Posted by Marc Adamus on January 22, 2007 at 8:11 PM
How many of you out there have ever been to a photography workshop, read a photography book, taken a class or seen a photograph of a place you just had to go photograph for yourself? Maybe you have seen a specific technique used in the field or in post processing that you just had to incorporate into your own work....how is it that those ultra wide, ultra grad-filter sunset shots got so popular anyway?.....
Well, I've never taken a workshop but I have subscribed to everything else above on more than one occasion. Just looking through the pages of NPN allows me to do this very effectively on a daily basis. But can it actually be too much? A determent to one's creative vision and energy? I have come to believe that sometimes the answer is yes.
Lately, I am striving to make not simply beautiful, but evocative and uncommon images. Many of the our most memorable artists have been visionaries and innovators. People that have opened up new realms and opened peoples minds. People who have found that their own unique way of seeing comes from within, first.
Nature photography is much more about reaction to, and interaction with all nature than it is a carefully scripted and executed plan. As I see this entire new generation of photographers come to prominence I see far too many copy-cat, soulless, textbook images from the same places using the same techniques. Could it be that this era of mass-media, instant information and easy access is partially to blame for impeding the development of our own unique creative styles? Maybe. But I also see a lot of innovators here on NPN and it is very refreshing!
The way I approach the landscape today is not the same as it once was. I am confident enough in the technical aspects of my work that this rarely presents a significant obstacle in nature photography. But there was a time when I felt that the landscape itself could be mastered the same way I mastered making the image. At times, I would become so focused on making a specific type of image at a specific place that I forgot to look around along the way, try new things and let the landscape come to me. I've come to realize that to become too focused on a particular image, technique or location is to deny much of the Art in photography.
So when I go into the wilderness with my camera next time, I will have less on my mind. And less, can certainly mean more. More time to discover, interpret and listen. To take what nature gives me. My images will not only tell of nature, but of myself. They could be beautiful, but they must be contemplative, thoughtful and often evocative. My goal isn't to merely share nature with others, but also mood and emotion. I want people to feel pictures, not just see. It can be very difficult, very challenging, but for me it becomes more and more necessary every day to create these images which I believe can have more lasting appeal than a pretty sunset.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 22, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Well said Marc. I've definitely gone places intending to get a particular shot - and found myself dissapointed when it didn't work out exactly right. Usually I take what comes my way - but the original reason for being there is still the same. Perhaps having less preconceived ideas when I get to a place could be better? Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape recently wrote about a first trip to Morocco, and mentioned that before he goes someplace, he tries not to see any images from there or read too much about it. And he mentioned that he thought his first couple of days there produced better stuff than once he got used to the place. I think you're more likely to get something creative if you are more open to it.
Of course, getting that shot you intended to get, or one similar to a shot you admire can be pretty rewarding too, even if it doesn't open up any new ground for you...
Posted by Robert Helms on January 22, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Marc, I can confidently say that the viewing of too many images has affected my own vision at times.
A good example was on my trip out west to AZ and UT. I wanted to view the Grand Canyon at least once in my life, however, I viewed so many images of it before leaving that I wasn't awed at it's beauty the way I should've been. It opened my eye's a little when I watched the buddy of mine that traveled with me get so excited about seeing the Canyon that I thought he was going to cry. Though it really was nice to witness his pleasure I realized that my own reaction to the Canyon wasn't what I felt it would've been had I not viewed so many great images from the place in advance.
The same can be said for all my recent trips to the mountains. I love the mountains and thoroughly enjoy each visit I take, but the gorgeous mountain vista only mildly stirs me. Why? I believe it's because I have viewed so many images of mountains, and usually the same one's that I wish to see in person, that their initial impact was felt in front of the PC instead of the way intended.
I love Colorado and my first visit was before I ever found NPN or really any photography forum, and that initial response I got just from viewing snowy peaks rising proudly into the sky was so much that I didn't want to sleep for the whole visit. Since then I've backpacked in CO one time and I still had that feeling. Sadly, on my last visit it was still very much present, but in a more muted sense. I still love CO and would visit tomorrow if I could, but not for photography - just for the love of it. When I come to a scene I want to feel as though I'm the first to take the image. I don't like to feel as though the scene before me is calling to be photographed, but simultaneously my mind is pulling up a slideshow of hundreds of images that I've viewed that are similar.
My greatest pleasure from photography comes from just being outdoors, and I hope to keep it this way. When in CO I walked up to the Bell's in complete darkness, their white peaks stood out in the blackness and I really felt like I was in heaven. That was until I set up my camera. The slideshow played in my mind, and I only took a couple shots the entire five hours. My greatest pleasure was just walking around, and I even received great pleasure from viewing other peoples responses to their beauty and magnitude.
Since I don't live in a coastal or mountain state I have learned to find the pleasure in the more intimate views of nature. When I head out to take images I rarely have a composition chosen in advance. Though there are times that I have a shot pre-planned; the majority of my images come from just being out enjoying nature with a clear mind.
This is my own experience and I could go on and on with examples, but I won't. However, if one were to take a sweet sunset shot of the Grand Canyon, and place it next to one of my own images from around home, then place them in front of a non-photographer that doesn't view thousands of images online yearly, the Grand Canyon shot would get the vote 10:1. I suppose it all comes down to what one wishes to do with their images. The general public doesn't tire of pretty sunsets or mountain vistas, from locations most of us have viewed images from on hundreds of occasions. Myself I do, and I no longer wish to view images from places I intend on visiting. It just takes too much of the experience away from me. The same experience that got me into photography in the first place. I need the feeling that exploring a new place provides, far more than I need an image from it, and if I take an image that is similar to someone elses then that's just the way it goes. At least I got to enjoy the feeling, and to me that is everything.
Posted by Matt Dallos on January 22, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Very well said, Marc.
Posted by Kent Mearig on January 22, 2007 at 10:57 PM
A few months back, I was pondering this same question, and I actually started to write a post a couple of times before quitting because I couldn’t put my thought into words. Thanks Marc for getting this topic started, and it’s so true that viewing and sharing hundreds of images can end up being good for your vision, bad for your vision, or both at any given time. In a setting like the online forums, you have the added issue of being able to immediately see some feedback on an image (be it yours or someone else’s) based on the number of people who were actually willing to take time to view it (or take time to post a response). What it all boils down to is that I’m happy to be involved in this online community, but I do notice some drawbacks from time to time.
There’s so much more to consider that I can’t put down here, but I’m interested to here what everyone else is thinking. It would be interesting to keep this thread running for a while in my opinion.
Posted by Marc Adamus on January 22, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Robert, I can relate to your visit to the Grand Canyon and otherwise, but I think for me it's every bit as much a case of seeing so many beautiful places in nature and not particularly just the photos leading up to a trip. I know well that a beautiful mountain vista will always be more amazing to someone not as accustomed to such sights, but just being out there in nature is enough to keep me coming back. It does become harder to think outside the box after you've seen so many million photographs from a particular area or a particular style and that is one of the things I am discussing here. There is also the problem of traveling and having very little time to get to know an area, which makes it even more tempting to live in the comfort zone of what has been done before.
I am not only talking about thinking outside the box and making unique images though - I think we can all spin around in a circle three times, point the camera at something and call it original (it might be) and perhaps even come up with an artistic statement that validates that claim; but the ultimate challenge is to find those rare images that have a lasting impact. The ones that you dig out of the files ten years later and go - wow! Images that not only have aesthetic impact but also evoke emotion and perhaps even tell a story. These are the most difficult, and possibly intangible, variety of photographs to make. But I believe one step everyone can take towards finding them is to head out there with an open mind.
Kent, I've been very grateful for the variety of images posted on NPN and for the people who take the time to comment on them. When I comment on an image though, I usually do make my own decisions about it first and foremost, before reading other comments. In the interest of learning, I want to figure out for myself why or why not I enjoy a particular image. Later I will go back to read through others comments.
Posted by Kevin McNeal on January 23, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Marc this is something that has been on my mind. I am one of those people that is so worried about getting that certain shot that I saw once, or too shoot something in a certain way that I never take the time to look around elsewhere. I am in such a ratrace it feels to keep up with the images here and the mood that I feel when I see these images I really have all this pressure coming down on me. There is such a desire to reach a level of acceptance in this field and it is so competive that I cant relax to see different perspectives. I admire how you set the bar for exciting evocative images that remain fresh. Like you said the hardest thing is the time when you work full time but you need to know a place intimately to really get to shoot it. I often just dont have the time to find those fresh perspectives and therefore shoot the static shots in fear of gettting nothing. Do you offer any workshops yourself on the way to see what you do . Thanks Kevin
Marc:
When most people reach the emotional level you're talking about they're ready for a 4x5.
It's a slow, contemplative, thoughtful process that can actually help you produce the evocative images you're after. If you want give it a try sometime let me know. I'm in Corvallis a would be glad to give you a lesson on the techniques...
