"I came across your name in the latest issue of Pop Photog, where I was amused by the note saying that you gave up a real job for one as a nature photographer. (My singular thought: "Yeah, right--another wannabe trying to break into a hopelessly competitive profession.)
So, I went to your website to be further amused, and instead I was knocked out of my chair. I've been shooting nature myself for almost 40 years, and I spent my entire career as Editor of _____ magazine evaluating and publishing some of the best nature photography in the world, and I must say that it's been a long, long time since I've been as impressed with anyone's work as I was with yours. The quality of light just makes me gasp."
Then this email followed:
"Your work is derivative and populist. Your compositions are safe, your use of colour extravagant, and your subjects predictable. Your photos are memorable only as long as the page is open - there is no depth here"
These two emails really re-inforce for me that what others think of your work matters little because photography is sooooo subjective. More and more I am getting the message that we just need to be true to ourselves, to shoot for what please us and represents our inner vision. If the results speak to other that is a bonus.
So rather than think "I am great" or I suck" after reading these emails, I just am more pumped to shoot for me because lately I really feel the images I am making are representative of what I felt when I pressed the shutter button. I think that is what really matters. Darwin
Posted by Larry Puckett on July 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Darwin--I agree with number 1, your photos are jaw dropping. However, I don't intend to give up my day job--I'm too close to retirement at this point to start over. When I see photos that have been heavily photoshopped and doctored to achieve a certain kind of look I sometimes wonder whether the photographer is an artist or a computer technician. For me the goal of photography is to make the ordinary look extraordinary, but not artificial. Keep challenging the rest of the community with your high level work--Larry
Posted by Bill Chambers on July 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Really, I think this goes far deeper than just photography. In today's world where you are expected to sacrifice all in the name of being a "team player", I find it increasingly paramount to please yourself (your conscience) first and foremost. Others will hang you out to dry and loyalty (especially corporate loyalty) is becoming a thing of the past. Shoot for yourself and don't worry about the peanut gallery.
While I understand the purpose of the first email, what was the purpose of the second email? Why did this person feel the need to even send the email?
One day I hope my work is as "derivative and populist" as yours.
Jeff
Posted by David Bostedo on July 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I was thinking exactly like Jeff was...
Posted by Mia McPherson on July 21, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Darwin,
Once upon a time I was concerned about what other people thought of my images, and I would find myself stressing about it. Easily photography could have become a pain in my rear end. What is a joy could have become "work" and that could have sucked my passion dry.
One day I just decided that I was going to shoot images my way, which involves a certain degree of intimacy with my subject matter.
That intimacy may provide some viewers with a sense of being there, right along side me (in the mud, the sand, the water). Other people may not feel that connection, but that certainly isn't my "fault". They may not connect with that part of nature or perhaps they have very little understanding about the subject matter or how much work it took to get the image.
I also put aside preconcieved notions of what pose looks best, and what settings are acceptable and allowed myself to become more creative in mind & spirit.
I'm shooting images for myself and if some one likes them, that is wonderful, if they don't, that is ok too.
These two emails really re-inforce for me that what others think of your work matters little because photography is sooooo subjective. More and more I am getting the message that we just need to be true to ourselves, to shoot for what please us and represents our inner vision. If the results speak to other that is a bonus.
It would be difficult--nay, impossible--for me to overstate how much I agree with this sentiment.
Over the course of the last 18 months I've started exhibiting prints in a broad number of venues in the Chicago and Indianapolis areas and I've been told many times by people how they're "blown away" by my work; I haven't received any direct negative reviews but I'm sure the many people who regard my work as "derivative and populist" have been too polite to mention it to me personally. But either way, I really try not to overemphasize the importance of the metaphorical newspaper clippings. Both the positive and the critical are, after all, just opinions, no more valid than my own and while I do try to consider them (again, both pro and con), it's just to see whether I agree with them (and if so, apply them in the future) or not (and if so, disregard them).
Opinions are, by definition, subjective; they can't be right or wrong. If constructive, they can be helpful. Even if they're not constructive, they need not be harmful if they're considered with the right attitude. And, regardless, when it comes to photography (and all art, I'd argue), the opinion that is by far the most important is that of the artist himself/herself. I'd much rather be producing imagery that I love and everyone else in the world hates than vice versa.
