deviantART (or mefi for that matter) had a bad reaction to that hypothetical string of self-portraits by that hypothetical fat, saggy geezer, or thought it was somehow inartistic for fat, saggy geezers to thus flaunt their persons... well, maybe. But they would be in the position of arguing art with Rembrandt. How T. F. did you get Rosie=Rembrandt out of that?
posted by jfuller at 7:12 PM on May 8, 2010

I'd love to see an ugly, fat, middle-aged man throw himself into this, posting romanticised, skin-revealing self-portraits of himself every day

Evergon (NSFW)
posted by oulipian at 10:40 AM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Crumbs! Be careful what you wish for, indeed!

As a dog returns to its vomit, so I return to this thread...

Looking at the scene that the whole FPP was taking place in, it seemed to be about artistic expression, but I wondered whether it actually revolved around prettiness and youth and lots of supportiveness. Nothing surprising in that, but I thought it would be entertaining if someone who had neither youth nor prettiness threw themselves into that milieu with gusto. I thought it would be funnier if it was an older man rather than an older woman (if only for the romanticised poses they'd strike). I suspect it was something that was funny to me and me alone, though I can't shake the idea that I might be seeing it as a Will Ferrell movie in the near future. It really was as crass as that - look at the photos linked at the top of the page, take out Rosie H and put in, I dunno, Danny de Vito or someone like that. Jason Alexander, perhaps.

Oh, god it doesn't make any sense. Forget I said anything.

Of course, the point of self-portraiture, most of the time, is that the artist is a consistently available, amenable, model, perfect for practising with, and actually that's probably the case here - the context and whole social thing makes it appear more narcissistic. Perhaps for Rembrandt it became something deeper, I don't know, but his self-portraits seem to have been something private. Apart from anything else, who else but Rembrandt van Rijn would want a portrait of Rembrandt van Rijn?

That said, the downside of dropping out of college (and the pictures linked above seem still to be student pictures, albeit very technically adept ones, but without the guiding tutorial influence), is that it's easy to get into a constricted loop. There's a fair amount of flashiness, but the photographs are missing something, some kind of oomph - perhaps the Barthean punctum, though I read that book a quarter of a century ago, so I might be wrong. It's perfectly adequate commercial photography, exactly what iStockPhoto are looking for, I'd expect, but there's no there there.

That said, she's a lot better than young Aaron. Blimey, if they manage to harness the power of the ego, California won't have any energy problems in the near future! But she probably shouldn't be giving paid workshops just yet, eh?

Oh well, I've written the gist of this post at least twice before in this thread, and several other people have effectively written the same thing, probably better, so I should stop now.

That said, I'm glad to have been reminded that I enjoy, and have enjoyed, looking at photography as much as I do. So that's a positive note to go out on.
posted by Grangousier at 4:56 PM on May 9, 2010

Of course, the point of self-portraiture, most of the time, is that the artist is a consistently available, amenable, model, perfect for practising with, and actually that's probably the case here - the context and whole social thing makes it appear more narcissistic.

Of course, just using the most easily available model. And posing that model as Christ crowned with a thornèd crown.

But otherwise, yes, agreed: glossy sheen, no oomph.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 8:01 PM on May 9, 2010

Also:

Welcome to a participatory culture.

Kids these days have amazing tools, mind bogglingly professional environments really, for creation, perfection, and dissemination of content. That's not a bug, that's a feature. [...]

It is a little crazy if she dropped out of college to go pro immediately. That is true. But I see this case as just another sign of -- we live in the future, and it is awesome.

My narcissistic juvenilia is buried in a few tattered old exercise books in a desk drawer in my mum's house, and in a bunch of letters which--if they've even been kept by the people I sent them to--are safely scattered. This is good news for the world at large and especially good news for me. That poem about the scarecrow? Probably still around somewhere, in a box. The one where I wrote all that stuff about dry river beds and funeral pyres because I'd just read the first part of The Waste Land? Mercifully lost.

Because Rosie Hardy was born half a generation after me, though, her narcissistic juvenilia is public, not private. Now, Flickr's not Facebook, so I like to think that at some point she will take all this stuff down with a little gulp of embarrassment (though the photos will continue to circulate in their endless internet half-life), and get on with doing something good. But will she, though? Why should she ever look at these photos with the critical eye they deserve and learn to be better (and, please God, less self-regarding), when thousands of followers have already looked at them with uncritical eyes and said "Rosie we loooooove you!!!"? A fair whack of talent, a considerably fairer whack of self-importance, and early, uncritical praise: that's a pretty toxic combination threatening her future artistic development.

So again, I'm completely agreeing with Grangousier: she's getting herself into a constricted loop.

Incidentally, this mention of Rembrandt's self-portraiture reminds me of something in John Berger's Ways of Seeing. He compares a fairly early self-portrait of dazzlingly successful young artist (with pretty wife), on the one hand, with a late self-portrait of an aging bankrupt. The former is a painting of great technical proficiency and minimal artistic interest. The latter, and others like it--self-portraits of absolutely pitiless clarity and perception--are the reason why we know about Rembrandt today. He'd passed from painting himself as he wanted to be seen to painting himself, like it or not. ("Warts and all" isn't the half of it.)

Now, we've already established that the comparison with Rembrandt is an absurd one, obviously. Still, if we compare the trajectory of artistic development, it's pretty clear where glossy, blow-dried, photoshopped Rosie Hardy stands at the moment. The risk, unfortunately (the likelihood?), is that a hypertrophied self-regard inflated by warm gusts of uncritical praise from the Flickr followers will keep her there.

Presumably the reason I've just written all this about some teen's narcissistic juvenilia is that I'm trying to think through a wider problem in the culture for myself--cf. blogging, the privileging of production over consumption, the displacement of the critical reader by the un[self-]critical writer, etc. etc. Maybe I should have kept it for my diary. Anyway. Thanks all for helping me think.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 9:22 PM on May 9, 2010

this is narcissistic as fuck if it isn't just straight-up viral marketing

So, p3on - I'm guessing you don't actually interact much with (positive-self-image) teenage girls, do you? Because all of them I know love Love LOVE taking dreamy, romantic, soft-sexy shots of themselves, posing in front of mirrors when nobody's looking (sorry, E, but lips leave prints!), and so on.

The difference between those millions of young ladies, and this, is her talent. She may not be a Kahlo, but she's not a slouch (if it's really her work).

And, no, she isn't committing plagiarism. That's stupid. She's using inspiration. Hacks like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Picasso, Matisse, Rodin, and Ravel have done as much.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:22 PM on May 10, 2010

She's not a "Photographer" she's a "photoshop illustrator". They are hardly the same thing.

That's true, delmoi. One is a recognized, simple description of a mainstream art medium; the other is a pained, snooty put-down of someone doing work you don't appreciate.

Not the same at all.

(Hint: she takes photographs. That makes her a photographer.)
posted by IAmBroom at 6:24 PM on May 10, 2010 [1 favorite]