Looking forward to seeing the results of your next trip...
Marc:
When most people reach the emotional level you're talking about they're ready for a 4x5.
It's a slow, contemplative, thoughtful process that can actually help you produce the evocative images you're after. If you want give it a try sometime let me know. I'm in Corvallis a would be glad to give you a lesson on the techniques...
Looking forward to seeing the results of your next trip...
As I see this entire new generation of photographers come to prominence I see far too many copy-cat, soulless, textbook images from the same places using the same techniques. Could it be that this era of mass-media, instant information and easy access is partially to blame for impeding the development of our own unique creative styles?
In my opinion, the above phenomenon is occuring because it is "relatively" easy to make text-book like images. After all the how-to has been explained a milliion times, modern photographic equipement is very capable and its also not impossible to get to most places these days. Creating original work, on the other hand, is hard and most attempts to do so will likely result in failure. In general people don't want to fail so its not surprising to see the path that is being followed. I don't have any answers as to how to go about creating original work. What I will say, however, is that I don't mind trying even if it means that my work has no mass appeal and is deemed a failure.
Peter Ziminski wrote: When most people reach the emotional level you're talking about they're ready for a 4x5.
BTW, I don't buy into the theory that using a 4x5 camera will necessarily result in more evocative photography. No offense to anyone, but most LF based photographs that I have come across, specially on Internet forums, doesn't impress me.
While I agree in part with what has been said so far in this thread, I'd like to say that I joined NPN because my photography is still evolving. I am seeking helpful feedback on my posts and trying to learn from seeing other people's work. Not everyone has the same goals for taking photos. Not everyone is ready to see "out of the box." I feel pretty darn good if I get to a site I've never seen before in person and can bring away images that make me say, "Wow." Some day I hope to have something published. And that usually, but not always, requires a shot that's unique or "original." Then, there's the "textbook shot," which wouldn't be a bad way to be published either. It's pretty nice to have your work chosen and receive $$$ for. Practicing a technique learned at a workshop or from an article or from another photographer is a way to step forward along one's own path of photographic evolution, particularly if you have limited time for all the practice it takes to be truly innovative. I think everyone with passion and creativity seek to better their performance; we're just at different places and processes along the way. And sometimes even an accomplished photographer may double back for awhile before suddenly being able to leap forward again with new insights. I'm looking for recognition and encouragement, too; but mostly I don't want to compete with my photography. I want to relax and enjoy it and the places it takes me.
Posted by Marc Adamus on January 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I think both Catherine and Anil make good points, in the sense that it is inherently easier to copy what has been done already, and as we are still learning photography this can certainly be the best option. I know it was for me. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from trying. After a while though, I felt it was time to start looking for 'more' in a photograph though.
I also disagree that the quest for evocative and powerful photographs is any reason to switch to Large Format. Two of my recent most powerful and more unique shots were made from the Summit Ridge of Iron Mountain in 40-mph winds. Allthough LF. does force the photographer to slow down, it can also greatly hinder creativity by forcing the photographer into being too selective. I'd rather just experiment and shoot a couple hundred images when I go out.
Marc,
lots of right things you are mentioning here.
About copy-like photographs constantly coming up, there is, upon other reasons, a certain phenomena to blame: For all of you who live in N-America and have a professional career as Nature Photographers, you live in Paradise. I think there is no where in the world a bigger demand, a wider market and more money envolved in any kind of nature photography, than in the US. However, there is a certain downside to it: in the many, many publications about nature photography, you can read and reread the same (old) informations about what could, should be photographed and when and where. Outdoor Photographer f.e. runs at least once a year a kind of schedule of when a photographer should be where, if he wants to make the best out of his photography. Usually, all the lists that are circulating contain about 40 to 50 locations (99% of them being in the US). Imo, seeing so many new places even in viewing NPN alone – that's ridiculous at the face of it. (I’ve never ever read about when to be in the Alvord Desert f.e….) For those of us who are into this business for a couple of years, it just gives the feeling of being stuck in Punxatawny... No seasoned photographer gives too much attention to it (partly because of having been there, already), but many aspiring ones do!!! Therefore, they are all too often stuck in a never-ending loop, being happy about every “Mesa Arch at Sunset” – shot.
This is especially disappointing in times of digital photography, being able to experiment and judge results at the same time. (which I do also, with a little pocket-digi, btw.) However, I don't think this is a matter of a generation about to come up but already happened to all (me/us) others before, too. I even see very successful and widely known nature photographers building their career on not much more then repeating the ideas of others producing the same stuff year after year for decades. It is definitely possible to do so. We (Verena & me) f.e., knowing the right clients, could make sufficient money to make an easy living, by just shooting the samo o landscape icons in the same o light and comp as they have been shot 1000000000000x before. The medium of photography also makes it possible to copy things without even knowing it. I’m sure I have copied many shots somehow and I also shot lots of images just for the sake of knowing they will sell easily. But it always hurts me somehow, my life is better when being able to shoot just what I want in the way I want. Sadly, selling your photography is not about developing your unique style. Too often it is about the opposite. Therefore, as you have rightly stated, developing a new style (doesn’t have to be necessarily so new, but rather personal) is more about looking within yourself. Changing the way to approach a landscape/photography is a good thing and it will happen to you again and again. Sticking to a personal taste AS MUCH AS YOU CAN, which might be different, is often the single most challenging thing for a professional photographer, who wants to make a living with exactly his personal style. You do need a long (financial) breath. It's the harder climb, but when you get up higher, you'll have the wider horizon in front of you with lesser obstructions to spoil the view. It is fulfilling to stay authentic.
For a long time I had a little article that I cut out of a magazine, clipped to my PC (so I always see it and never forget) about the old mythological greek figure Prokrustes. He was a cruel bandit, lurking along a path and offering each who came along his bed. If you were willing to lay down in the bed and the bed was to small, he would cut off your legs to make it fit, or he would stretch you, until you would be tall enough to fit in.
Sounds cruelsome and brutal, but what does that have to do with it?
Nowadays it seems we are ruled by Prokrustesses no matter where we go or where we look. Behind every corner or waving at us from afar. Not thinking of any bad, we run straight into their arms. They want us to be all the same. 2/3 of the worlds population is listening to the same music, eats the same food, wears the same clothes and watches the same stuff on TV. It is not too far out to think that 2/3 of the human kind has more or less the same daily routine to go through, even thinks the same thoughts, wishes the same wishes, dreams the same dreams…
Prokrustes’ heirs still have us in his fangs. Only that the pain is felt by just a few.
Great points, Marc. I can honestly say that for me "success" (in my own eyes, having nothing to do with others' responses) is almost always correlated with familiarity. I have visited the Colorado Plateau dozens of times on road trips before living in Utah and always came back with the "same old" type of images. It's not until I started exploring the canyon country in earnest and spent considerable amounts of time in specific areas that I began to really feel and connect to the place. These days I will go out on any random weekend with no plan at all, pick a random canyon or mesa or mountain and just wander around. I can sometimes spend hours in one location, studying the rock, the plant life, the light, and even just resting in a comfortable spot enjoying the silence. The images I come back with are more intimate, more carefully composed, and better convey what I feel.
Guy
Posted by Peter Carroll on January 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Marc - Art like life in general is a process where the next level is reached by building upon the lessons learned so far. People will be at different stages because their experiences are different. The copy cat stage (which I admit I am at right now) is an important stage in the development of an artist because by standing on the shoulders of giants we are able to see possibilities we never dreamed of. If the process of learning is continuous then the work doesn't stagnate and the refinement of style continues on its natural course. In order to break the rules you have to know the rules. You couldn't get to where you are now without walking the path of experiences you took to get there. You look at photographs with a copycat eye because you admit that you've been there done that. It's wonderful to be at that stage at such a young age. It takes others longer and some unfortunately never get there. And the "there" should be a very personal because otherwise even the sense of artistic satisfaction is being copied. I do think it's very unfortunate when people suggest there is only one path to elightenment. What works for one may not work for another. So for me it's not about 4x5, digital, film, pin hole, subject, location etc., it's about making pictures, learning about the world around me and learning about myself and my place in it during the process. You're doing well, Marc, to be at a stage where you realise it's the journey not the destination that is the reward.
Posted by William Brozy on January 23, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Do I detect a little bit of Mark Hobson in your words Marc?
But is it really possible to elicit emotion from a landscape image? Your goal, as you wrote, “I want people to feel pictures, not just see.” Is it even possible?