Darwin, first let me say that I am with #1 and have admired your work for years. Secondly, photography is subjective, as is all art. I have seen art critics swoon over some painting that I think is just lines on paper and I can't make heads or tails out of it.
While I ask for critique here and elsewhere and I am honored when someone buys a print of mine, I still basically shoot for me. The enjoyment of the creative process and the interaction with nature that facilitates it is more important than pleasing the masses. I have also noticed that some are overly critical basically to 1. show how smart they are and 2. are jealous of us.
So, I agree, shoot for yourself. Besides by shooting for yourself you will be more creative and show your inner vision more and ultimately, be more successful.
There is a definite advantage to maintaining an "amateur" status with your photography. You really have nobody you have to please except yourself.
Not that the same motivations don't underlie professional photographers either, but yes, you definitely need a thick skin when you put your work out for public consumption.
I agree with Ed with regard to the motivation of the guy who sent that 2nd e-mail. Why bother sending it to you? What's the point? To chop down someone who is obviously extremely talented (great stuff Darwin), in order to make him/herself feel better?
Darwin, it proves out in the end with all the positives one obtains from doing this art form. Like most things in life, it is extremely subjective. My point is, how many images do people sell or receive positive feed back on that were not on their own personal top 10 list? It happens all the time, hence the point of subjective peaks and valleys one receives. However, amongst the subjective and for unknown reasons certain types find it completely necessary to seek out & comment the negative in an attempt to enhance self worth from it, sadly.
Darwin, you should be proud of what you do, as the rest of us also. I am learning as I grow in this field that if others like what I shoot, great. If not, so be it. I don't pick up my camera and go off into nature because I want to please someone else. The intimacy with the land or a subject is all I need to be happy. My camera, a simple tool, is a way to capture the moment and hopefully allow myself and other (if possible) to enjoy something outside of the four walls of their home.
Your sharing of the emails alone, in my opinion, tells me the connection you feel whenever you push the shutter. At the end of the day, that is what truly matters. Life is too short to not enjoy what we do.
Thanks Darwin, keep up the excellent work. I DO enjoy it.
Darwin, that was a real emotional peak and valley those two e-mails put you through. I had my epiphany about such subjective opinions earlier this year and am much happier now. All the statements above, by our fellow photog enthusiasts, explain the reason we have the passion. Each speaks to that truth in his/her own way. But taken as whole, what matters to me is: trust your inner self and the Spirit that moves it; savor your passion, as well as the critical acclaim when it comes; take whatever of the critique leads you to some thoughtful reflection about work and reject that which is more cutting than honestly critical. E-mail #2 was from a bully who needs to feel superior.
Your photography is wonderful and certainly inspires me. And I consider it a great moment when you comment on an image of mine. So keep up your nice, safe, populist/derivative and "shallow" photography! I always look forward to seeing it!
I think in terms of my mirror rather than my skin. Crappy attitude reflects on the source, as does a good attitude. In both cases, I get a bright clear picture of the individual. Sorry if they're having a bad life, but it's their problem and not yours.
Posted by Richard Wong on July 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Regardless of what people think of your photography, it is rude to email the photographer unsolicited to offer such a criticism. Since you're being true to yourself and earning a living from it, then what others think is meaningless unless you feel there is something to be learned from it.
One has to feel remorse for a person who harbors so much resentment and venom. Actually, let me take this back, one doesn't really have to feel anything about such a person. You're a bigger man just by virtue of acknowledging such a missive.
"You can calculate the worth of a man by the number of his enemies, and the importance of a work of art by the harm that is spoken of it." --Gustave Flaubert
I was not upset nor even offended by comment #2 (I have heard that numerous times before!) and comment #1 was really nice to get (who does not like praise?). I just posted these emails not for sympathy or validation of my work but simply to show what gets reinforced to me on a daily basis, that art should be created from within and not be created with others in mind - it seems many of you agree with this philosophy and that helps make NPN a great place to hang out. Darwin
Darwin, you do have a great attitude about comment #2. I'm guessing the sender of that one probably doesn't have an article and photos in the current issue of Popular Photography, but maybe they would like to.