I guess the question is: can the pristine (w/o the hand of man) landscape evoke emotion? Sure, images can be spooky, airy, spectacular, colorful … but they aren’t those just adjectives describing the image. If an image was truly spooky, shouldn’t you be haunted by that image? Shouldn’t you cower, shouldn’t your heart race, shouldn’t you get goosebumps? Part of the problem is that we cannot capture with a still camera all that makes up the landscape: a bitter cold wind, the sound of running water or birds, the smell of flowers, the warm rays of the sun, the buzzing mosquitoes. Landscape (ESS) photography is just visual. We are only stimulating one sense of many in our repertoire. We are distilling/flattening a 4 dimensional reality into a two dimensional image. We are disregarding all of our senses except one. And in that translation something is lost!
Now getting emotion in other genres of photography is quite possible. A wolf pack hunting down a wounded elk can surely elicit emotion; war documentary images can; a baby duck being taken from its mother by a gull. But these images are different; they allow us to feel, to relate, to convey our thoughts/experiences/emotions into the subject. We wonder why that elk should suffer so, or the hunger of the wolf, the pain of the soldier, the loneliness or confusion of the war orphan, the tearing of a maternal bond. With images such as these, we can disregard the negative aspects of that image and the rules that make a good photograph. The image can be gritty, the image can oof in the wrong places, just as we disregard some of our senses if we happened across the scene.
But how does a forest feel? Or a mountain? Or a waterfall? I don’t know.
How is it that those ultra wide, ultra grad-filter sunset shots get so popular anyway? Again, I do not know. But I can promise you, you won't see one from me.
Posted by Mike Horn on January 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM
"I want people to feel pictures, not just see." one of your last sentences.---- The way I look at it, you should be feeling like this from the beginning. You should never go out just to take pictures, and not try to convey a message. It should evoke feelings from viewers, questions, and in the end, move them. Photography is emotions tied into art. You create what you feel, what is presented to you, and then you try capture that moment. Sometimes this does not always work, but feelings come first. I also believe it does not matter how many times a place has been shot, each person has their own vision, thoughts and feelings. IMHO.
Do I believe once you reach an emotional level you are ready for LF. NO, That is a crock in my opinion, emotions should always be there, I see LF images all over that do not impress me one bit, it is not a camera that brings emotions, its a person.
As for the mass of copycat images, etc. 1-It's because of technology. And, with that comes everyone buying cameras, why because you can view your images immediately. Experiment, and then publish! Believe me, if film was the only thing around, do you really think that photography would be as big as it is now? Photography has picked up because of technology, and with that comes a great amount of work. From all the same areas that are photographed. Locations get out, and then everyone goes there, why because the area is beautiful, and people want to see it, and photograph it, not feel it. Copy cat images are made, because of what we read, and see from those photographers whom are known. You have done it, I have done it, and I am sure many many others have. It's called beautiful areas! But, this does not mean that you cannot go into the wilderness, national or state park, and capture something unique. It's the person, and if they convey a message, then they have captured their image right. If you want to go into a place, stand in someone's footprints, and take a shot, then take it, will it be different, no, does it convey feelings, probably not. Can you learn from it? if not, then the image is just an image, not a piece of emotional art or photograph. It seems like these days photography is not about photography, it bickering about film vs. digital, not enought comments, identical location shots, and my favorite, the "icon" shot. That icon was shot probably alot longer than most of us have been photographing. Adams made areas popular, Fatali, Art wolfe, Zimmerman, Mark/Dave Muench, etc. they did to, and we follow, why, because they gave us insight on a remarkable place. I like being out there, feeling the area, seeing its beauty, and getting away from the masses of daily life. I love to get out into nature and hike for hours. I have done it most of my life. I was born and raised in WA state, lived in colorado for 12 yrs, and now reside in Missouri. I have hiked in numerous areas, mountains, etc. But, my parents took me, they always loved being outdoors, so I was always out there too. I now photograph, because I want to capture what I feel and what I saw, and hopefully in a great way, with wonderful lighting. If not, then I try again, but I do not worry about what others are doing, it is there thing, and congrats to you.
Your work is appealling to me, because of your locations. You put in the work, you trek into areas, which alot of people do not do, and we all know that for the most part, photographers really are lazy. (generalization) Hiking 5-10 miles to get to a place, is out of the question. They would rather pull up, get out the car, and capture it. I study my work for months, and alot of the times I post something, I will not like it later on, why, because the feeling I was trying to convey, really does not come through. I think it takes years and years to learn, some faster, some slower, it really depends on how much time you have and want to put into it. How much studying you do, how many times you revisit the same spot. Everytime you go, things will be different, light, mood, feeling! It is a life long journey, each day, each year, you learn something different, and each day and year, you see things differently. You may have visited a place 100 times, and that last time, you made your best image.
In the end, it's your work, and if it is done correctly, light, exposure, uniqueness, tells a story, and has emotion, then you have succeeded in capturing what you felt when you saw it. You seperate yourself, and you only. All the critiques, and comments have only a small effect on us as artists, it is you, your learning, and the way you feel and see things. Your emotions carry you, and your work is a portrait of your thoughts and feelings of a place.
PS- I am speaking in general, and not at anyone, also, sorry for typos, lol.
mike
Posted by Richard Wong on January 23, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Interesting points you raise Marc. A lot of times it depends on what you want out of photography. Most people in general, and probably most photographers (sometimes) go to some places to just enjoy the moment. live it, breathe it, travel whatever. and the camera is just the companion to document the moment. A lot of times those simple snapshots are the ones that connect the most for me anyway because it conjures up all the great feelings of that moment, the trip, companionship or whatever. Not that I'd throw those up on the web just because I feel connected to it.
Then there's the serious photographer side. Where it's about the challenge of getting your own shots. Its like a drug. The biggest high you'll ever get is the first time you've done it, then in order to match that high or a bigger one you either take in bigger doses or try something else. I believe the worst thing that can happen to the desire to create is falling into the trap of trying to please others. Please yourself first, then others will follow. Not everyone will like it, and that's fine. It's your name on the piece. no one elses and that's what matters.
I ramble and probably not writing cohesively. I'm waiting for a call and kind of scattered today. Adios.
Posted by Marc Adamus on January 23, 2007 at 3:27 PM
It's art so I guess it's all left to interpretation in the end. I'm not even going to start discussion Hobson's work here. I don't recall him every mentioning anything about 'feeling' images, just validating his own reasons for photographing how he did and trying to impress them on others.
I disagree that a 2-dementional image of "A wolf pack hunting down an Elk" can evoke any more a human emotion than an image like my "Storm Wall" can evoke the powerful, ominious feeling of an impending storm. A War photograph cannot bring the war to us as a viewer any better than a landscape photograph can bring the landscape to us, so I don't understand the argument that one type of photography is better than another at evoking emotion. When I look at the work of Eric Fredine, I am immediately transported to the place which feels peaceful and lonely to me - that is evoking emotion. Lots of landscape photographs can do similar. That said, I obviously agree that a photograph cannot convey all 5 senses accurately, so there is always something lost.
"But how does a forest feel? Or a mountain? Or a waterfall? I don’t know." - That's exactly what I'm saying. Maybe when I go out into nature I'm not always trying to document it, but rather create an image that not only depicts the subject matter but impresses upon it a little something more. Many of my recent images - take "Isolation" for example, were taken in/of nature but are not documentary. I believe I was able to bring the sensation of lonely, quiet, peaceful, ethereal, removed, etc. to the viewer more than a simple snapshot of the scene ever could have. This is an evocative quality that not all images have. A photograph of Mesa Arch sunrise is less likely to leave me with any additional mood to contemplate. Sometimes that's just fine, sometimes I think you can find a little something more to think about.
Posted by Marc Adamus on January 23, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Mike, I agree almost completely with what you've mentioned regarding photography's increased popularity and the abundance of similar images out there, and also that it is totally possible for a photographer to make unique, personal images even from iconic locations. To do so, they need to "look inside first".
Posted by Richard Wong on January 23, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I can relate to what William is saying about the war photos, etc... stuff because I saw a 500 photograph exhibit on 9/11 at the Louisville Library a few months ago and my friend and I were in a trance after we left. Like numb and kind of almost broken down sort of way feeling. I coudln't really focus on anything else while driving home other than what I had seen and felt at the exhibit. Some of the stuff was really repulsive and just mind-blowing. It's the first and only time I've ever had photos made that type of impact on me emotionally other than "yeah, that's a great photo." Would I ever buy a book or hang those sorts of photos on my wall? no way. but I can't deny that seeing that sort of reality hit home was out of this world for me. i don't think my friend and i really said a word to each other while leaving the exhibit other than the F word and some other non-intellectual sort of words. Speechless for the most part.
That was just my experience because of what I'd gone thru in my life. maybe for others, they have lived different lives and relate to other things on that level emotionally like grasses blowing in the wind. one man's crap is another's gem, and vice versa. and that's all good.
Posted by Marc Adamus on January 23, 2007 at 3:57 PM
I agree Richard, and I might have felt that way too after seeing the exhibit, but still, no one can say it could ever have been the same as being there in person as it unfolded. You can depict the amazement, wonder and beauty of a national park with 500 pictures just as effectively as you can depict the horror and tragedy of 9-11 with 500 pictures IMO. In either case you can effectively tap into basic human emotions through photographs.
I think it's important to separate the documentary aspects of an image from the graphic/aesthetic ones. Obviously we can relate to war images because we can relate to the subject matter and because we're exposed to other information about it. We already know the story and the images illustrate it for us. The same is true for the wolf/elk scenario and others that we can relate to by virtue of sharing much of our emotional and physical makeup with other living beings.
When I view Marc's grand landscape images I can relate to their content (they make me feel small and in awe of the majesty and enormity of the scene) but also to the graphical arrangement. I'm attracted to certain colors (as we all are, probably as a response to ancient meanings we may not even be aware of), to the lines (which my curious mind tries to follow and interpret), textures and patterns, some of which we can relate to other sensory stimuli etc.
An image can be successful and inspire for content or for graphics or for both. Dare we declare one more important than the other?
I have long decided that my images can't ever tell the full story of their coming into existence or the thoughts and emotions that went into them. I try to distill fleeting moments, flashbacks, essential meanings out of the whole experience that I'm hoping others can relate to. If you want to know the story you need to read my journals (or my mind) or have me tell it to you. The image can evoke emotion in multiple ways but it's a glimpse, not an epic. It portrays, it doesn't explain.
Guy
Posted by William Brozy on January 23, 2007 at 4:15 PM
amazement, wonder and beauty are all subjective. Lust, hate, envy, love are very much less subjective - and maybe that's where we part in our thinking when it comes to defining true emotional responses.
Posted by Mike Horn on January 23, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Very good points Guy, and I agree, I do believe you cannot completely tell the story through your work, because at the same time as trying to convery it, your are living it. And without being there, you cannot completely feel the experience, you can read into it, emphasize with it, and try to relate to it. But you cannot completely feel it, we try as artists to provoke those feelings so that others can feel them when the see a photograph, granted this may not always occur. But, conveying the emotions you felt at that time is a start. Everything has deeper meaning than what we can produce or even see, and sometimes it may take years to really learn what you feel and see too.
Posted by Marc Adamus on January 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Guy, I think you make a very valid point about knowing the history behind the image.
I do not believe that one type of image is particularly better at telling the story all by itself. For that you always need to look further than a photograph can take you.
Will, I can agree that hate, love, lust, whatever appeal to the basic core of all human emotion, as Guy points out, in a way that an aesthetic/graphic image never could. I just don't think that an image of war puts us any closer to war than an image of landscape puts us any closer to the landscape.
Will, we do and we don't. I only photograph what I love. Where I disagree is that love is anything but subjective. The same for hate, envy etc.
On my trips to my old home I photograph old buildings, places where I experienced significant events or where I shared time with loved ones. These will be utterly meaningless to anyone but me.
By the same token the same images Richard described that could bring tears to your eyes were cause for great celebration in some parts of the world.
Some things are more ubiquitous in their appeal and in my mind you will be hard pressed to find many who do not appreciate the beauty of a sunset or a blooming field. If anything these are the least subjective elements in our repertoire.
Guy
Posted by William Brozy on January 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM
"By the same token the same images Richard described that could bring tears to your eyes were cause for great celebration in some parts of the world".
True Guy - but the emotions for this act are completely evident. It was done out of hatred (and a cause for rejoice in some) but it was still an act of hate.
And love is love regardless how twisted it can be.?! (i'd like to add that this is not a reflection on your love for the things you shoot Guy)
But maybe it's me. Believe me, I adore this amazing and diverse home of ours. I get the warm fuzzies, or a sense of majesty, or whatever (fill-in-the-blank). But I just don't get a gut emotional response from many landscape images, the responses tend to be more cerebral.
Posted by Peter Carroll on January 23, 2007 at 4:51 PM
"in my mind you will be hard pressed to find many who do not appreciate the beauty of a sunset or a blooming field. If anything these are the least subjective elements in our repertoire."
Bingo Guy. That's why an icon is an icon and why sunset and flower shots are so popular. Nothing is every guaranteed but they are more likely than other subjects to get the wow reaction from someone who isn't deep into photography and seen the standard Mesa shot a million times. That's also why comps are copied - they've been tested on the public and they work. I think it's important to be on the same page with regards to the aim and the audience. If you shoot for personal pleasure then shoot whatever turns you on and enjoy the ride. If you shoot to sell commercially then you'd be smart to take shots that reflect Guy's points about subject, colour and graphic elements. They will be shots that will appeal to the majority of viewers. That's not to say innovation isn't important and new style isn't always in demand but being at the sharp end of that business can be like trying to hit the bull's eye with a blindfold on - good luck to you. I know pros that consciously take time to satisfy both needs. Balance is the secret.
Posted by Matt Dallos on January 23, 2007 at 7:18 PM
If anyone involved or reading this thread has never read "Nature's Chaos" ,by Eliot Porter and James Gleick, I suggest they go to their local library and check it out.
It may not be directly related, but it does bring up some similar points that are being discussed here..
You and Will (see 'The Next Level' post this week) have brought up some fantastic thought provoking questions with your two posts. All of us here have a natural appreciation for the beauty in nature or we wouldn't be here. Yet there are some photographers in this community that are true visionaries and are able to transform the 'emotions' we all feel in nature into a 2 dimensional medium. I think we all strive to be like you, because we all feel the same emotions and want to share our passion for being in the natural world. We want others to understand us and our passion for nature through evocative photographs that we make. This is the medium we have all discovered that best allows us to share these emotions and experiences. And we want others to be able to experience these emotions like we have, even if they couldn't be there in person. Your recent post 'Winter's Fury' made an impact on me because I thought to myself 'Now that is masterpiece because it transports me into the mountains where I can experience the 'feeling' of a blast of wind on an exposed mountain ridge in the wilderness.' I wasn't there. But deep down I can feel that blast of wind battering me around when I look at that image. Later that night I wrote down a list of some of the emotions I feel when I go out into the wilderness and will carry that list with me from now on. And I will constantly ask myself "What am I 'feeling' when I explore this scene?" And what do I hear? Am I cold? Am I lonely? Am I at peace? Am I scared? I want to strive to photograph the 'emotions' I feel in the wilderness and capture the 'integral elements' of a wilderness experience. How can I portray the cool breeze that finally blows down the slot canyon at dusk as the heat of the day is ending? How do you evoke the 'sound' of that rustling wind? Or the psychological feeling of warmth I feel as the gold light of the sunrise touches me on a snow covered mountain in winter, when at that moment it is really the coldest time of the entire day? Or the buffeting powerful wind that spreads out from the base of a waterfall and covers us with mist? Or the delicacy of frost on the meadow grass that instantly melts when the sun touches it? These are the integral elements we both see and feel when we are attuned to the natural world around us. If we are successful in photographing the 'emotion' of being there, we will have succeeded as artists. And other people as well as the natural world will benefit through the connection we have shared.
Maybe I am fortunate that I am not a pro photographer, so I can shoot what I want and put all of my effort into images that inspire me artistically, rather than worrying about what will sell. But when I look back at the great photographers of all time, they became successful and were able to turn pro because they had vision and could connect with an audience and their photographs had a story to tell or showed us the world in a new and exciting way. New compositions of a famous scene aren't going to be enough. We should all strive to marry our own unique vision of the wilderness with the edge of what is possible in our chosen artistic medium.
And as a last point, I would suggest that the moderators make this and Will's post permanent pillars to the NPN experience. These are the kinds of questions we should all ask ourselves a few times a year.
Posted by Jim Goldstein on January 24, 2007 at 3:11 AM
Funny I caught this today. I just had a conversation on the same vein as this with a friend today.
With all things too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I think that for those learning exploring common techniques or compositions can help in the learning process. I know I've been guilty of this in the past. Learning different techniques helps provide a range of tools to master capturing my photographic vision. Photography for some is just mimicing style while for others its a means to discovering your own. These days if I have an image compared to another photographer (even one I respect) I actually get a bit peeved. I really do strive these days to capture something original even if it is a commonly photographed subject.
My conversation today went even further discussing the role forums play... not just the exposure to images and styles, but the feedback (received and given). Some feedback is helpful, but I'm finding most feedback is less about the artistic achievement or vision and more about "technical masturbation" (excuse my French ). As easy as it is to see images its just as easy for those interested in photography to find articles on technique, do's and don'ts, etc. The end result is over focus on these things when viewing an image. I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my feedback to images for this same reason.
I've begun to question what I'm bringing to forums such as this let alone getting. I've become much too critical on individual things and that has detracted from my ability to enjoy the vision photographers are presenting. In addition as I look at well known photographs from photographers most of us look up to I catch myself falling into the same behavior.
This begs the question... when does the exposure transition from helping you grow to impeding growth? I suppose its different for each person, but it something I've become increasingly sensitive to this year.