While I greatly value the comments form the great folks here when I do post a photo. I do it all for me and if I am happy with a photo thats all that matters.
Darwin... yes you should be incredibly ashamed of your incredibly over-the-top unmemorable photographs! NOT! You rock man! If we shoot to please our vision first then mabey others will appreciate it as well. Great post by the way!
John
I think your mindset is right on. I photograph to please myself. The extent to which I care about others' opinions is proportional to the thoughtfulness of their comments - critical, flattering or otherwise.
WOW! I was not aware Marc was being attached by cowards who don't even have the guts to stand behind their critiques! Incredible! This is just a drive-by smear campaign by small-minded people. Now that is offensive! Probably the same person is behind my email number 2.
I just can say that I like the work of Darwin and Marc a lot. I also learned a lot from both. Darwin explained how to use Orton technique for example and Marc always gave helpful critiques on my images posted on NPN. I think people can have different thoughts on an image and if they don't like it they can say it but they do not have to hurt people when doing so. Darwin and Adam just keep doing what you both are doing so well creating wonderful images.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on July 22, 2008 at 10:44 AM
The comments you posted here Darwin are easy to accept or dismiss and you have the perfect perspective and attitude toward them. The comments posted on Marc's site are another story and have crossed the line of opinion into something else altogether.
The author of those comments seems to be frustrated that his mom and dad kicked him out of the house at an early age. But judging from his rants it's entirely understandable why they did!
Posted by Richard Wong on July 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Truly sickening comments on Marc's site. Glad that the comments were removed.
"Your work is derivative and populist. Your compositions are safe, your use of colour extravagant, and your subjects predictable. Your photos are memorable only as long as the page is open - there is no depth here"
OK, but I'd REALLY love to see what this person considers a great landscape image.
It's probably something I wouldn't consider hanging on my wall, for free.
Regarding the comments on Marc's site, it's quite obvious who the poster is and his motivation. A sad story of someone passionate about his photography and obviously driven to succeed, but currently very frustrated and envious of others' successes.
Managed to read the comments on Marcs site - man, that was really disturbing! I never saw so much hatred against a photographer. Keep in mind that this was based only on his photos , not his actions, attitude or behavior. Edit: by that I mean that makes that guy even more "evil".
I like one particular aspect of the internet over all else. Can't do it very well in real life, but obnoxious emailers can be listed with your spam filter, and POOF! They're gone. I have to say that if feels really, really good to consign them to the trash heap where they belong.
As long as my clients are happy with my photographs and I am happy with my photographs, all is well within my world of photographs. I never cared when a fool typed a diatribe when I wrote a weekly personal column for daily newspapers and don't care when I get that type of feedback from photography.
If I respond in any way at all, it's to politely say I hope the e-mailer feels better now, having gotten their hate off their chest, and to go lay down by their bowl because their comments have no importance to me. Then I drop them into the black hole of my spam filter.
While I dismiss the hate mails, I DO bask in the praise mails. Partly just because it makes me feel good to do that, but I also reply to all the praise mails because those are prospective clients, and in my experience the hate mailers never will be.
Posted by Stefan Ganev on July 22, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Darwin, you do extremely well what you do, and this is reason for respect at first place. Being true to yourself is one more reason for respect. Not everyone is expected to like your "type of music", but sending unsolicited email that dismisses all your successes does not make sense. It would be a different story if you asked for opinion. I would love to hear that my photography is derivative or uninteresting in other ways (which is quite possible) with an explanation why - if it is given on my request for critique and/or by someone I have reasons to consider their opinion credible and valuable. Just curious, did emailer#2 identify him/herself or was it anonymous?
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on July 22, 2008 at 11:51 PM
What is most disappointing is that Darwin and Marc are two of the most generous people with their photographic knowledge around. I've learnt a lot from those two and found them to be very inspirational.
Truly sickening comments on Marc's site. Glad that the comments were removed.
Yes, but it might also be useful to know that the post's "facts," such as they were, were wrong. As I recall from a quick look before the posts were deleted, this idiot thought there was something wrong with living with your parents. If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what Art Wolfe did for a number of years while he was establishing himself. In a brutally competitive field, I'd say that's sensible. I believe the poster also said something about Galen Rowell not using wide-angle lenses with close objects in the foreground? Are you kidding me? And finally, what was that nonsense about Marc not being a climber? Climbing got Rowell into photography, and resulted in some amazing images, but I think even Rowell said many of his best images required no feats of athleticism, just a good eye. It's photography we're talking about, after not, not biathalon.