I found this quote by Galen Rowell that seems to transcend time and respond directly to your question.
"WE ALL TAKE PICTURES TO COMMUNICATE WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN OUR LIVES. MOST OF US CARRY AROUND IMAGES OF OUR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN, OUR VACATIONS, AND THE UNUSUAL SCENES WE'VE WITNESSED BECAUSE PICTURES SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. WE SENSE THEIR SYMBOLIC POWER TO COMMUNICATE WHAT IS MEANINGFUL IN OUR LIVES AND TO VALIDATE THE IMAGERY IN OUR MEMORY BANK OF LIFE, AS IF THE IMAGE ON PAPER IS SOMEHOW A PART OF US.
HUMANITY IS ALL THE BETTER WHEN CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS SUCCEED IN COMMUNICATING THEIR LIFE'S MOST IMPORTANT VISIONS INTO THE MINDS OF OTHERS. I'VE MADE A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO FOCUS THE GREAT MAJORITY OF MY LIFE'S WORK TOWARD MY OWN BRAND OF PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY, IN WHICH I ACTIVELY CREATE IMAGES TO REFLECT MY OWN DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH NATURE OR WITH CHOSEN PARTNERS ON MY OWN ADVENTURES"
-GALEN ROWELL
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on January 24, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Very well expressed Marc and a really thought-provoking little essay. I agree a lot with what you say. The way your photography has developed over the last year is reflected in your words. In many of your earlier work, while amazing they echoed characteristics of artists like Wolfe & Rowell. While your most recent work seems to have lost this feature. Interestingly although your photos are extremely varied in style they are often readily identifiable as being Adamus. I think that your observation that reviewing too many photos on a site such as this as being detrimental to the creative process is an incorrect generalisation. People react differently to such stimuli, admittedly some may fall into the copycat routine but to me seeing the incredibly varied visions of others , in particular inspires me to do the same. I get the impression that people like Anil Rao & Guy Tal are constantly pushing the boundaries of their imagination and I don't think their creative process can easily be imitated. I understand totally what you mean about technique. I have always found that photography's closest relative is music. It is difficult to completely immersed in the creative process until the technical aspect becomes almost automatic. Once the technical aspects of exposure ceases to be an obstacle, the mind is free to visualize properly. Just as a pianist cannot imprint his personality on a piece until the technique from mastery of scales & studies is achieved. Only through thorough practice can this obstacle be eliminated. Thanks again for your enlightening post Marc.
Posted by Bill Stice on January 24, 2007 at 9:57 AM
What a great range of thoughts and feelings expressed in this thread. First a thanks to Marc for posting it. I think it is difficult if not impossible to predict what others' reactions will be to my images. I can however, describe some of the things that affect my reactions to others' images. First, most of my reactions are at least in part colored by my own past experiences. Even the photographs I take evoke memories of my experiences when there. They remind me of the sounds, smells and other sensory experiences that I had in the process of making the image. I think that is why most people who look at my images don't have the same connection I have with them. Having said that, in my case when I look at someone else's images they also to an extent evoke some of these same feelings in me. Of course they are based in my personal context but even so they can arouse some of the same feelings that my personal images do. I would also agree with Guy Tal when he says that "success in his own eyes is correlated with familarity". I usually have to visit an area multiple times before I produce my best work. It isn't as much about knowing the light characteristics and other technical stuff as it is in personally relating to the area. Great thread!
Interesting topic! I agree with your stated goal, however I have a
different suggestion on how to possibly achieve it. In my opinion, the problem is not
the lack of looking inward towards finding your "vision" but lack of
looking outward, perhaps, with a truly open mind.
Part of the problem is ego, I think. ( I'm just speaking about all of us,
in general ). A person has to look past their own prejudice, past
preconceptions, past habitual behaviour, in order to have an open mind. It
would make sense that more accomplished a person is in their own "style"
the more difficult it might be to change.
I would suggest that the problem most people have in "seeing" or relating
the unfolding events in front of them, is similar to listening as opposed
to hearing. Why are we such poor listeners? Part of the reason we listen so
poorly, is that we hear so well and think so quickly, often turning our
attention inward. I would expect "vision" is the same thing.
In an experiment I witnessed one time, increasing people's ability to
listen, a speech was recorded, as a digital file. People were tested on
their comprehension as a famous text was played at the normal speech rate.
Then they were exposed to another text, at twice the normal rate. Then
another three times, four times, six times the normal rate. Up until the
speech rate was so fast, that people couldn't comprehend it anymore. What
was interesting was as the speed increased (up to a much higher rate) so
did people's comprehension of what was being said, at least up to a much
higher level. They had to concentrate on just what was being said, nothing
else.
At a normal rate of speech our mind wanders, we start to finish the
sentences ahead of the speaker, we start to formulate our own ideas,
perhaps a rebuttal. (Perhaps many people are doing that, right now, as they
read these words?) We can hear and understand at a much faster rate than
people can normally speak.
It's hard work to really listen. However if we remove all distractions and
really focus on just what we are hearing ( think of being in the woods,
hearing an unsettling sound , and totally stop and really listen) it
becomes obvious right away that we can listen very , very well.
I believe, in a similar way , if one removes all the distractions, as listed above, then one
can really develop their sense of vision. In my opinion putting up
prerequisites such as beauty, evocative, and uncommon before even
venturing out will hinder our sense of vision ( in an artistic sense ) in my opinion, sometimes.
Of course I know I'm a little different. I take about 99% of my images in
my own backyard and to most people they are really nothing special. However
the inability of these everyday subjects to look interesting is not their
fault , I just haven't done my best to relate my sense of wonder in the
little part of the world I live in.
Thanks, Tim
Posted by Kent Mearig on January 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Tim, what a very significant proposition. I don't imagine that what you propose and what Marc suggests are opposites by any means, and I'm sure you would agree. I see your idea of consciously looking outward as either a part of "looking inside" or perhaps a precursor to it. If we don't really see the places we are, feel them, and experience them; they will tend to have very little effect on us at all. It's only after we've focused our attention on the outside that the core of our inside starts to respond, and that is the point where awareness of ourselves begins to have importance.
When we want to listen to somebody, we would ask them to repeat themselves whenever we've been too inattentive. In the same way, we return to a location numerous times because we know that we weren't using our senses carefully enough the time before to really gain understanding. Once we've visited a subject enough, we have a list of feelings and ideas gained through experiencing it, and we can ponder them to determine which ones we would like to relate through our photography.
Another idea that connects with listening is how we listen less when we have the feeling that we've heard something before. How carefully will you listen to someone telling you what happened at a ball game they went to, when you've already heard the recap on ESPN? In the same way, will you really be paying close attention to all your surroundings in a place you've already seen a thousand pictures of? If we are somewhere we've seen photographed many times, we had better double our efforts to be aware of what's going on outside.
Discussion
37 repliesWell, I've never taken a workshop but I have subscribed to everything else above on more than one occasion. Just looking through the pages of NPN allows me to do this very effectively on a daily basis. But can it actually be too much? A determent to one's creative vision and energy? I have come to believe that sometimes the answer is yes.
Lately, I am striving to make not simply beautiful, but evocative and uncommon images. Many of the our most memorable artists have been visionaries and innovators. People that have opened up new realms and opened peoples minds. People who have found that their own unique way of seeing comes from within, first.
Nature photography is much more about reaction to, and interaction with all nature than it is a carefully scripted and executed plan. As I see this entire new generation of photographers come to prominence I see far too many copy-cat, soulless, textbook images from the same places using the same techniques. Could it be that this era of mass-media, instant information and easy access is partially to blame for impeding the development of our own unique creative styles? Maybe. But I also see a lot of innovators here on NPN and it is very refreshing!
The way I approach the landscape today is not the same as it once was. I am confident enough in the technical aspects of my work that this rarely presents a significant obstacle in nature photography. But there was a time when I felt that the landscape itself could be mastered the same way I mastered making the image. At times, I would become so focused on making a specific type of image at a specific place that I forgot to look around along the way, try new things and let the landscape come to me. I've come to realize that to become too focused on a particular image, technique or location is to deny much of the Art in photography.
So when I go into the wilderness with my camera next time, I will have less on my mind. And less, can certainly mean more. More time to discover, interpret and listen. To take what nature gives me. My images will not only tell of nature, but of myself. They could be beautiful, but they must be contemplative, thoughtful and often evocative. My goal isn't to merely share nature with others, but also mood and emotion. I want people to feel pictures, not just see. It can be very difficult, very challenging, but for me it becomes more and more necessary every day to create these images which I believe can have more lasting appeal than a pretty sunset.
Of course, getting that shot you intended to get, or one similar to a shot you admire can be pretty rewarding too, even if it doesn't open up any new ground for you...