Of course, if my memory has failed me on what the poster actually wrote, perhaps he should step forward, identify himself, and provide the correct quotes.
In regards to "derivative and populist" - I would suggest that every photographer has shot "derivative and populist" images. How in the world else would we learn what we are doing. And once we get better at it, we are going to show those images. And once we have bettered our skills doing it, we are going to have the knowledge and skill to get those images NOT defined as "derivative and populist". Geez, I guess we are not suppose to shoot ANYTHING that has been shot by someone before!! HAHAHAHA!!!!
Troup Nightingale
Posted by Basil Greber on July 26, 2008 at 4:37 AM
Darwin - Your shots make "populist" a nice thing to say. I'd gladly be taking populist images after seeing yours. But it seems that so far, mine are sub-populist.
For those who asked, the second email was anonymous received out-of-the-blue - the sender used a gmail address that was cryptic. I did not respond - no point.
Regarding Marc's attacher(s) - it was just cowardly and immature - anyone like Marc who is producing world class work will get one day get attached by the insecure and jealous - that is just human nature.
Discussion
36 replies"I came across your name in the latest issue of Pop Photog, where I was amused by the note saying that you gave up a real job for one as a nature photographer. (My singular thought: "Yeah, right--another wannabe trying to break into a hopelessly competitive profession.)
So, I went to your website to be further amused, and instead I was knocked out of my chair. I've been shooting nature myself for almost 40 years, and I spent my entire career as Editor of _____ magazine evaluating and publishing some of the best nature photography in the world, and I must say that it's been a long, long time since I've been as impressed with anyone's work as I was with yours. The quality of light just makes me gasp."
Then this email followed:
"Your work is derivative and populist. Your compositions are safe, your use of colour extravagant, and your subjects predictable. Your photos are memorable only as long as the page is open - there is no depth here"
These two emails really re-inforce for me that what others think of your work matters little because photography is sooooo subjective. More and more I am getting the message that we just need to be true to ourselves, to shoot for what please us and represents our inner vision. If the results speak to other that is a bonus.
So rather than think "I am great" or I suck" after reading these emails, I just am more pumped to shoot for me because lately I really feel the images I am making are representative of what I felt when I pressed the shutter button. I think that is what really matters. Darwin
One day I hope my work is as "derivative and populist" as yours.
Jeff
Once upon a time I was concerned about what other people thought of my images, and I would find myself stressing about it. Easily photography could have become a pain in my rear end. What is a joy could have become "work" and that could have sucked my passion dry.
One day I just decided that I was going to shoot images my way, which involves a certain degree of intimacy with my subject matter.
That intimacy may provide some viewers with a sense of being there, right along side me (in the mud, the sand, the water). Other people may not feel that connection, but that certainly isn't my "fault". They may not connect with that part of nature or perhaps they have very little understanding about the subject matter or how much work it took to get the image.
I also put aside preconcieved notions of what pose looks best, and what settings are acceptable and allowed myself to become more creative in mind & spirit.
I'm shooting images for myself and if some one likes them, that is wonderful, if they don't, that is ok too.
It would be difficult--nay, impossible--for me to overstate how much I agree with this sentiment.
Over the course of the last 18 months I've started exhibiting prints in a broad number of venues in the Chicago and Indianapolis areas and I've been told many times by people how they're "blown away" by my work; I haven't received any direct negative reviews but I'm sure the many people who regard my work as "derivative and populist" have been too polite to mention it to me personally.
Opinions are, by definition, subjective; they can't be right or wrong. If constructive, they can be helpful. Even if they're not constructive, they need not be harmful if they're considered with the right attitude. And, regardless, when it comes to photography (and all art, I'd argue), the opinion that is by far the most important is that of the artist himself/herself. I'd much rather be producing imagery that I love and everyone else in the world hates than vice versa.