A good example was on my trip out west to AZ and UT. I wanted to view the Grand Canyon at least once in my life, however, I viewed so many images of it before leaving that I wasn't awed at it's beauty the way I should've been. It opened my eye's a little when I watched the buddy of mine that traveled with me get so excited about seeing the Canyon that I thought he was going to cry. Though it really was nice to witness his pleasure I realized that my own reaction to the Canyon wasn't what I felt it would've been had I not viewed so many great images from the place in advance.
The same can be said for all my recent trips to the mountains. I love the mountains and thoroughly enjoy each visit I take, but the gorgeous mountain vista only mildly stirs me. Why? I believe it's because I have viewed so many images of mountains, and usually the same one's that I wish to see in person, that their initial impact was felt in front of the PC instead of the way intended.
I love Colorado and my first visit was before I ever found NPN or really any photography forum, and that initial response I got just from viewing snowy peaks rising proudly into the sky was so much that I didn't want to sleep for the whole visit. Since then I've backpacked in CO one time and I still had that feeling. Sadly, on my last visit it was still very much present, but in a more muted sense. I still love CO and would visit tomorrow if I could, but not for photography - just for the love of it. When I come to a scene I want to feel as though I'm the first to take the image. I don't like to feel as though the scene before me is calling to be photographed, but simultaneously my mind is pulling up a slideshow of hundreds of images that I've viewed that are similar.
My greatest pleasure from photography comes from just being outdoors, and I hope to keep it this way. When in CO I walked up to the Bell's in complete darkness, their white peaks stood out in the blackness and I really felt like I was in heaven. That was until I set up my camera. The slideshow played in my mind, and I only took a couple shots the entire five hours. My greatest pleasure was just walking around, and I even received great pleasure from viewing other peoples responses to their beauty and magnitude.
Since I don't live in a coastal or mountain state I have learned to find the pleasure in the more intimate views of nature. When I head out to take images I rarely have a composition chosen in advance. Though there are times that I have a shot pre-planned; the majority of my images come from just being out enjoying nature with a clear mind.
This is my own experience and I could go on and on with examples, but I won't. However, if one were to take a sweet sunset shot of the Grand Canyon, and place it next to one of my own images from around home, then place them in front of a non-photographer that doesn't view thousands of images online yearly, the Grand Canyon shot would get the vote 10:1. I suppose it all comes down to what one wishes to do with their images. The general public doesn't tire of pretty sunsets or mountain vistas, from locations most of us have viewed images from on hundreds of occasions. Myself I do, and I no longer wish to view images from places I intend on visiting. It just takes too much of the experience away from me. The same experience that got me into photography in the first place. I need the feeling that exploring a new place provides, far more than I need an image from it, and if I take an image that is similar to someone elses then that's just the way it goes. At least I got to enjoy the feeling, and to me that is everything.
There’s so much more to consider that I can’t put down here, but I’m interested to here what everyone else is thinking. It would be interesting to keep this thread running for a while in my opinion.
I am not only talking about thinking outside the box and making unique images though - I think we can all spin around in a circle three times, point the camera at something and call it original (it might be) and perhaps even come up with an artistic statement that validates that claim; but the ultimate challenge is to find those rare images that have a lasting impact. The ones that you dig out of the files ten years later and go - wow! Images that not only have aesthetic impact but also evoke emotion and perhaps even tell a story. These are the most difficult, and possibly intangible, variety of photographs to make. But I believe one step everyone can take towards finding them is to head out there with an open mind.
Kent, I've been very grateful for the variety of images posted on NPN and for the people who take the time to comment on them. When I comment on an image though, I usually do make my own decisions about it first and foremost, before reading other comments. In the interest of learning, I want to figure out for myself why or why not I enjoy a particular image. Later I will go back to read through others comments.
When most people reach the emotional level you're talking about they're ready for a 4x5.
It's a slow, contemplative, thoughtful process that can actually help you produce the evocative images you're after. If you want give it a try sometime let me know. I'm in Corvallis a would be glad to give you a lesson on the techniques...
Looking forward to seeing the results of your next trip...
Pete
When most people reach the emotional level you're talking about they're ready for a 4x5.
It's a slow, contemplative, thoughtful process that can actually help you produce the evocative images you're after. If you want give it a try sometime let me know. I'm in Corvallis a would be glad to give you a lesson on the techniques...
Looking forward to seeing the results of your next trip...
Pete
As I see this entire new generation of photographers come to prominence I see far too many copy-cat, soulless, textbook images from the same places using the same techniques. Could it be that this era of mass-media, instant information and easy access is partially to blame for impeding the development of our own unique creative styles?
In my opinion, the above phenomenon is occuring because it is "relatively" easy to make text-book like images. After all the how-to has been explained a milliion times, modern photographic equipement is very capable and its also not impossible to get to most places these days. Creating original work, on the other hand, is hard and most attempts to do so will likely result in failure. In general people don't want to fail so its not surprising to see the path that is being followed. I don't have any answers as to how to go about creating original work. What I will say, however, is that I don't mind trying even if it means that my work has no mass appeal and is deemed a failure.
Peter Ziminski wrote:
When most people reach the emotional level you're talking about they're ready for a 4x5.
BTW, I don't buy into the theory that using a 4x5 camera will necessarily result in more evocative photography. No offense to anyone, but most LF based photographs that I have come across, specially on Internet forums, doesn't impress me.
I also disagree that the quest for evocative and powerful photographs is any reason to switch to Large Format. Two of my recent most powerful and more unique shots were made from the Summit Ridge of Iron Mountain in 40-mph winds. Allthough LF. does force the photographer to slow down, it can also greatly hinder creativity by forcing the photographer into being too selective. I'd rather just experiment and shoot a couple hundred images when I go out.
lots of right things you are mentioning here.
About copy-like photographs constantly coming up, there is, upon other reasons, a certain phenomena to blame: For all of you who live in N-America and have a professional career as Nature Photographers, you live in Paradise. I think there is no where in the world a bigger demand, a wider market and more money envolved in any kind of nature photography, than in the US. However, there is a certain downside to it: in the many, many publications about nature photography, you can read and reread the same (old) informations about what could, should be photographed and when and where. Outdoor Photographer f.e. runs at least once a year a kind of schedule of when a photographer should be where, if he wants to make the best out of his photography. Usually, all the lists that are circulating contain about 40 to 50 locations (99% of them being in the US). Imo, seeing so many new places even in viewing NPN alone – that's ridiculous at the face of it. (I’ve never ever read about when to be in the Alvord Desert f.e….) For those of us who are into this business for a couple of years, it just gives the feeling of being stuck in Punxatawny... No seasoned photographer gives too much attention to it (partly because of having been there, already), but many aspiring ones do!!! Therefore, they are all too often stuck in a never-ending loop, being happy about every “Mesa Arch at Sunset” – shot.
This is especially disappointing in times of digital photography, being able to experiment and judge results at the same time. (which I do also, with a little pocket-digi, btw.) However, I don't think this is a matter of a generation about to come up but already happened to all (me/us) others before, too. I even see very successful and widely known nature photographers building their career on not much more then repeating the ideas of others producing the same stuff year after year for decades. It is definitely possible to do so. We (Verena & me) f.e., knowing the right clients, could make sufficient money to make an easy living, by just shooting the samo o landscape icons in the same o light and comp as they have been shot 1000000000000x before. The medium of photography also makes it possible to copy things without even knowing it. I’m sure I have copied many shots somehow and I also shot lots of images just for the sake of knowing they will sell easily. But it always hurts me somehow, my life is better when being able to shoot just what I want in the way I want. Sadly, selling your photography is not about developing your unique style. Too often it is about the opposite. Therefore, as you have rightly stated, developing a new style (doesn’t have to be necessarily so new, but rather personal) is more about looking within yourself. Changing the way to approach a landscape/photography is a good thing and it will happen to you again and again. Sticking to a personal taste AS MUCH AS YOU CAN, which might be different, is often the single most challenging thing for a professional photographer, who wants to make a living with exactly his personal style. You do need a long (financial) breath. It's the harder climb, but when you get up higher, you'll have the wider horizon in front of you with lesser obstructions to spoil the view. It is fulfilling to stay authentic.
For a long time I had a little article that I cut out of a magazine, clipped to my PC (so I always see it and never forget) about the old mythological greek figure Prokrustes. He was a cruel bandit, lurking along a path and offering each who came along his bed. If you were willing to lay down in the bed and the bed was to small, he would cut off your legs to make it fit, or he would stretch you, until you would be tall enough to fit in.
Sounds cruelsome and brutal, but what does that have to do with it?
Nowadays it seems we are ruled by Prokrustesses no matter where we go or where we look. Behind every corner or waving at us from afar. Not thinking of any bad, we run straight into their arms. They want us to be all the same. 2/3 of the worlds population is listening to the same music, eats the same food, wears the same clothes and watches the same stuff on TV. It is not too far out to think that 2/3 of the human kind has more or less the same daily routine to go through, even thinks the same thoughts, wishes the same wishes, dreams the same dreams…
Prokrustes’ heirs still have us in his fangs. Only that the pain is felt by just a few.
georg
Guy
But is it really possible to elicit emotion from a landscape image? Your goal, as you wrote, “I want people to feel pictures, not just see.” Is it even possible?