While I ask for critique here and elsewhere and I am honored when someone buys a print of mine, I still basically shoot for me. The enjoyment of the creative process and the interaction with nature that facilitates it is more important than pleasing the masses. I have also noticed that some are overly critical basically to 1. show how smart they are and 2. are jealous of us.
So, I agree, shoot for yourself. Besides by shooting for yourself you will be more creative and show your inner vision more and ultimately, be more successful.
Cheers,
Ed
Not that the same motivations don't underlie professional photographers either, but yes, you definitely need a thick skin when you put your work out for public consumption.
I agree with Ed with regard to the motivation of the guy who sent that 2nd e-mail. Why bother sending it to you? What's the point? To chop down someone who is obviously extremely talented (great stuff Darwin), in order to make him/herself feel better?
When I grow up, I want to be "derivative and populist" like you.
Your sharing of the emails alone, in my opinion, tells me the connection you feel whenever you push the shutter. At the end of the day, that is what truly matters. Life is too short to not enjoy what we do.
Thanks Darwin, keep up the excellent work. I DO enjoy it.
Brad
Your photography is wonderful and certainly inspires me. And I consider it a great moment when you comment on an image of mine. So keep up your nice, safe, populist/derivative and "shallow" photography! I always look forward to seeing it!
Peace and good light to you.
"Charity is for free, but enviousness has to be earned".
So, take the second mail as a proof that you achieved something with your photography.
"You can calculate the worth of a man by the number of his enemies, and the importance of a work of art by the harm that is spoken of it." --Gustave Flaubert
Guy
I was not upset nor even offended by comment #2 (I have heard that numerous times before!) and comment #1 was really nice to get (who does not like praise?). I just posted these emails not for sympathy or validation of my work but simply to show what gets reinforced to me on a daily basis, that art should be created from within and not be created with others in mind - it seems many of you agree with this philosophy and that helps make NPN a great place to hang out. Darwin
While I greatly value the comments form the great folks here when I do post a photo. I do it all for me and if I am happy with a photo thats all that matters.
Bruce
John
I think your mindset is right on. I photograph to please myself. The extent to which I care about others' opinions is proportional to the thoughtfulness of their comments - critical, flattering or otherwise.
WOW! I was not aware Marc was being attached by cowards who don't even have the guts to stand behind their critiques! Incredible! This is just a drive-by smear campaign by small-minded people. Now that is offensive! Probably the same person is behind my email number 2.
Darwin
The author of those comments seems to be frustrated that his mom and dad kicked him out of the house at an early age. But judging from his rants it's entirely understandable why they did!
OK, but I'd REALLY love to see what this person considers a great landscape image.
It's probably something I wouldn't consider hanging on my wall, for free.
Regarding the comments on Marc's site, it's quite obvious who the poster is and his motivation. A sad story of someone passionate about his photography and obviously driven to succeed, but currently very frustrated and envious of others' successes.
If I respond in any way at all, it's to politely say I hope the e-mailer feels better now, having gotten their hate off their chest, and to go lay down by their bowl because their comments have no importance to me. Then I drop them into the black hole of my spam filter.
While I dismiss the hate mails, I DO bask in the praise mails. Partly just because it makes me feel good to do that, but I also reply to all the praise mails because those are prospective clients, and in my experience the hate mailers never will be.
Here, Here!
And I think Guy's post is spot on as well.
Yes, but it might also be useful to know that the post's "facts," such as they were, were wrong. As I recall from a quick look before the posts were deleted, this idiot thought there was something wrong with living with your parents. If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what Art Wolfe did for a number of years while he was establishing himself. In a brutally competitive field, I'd say that's sensible. I believe the poster also said something about Galen Rowell not using wide-angle lenses with close objects in the foreground? Are you kidding me? And finally, what was that nonsense about Marc not being a climber? Climbing got Rowell into photography, and resulted in some amazing images, but I think even Rowell said many of his best images required no feats of athleticism, just a good eye. It's photography we're talking about, after not, not biathalon.
Of course, if my memory has failed me on what the poster actually wrote, perhaps he should step forward, identify himself, and provide the correct quotes.
Troup Nightingale
Basil
Regarding Marc's attacher(s) - it was just cowardly and immature - anyone like Marc who is producing world class work will get one day get attached by the insecure and jealous - that is just human nature.
Darwin