I guess the question is: can the pristine (w/o the hand of man) landscape evoke emotion? Sure, images can be spooky, airy, spectacular, colorful … but they aren’t those just adjectives describing the image. If an image was truly spooky, shouldn’t you be haunted by that image? Shouldn’t you cower, shouldn’t your heart race, shouldn’t you get goosebumps? Part of the problem is that we cannot capture with a still camera all that makes up the landscape: a bitter cold wind, the sound of running water or birds, the smell of flowers, the warm rays of the sun, the buzzing mosquitoes. Landscape (ESS) photography is just visual. We are only stimulating one sense of many in our repertoire. We are distilling/flattening a 4 dimensional reality into a two dimensional image. We are disregarding all of our senses except one. And in that translation something is lost!
Now getting emotion in other genres of photography is quite possible. A wolf pack hunting down a wounded elk can surely elicit emotion; war documentary images can; a baby duck being taken from its mother by a gull. But these images are different; they allow us to feel, to relate, to convey our thoughts/experiences/emotions into the subject. We wonder why that elk should suffer so, or the hunger of the wolf, the pain of the soldier, the loneliness or confusion of the war orphan, the tearing of a maternal bond. With images such as these, we can disregard the negative aspects of that image and the rules that make a good photograph. The image can be gritty, the image can oof in the wrong places, just as we disregard some of our senses if we happened across the scene.
But how does a forest feel? Or a mountain? Or a waterfall? I don’t know.
How is it that those ultra wide, ultra grad-filter sunset shots get so popular anyway? Again, I do not know. But I can promise you, you won't see one from me.
Do I believe once you reach an emotional level you are ready for LF. NO, That is a crock in my opinion, emotions should always be there, I see LF images all over that do not impress me one bit, it is not a camera that brings emotions, its a person.
As for the mass of copycat images, etc. 1-It's because of technology. And, with that comes everyone buying cameras, why because you can view your images immediately. Experiment, and then publish! Believe me, if film was the only thing around, do you really think that photography would be as big as it is now? Photography has picked up because of technology, and with that comes a great amount of work. From all the same areas that are photographed. Locations get out, and then everyone goes there, why because the area is beautiful, and people want to see it, and photograph it, not feel it. Copy cat images are made, because of what we read, and see from those photographers whom are known. You have done it, I have done it, and I am sure many many others have. It's called beautiful areas! But, this does not mean that you cannot go into the wilderness, national or state park, and capture something unique. It's the person, and if they convey a message, then they have captured their image right. If you want to go into a place, stand in someone's footprints, and take a shot, then take it, will it be different, no, does it convey feelings, probably not. Can you learn from it? if not, then the image is just an image, not a piece of emotional art or photograph. It seems like these days photography is not about photography, it bickering about film vs. digital, not enought comments, identical location shots, and my favorite, the "icon" shot. That icon was shot probably alot longer than most of us have been photographing. Adams made areas popular, Fatali, Art wolfe, Zimmerman, Mark/Dave Muench, etc. they did to, and we follow, why, because they gave us insight on a remarkable place. I like being out there, feeling the area, seeing its beauty, and getting away from the masses of daily life. I love to get out into nature and hike for hours. I have done it most of my life. I was born and raised in WA state, lived in colorado for 12 yrs, and now reside in Missouri. I have hiked in numerous areas, mountains, etc. But, my parents took me, they always loved being outdoors, so I was always out there too. I now photograph, because I want to capture what I feel and what I saw, and hopefully in a great way, with wonderful lighting. If not, then I try again, but I do not worry about what others are doing, it is there thing, and congrats to you.
Your work is appealling to me, because of your locations. You put in the work, you trek into areas, which alot of people do not do, and we all know that for the most part, photographers really are lazy. (generalization) Hiking 5-10 miles to get to a place, is out of the question. They would rather pull up, get out the car, and capture it. I study my work for months, and alot of the times I post something, I will not like it later on, why, because the feeling I was trying to convey, really does not come through. I think it takes years and years to learn, some faster, some slower, it really depends on how much time you have and want to put into it. How much studying you do, how many times you revisit the same spot. Everytime you go, things will be different, light, mood, feeling! It is a life long journey, each day, each year, you learn something different, and each day and year, you see things differently. You may have visited a place 100 times, and that last time, you made your best image.
In the end, it's your work, and if it is done correctly, light, exposure, uniqueness, tells a story, and has emotion, then you have succeeded in capturing what you felt when you saw it. You seperate yourself, and you only. All the critiques, and comments have only a small effect on us as artists, it is you, your learning, and the way you feel and see things. Your emotions carry you, and your work is a portrait of your thoughts and feelings of a place.
PS- I am speaking in general, and not at anyone, also, sorry for typos, lol.
mike
Then there's the serious photographer side. Where it's about the challenge of getting your own shots. Its like a drug. The biggest high you'll ever get is the first time you've done it, then in order to match that high or a bigger one you either take in bigger doses or try something else. I believe the worst thing that can happen to the desire to create is falling into the trap of trying to please others. Please yourself first, then others will follow. Not everyone will like it, and that's fine. It's your name on the piece. no one elses and that's what matters.
I ramble and probably not writing cohesively. I'm waiting for a call and kind of scattered today. Adios.
I disagree that a 2-dementional image of "A wolf pack hunting down an Elk" can evoke any more a human emotion than an image like my "Storm Wall" can evoke the powerful, ominious feeling of an impending storm. A War photograph cannot bring the war to us as a viewer any better than a landscape photograph can bring the landscape to us, so I don't understand the argument that one type of photography is better than another at evoking emotion. When I look at the work of Eric Fredine, I am immediately transported to the place which feels peaceful and lonely to me - that is evoking emotion. Lots of landscape photographs can do similar. That said, I obviously agree that a photograph cannot convey all 5 senses accurately, so there is always something lost.
"But how does a forest feel? Or a mountain? Or a waterfall? I don’t know." - That's exactly what I'm saying. Maybe when I go out into nature I'm not always trying to document it, but rather create an image that not only depicts the subject matter but impresses upon it a little something more. Many of my recent images - take "Isolation" for example, were taken in/of nature but are not documentary. I believe I was able to bring the sensation of lonely, quiet, peaceful, ethereal, removed, etc. to the viewer more than a simple snapshot of the scene ever could have. This is an evocative quality that not all images have. A photograph of Mesa Arch sunrise is less likely to leave me with any additional mood to contemplate. Sometimes that's just fine, sometimes I think you can find a little something more to think about.
That was just my experience because of what I'd gone thru in my life. maybe for others, they have lived different lives and relate to other things on that level emotionally like grasses blowing in the wind. one man's crap is another's gem, and vice versa. and that's all good.
When I view Marc's grand landscape images I can relate to their content (they make me feel small and in awe of the majesty and enormity of the scene) but also to the graphical arrangement. I'm attracted to certain colors (as we all are, probably as a response to ancient meanings we may not even be aware of), to the lines (which my curious mind tries to follow and interpret), textures and patterns, some of which we can relate to other sensory stimuli etc.
An image can be successful and inspire for content or for graphics or for both. Dare we declare one more important than the other?
I have long decided that my images can't ever tell the full story of their coming into existence or the thoughts and emotions that went into them. I try to distill fleeting moments, flashbacks, essential meanings out of the whole experience that I'm hoping others can relate to. If you want to know the story you need to read my journals (or my mind) or have me tell it to you. The image can evoke emotion in multiple ways but it's a glimpse, not an epic. It portrays, it doesn't explain.
Guy
I do not believe that one type of image is particularly better at telling the story all by itself. For that you always need to look further than a photograph can take you.
Will, I can agree that hate, love, lust, whatever appeal to the basic core of all human emotion, as Guy points out, in a way that an aesthetic/graphic image never could. I just don't think that an image of war puts us any closer to war than an image of landscape puts us any closer to the landscape.
On my trips to my old home I photograph old buildings, places where I experienced significant events or where I shared time with loved ones. These will be utterly meaningless to anyone but me.
By the same token the same images Richard described that could bring tears to your eyes were cause for great celebration in some parts of the world.
Some things are more ubiquitous in their appeal and in my mind you will be hard pressed to find many who do not appreciate the beauty of a sunset or a blooming field. If anything these are the least subjective elements in our repertoire.
Guy
True Guy - but the emotions for this act are completely evident. It was done out of hatred (and a cause for rejoice in some) but it was still an act of hate.
And love is love regardless how twisted it can be.?! (i'd like to add that this is not a reflection on your love for the things you shoot Guy)
But maybe it's me. Believe me, I adore this amazing and diverse home of ours. I get the warm fuzzies, or a sense of majesty, or whatever (fill-in-the-blank). But I just don't get a gut emotional response from many landscape images, the responses tend to be more cerebral.
Bingo Guy. That's why an icon is an icon and why sunset and flower shots are so popular. Nothing is every guaranteed but they are more likely than other subjects to get the wow reaction from someone who isn't deep into photography and seen the standard Mesa shot a million times. That's also why comps are copied - they've been tested on the public and they work. I think it's important to be on the same page with regards to the aim and the audience. If you shoot for personal pleasure then shoot whatever turns you on and enjoy the ride. If you shoot to sell commercially then you'd be smart to take shots that reflect Guy's points about subject, colour and graphic elements. They will be shots that will appeal to the majority of viewers. That's not to say innovation isn't important and new style isn't always in demand but being at the sharp end of that business can be like trying to hit the bull's eye with a blindfold on - good luck to you. I know pros that consciously take time to satisfy both needs. Balance is the secret.
It may not be directly related, but it does bring up some similar points that are being discussed here..
You and Will (see 'The Next Level' post this week) have brought up some fantastic thought provoking questions with your two posts. All of us here have a natural appreciation for the beauty in nature or we wouldn't be here. Yet there are some photographers in this community that are true visionaries and are able to transform the 'emotions' we all feel in nature into a 2 dimensional medium. I think we all strive to be like you, because we all feel the same emotions and want to share our passion for being in the natural world. We want others to understand us and our passion for nature through evocative photographs that we make. This is the medium we have all discovered that best allows us to share these emotions and experiences. And we want others to be able to experience these emotions like we have, even if they couldn't be there in person. Your recent post 'Winter's Fury' made an impact on me because I thought to myself 'Now that is masterpiece because it transports me into the mountains where I can experience the 'feeling' of a blast of wind on an exposed mountain ridge in the wilderness.' I wasn't there. But deep down I can feel that blast of wind battering me around when I look at that image. Later that night I wrote down a list of some of the emotions I feel when I go out into the wilderness and will carry that list with me from now on. And I will constantly ask myself "What am I 'feeling' when I explore this scene?" And what do I hear? Am I cold? Am I lonely? Am I at peace? Am I scared? I want to strive to photograph the 'emotions' I feel in the wilderness and capture the 'integral elements' of a wilderness experience. How can I portray the cool breeze that finally blows down the slot canyon at dusk as the heat of the day is ending? How do you evoke the 'sound' of that rustling wind? Or the psychological feeling of warmth I feel as the gold light of the sunrise touches me on a snow covered mountain in winter, when at that moment it is really the coldest time of the entire day? Or the buffeting powerful wind that spreads out from the base of a waterfall and covers us with mist? Or the delicacy of frost on the meadow grass that instantly melts when the sun touches it? These are the integral elements we both see and feel when we are attuned to the natural world around us. If we are successful in photographing the 'emotion' of being there, we will have succeeded as artists. And other people as well as the natural world will benefit through the connection we have shared.
Maybe I am fortunate that I am not a pro photographer, so I can shoot what I want and put all of my effort into images that inspire me artistically, rather than worrying about what will sell. But when I look back at the great photographers of all time, they became successful and were able to turn pro because they had vision and could connect with an audience and their photographs had a story to tell or showed us the world in a new and exciting way. New compositions of a famous scene aren't going to be enough. We should all strive to marry our own unique vision of the wilderness with the edge of what is possible in our chosen artistic medium.
And as a last point, I would suggest that the moderators make this and Will's post permanent pillars to the NPN experience. These are the kinds of questions we should all ask ourselves a few times a year.
With all things too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I think that for those learning exploring common techniques or compositions can help in the learning process. I know I've been guilty of this in the past. Learning different techniques helps provide a range of tools to master capturing my photographic vision. Photography for some is just mimicing style while for others its a means to discovering your own. These days if I have an image compared to another photographer (even one I respect) I actually get a bit peeved. I really do strive these days to capture something original even if it is a commonly photographed subject.
My conversation today went even further discussing the role forums play... not just the exposure to images and styles, but the feedback (received and given). Some feedback is helpful, but I'm finding most feedback is less about the artistic achievement or vision and more about "technical masturbation" (excuse my French
I've begun to question what I'm bringing to forums such as this let alone getting. I've become much too critical on individual things and that has detracted from my ability to enjoy the vision photographers are presenting. In addition as I look at well known photographs from photographers most of us look up to I catch myself falling into the same behavior.
This begs the question... when does the exposure transition from helping you grow to impeding growth? I suppose its different for each person, but it something I've become increasingly sensitive to this year.
"WE ALL TAKE PICTURES TO COMMUNICATE WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN OUR LIVES. MOST OF US CARRY AROUND IMAGES OF OUR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN, OUR VACATIONS, AND THE UNUSUAL SCENES WE'VE WITNESSED BECAUSE PICTURES SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. WE SENSE THEIR SYMBOLIC POWER TO COMMUNICATE WHAT IS MEANINGFUL IN OUR LIVES AND TO VALIDATE THE IMAGERY IN OUR MEMORY BANK OF LIFE, AS IF THE IMAGE ON PAPER IS SOMEHOW A PART OF US.
HUMANITY IS ALL THE BETTER WHEN CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS SUCCEED IN COMMUNICATING THEIR LIFE'S MOST IMPORTANT VISIONS INTO THE MINDS OF OTHERS. I'VE MADE A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO FOCUS THE GREAT MAJORITY OF MY LIFE'S WORK TOWARD MY OWN BRAND OF PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY, IN WHICH I ACTIVELY CREATE IMAGES TO REFLECT MY OWN DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH NATURE OR WITH CHOSEN PARTNERS ON MY OWN ADVENTURES"
-GALEN ROWELL
I agree and both threads are now on the "Archived Topics" list where they will not expire.
Guy
Interesting topic! I agree with your stated goal, however I have a
different suggestion on how to possibly achieve it. In my opinion, the problem is not
the lack of looking inward towards finding your "vision" but lack of
looking outward, perhaps, with a truly open mind.
Part of the problem is ego, I think. ( I'm just speaking about all of us,
in general ). A person has to look past their own prejudice, past
preconceptions, past habitual behaviour, in order to have an open mind. It
would make sense that more accomplished a person is in their own "style"
the more difficult it might be to change.
I would suggest that the problem most people have in "seeing" or relating
the unfolding events in front of them, is similar to listening as opposed
to hearing. Why are we such poor listeners? Part of the reason we listen so
poorly, is that we hear so well and think so quickly, often turning our
attention inward. I would expect "vision" is the same thing.
In an experiment I witnessed one time, increasing people's ability to
listen, a speech was recorded, as a digital file. People were tested on
their comprehension as a famous text was played at the normal speech rate.
Then they were exposed to another text, at twice the normal rate. Then
another three times, four times, six times the normal rate. Up until the
speech rate was so fast, that people couldn't comprehend it anymore. What
was interesting was as the speed increased (up to a much higher rate) so
did people's comprehension of what was being said, at least up to a much
higher level. They had to concentrate on just what was being said, nothing
else.
At a normal rate of speech our mind wanders, we start to finish the
sentences ahead of the speaker, we start to formulate our own ideas,
perhaps a rebuttal. (Perhaps many people are doing that, right now, as they
read these words?) We can hear and understand at a much faster rate than
people can normally speak.
It's hard work to really listen. However if we remove all distractions and
really focus on just what we are hearing ( think of being in the woods,
hearing an unsettling sound , and totally stop and really listen) it
becomes obvious right away that we can listen very , very well.
I believe, in a similar way , if one removes all the distractions, as listed above, then one
can really develop their sense of vision. In my opinion putting up
prerequisites such as beauty, evocative, and uncommon before even
venturing out will hinder our sense of vision ( in an artistic sense ) in my opinion, sometimes.
Of course I know I'm a little different. I take about 99% of my images in
my own backyard and to most people they are really nothing special. However
the inability of these everyday subjects to look interesting is not their
fault , I just haven't done my best to relate my sense of wonder in the
little part of the world I live in.
Thanks, Tim
When we want to listen to somebody, we would ask them to repeat themselves whenever we've been too inattentive. In the same way, we return to a location numerous times because we know that we weren't using our senses carefully enough the time before to really gain understanding. Once we've visited a subject enough, we have a list of feelings and ideas gained through experiencing it, and we can ponder them to determine which ones we would like to relate through our photography.
Another idea that connects with listening is how we listen less when we have the feeling that we've heard something before. How carefully will you listen to someone telling you what happened at a ball game they went to, when you've already heard the recap on ESPN? In the same way, will you really be paying close attention to all your surroundings in a place you've already seen a thousand pictures of? If we are somewhere we've seen photographed many times, we had better double our efforts to be aware of what's going on outside.