The other day I was wandering aimlessly through another individual's personal site looking at some rather ordinary landscape and nature photograply, reading the comments left behind by previous lookers. The comments were very complimentary as each image was well conceived, composed, and the technicals were right on the money. Then I came to realize that I had seen the same Joshua Tree photographed against the same blue sky background from the same angle a thousand times before. The lightning strikes were spectacular, just like the million lightning strikes photographed before them. The Painted Buntings were exactly like every good Painted Bunting photograph I had ever seen. This person, arguable a damned good photographer, had stood in some of the very places photographed by AA and taken images of the same scenes. Well, when AA did it nearly a century ago it was unique and fresh (at least to some extent), but I've seen the images a thousand times. Still the same rocks. Still the same trees. Usually not in the light that the master was so great at capturing.
Has all original thought been done? Are we now just imitators of the masters that pioneered our art? How do we bring fresh ideas into an art where at times it seems like it has all been done before us? I am partial to photographing sunrises and sunsets; very much concidered to be a cliche among our ranks. Each one brings something different, more or less spectacular, but from the perspective of one who does not share my passion, they blur into one image with no defining detail. Pretty purple, orange, yellow and blue colors in a sky over some non-descript, unimportant bit of land or sea. Here I go on a quest to find something original, not just the run of the mill view of another Short Billed Dowitcher...
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 2, 2006 at 10:46 AM
You touch on something that seems to "drive" me. I like to say my images might not be any good, but they are different. Several months ago I took a first ever trip to Pennsylvania. I wanted to see the famous Horseshoe Curve at Altoona, one of the "icons" of railroad photography. I got there on my "free" afternoon and it was an impressive place. However, I was having trouble coming up with a shot I hadn't already seen a thousand of. I never even turned my camera on. I went out into some small towns and took a few shots of NS trains rumbling through that I've not seen anywhere instead. Near dusk I went back to Horseshoe Curve to see it one more time. All the other photographers had gone. I could see how the train headlights would light up an old engine on display once it was completely dark. I realized that was my shot! It's the only shot I took there, and I'm happy with it. I've not seen anything like it from anyone else on the many RR photo forums. I've come to think that few photographers like to take photos at night, partly because they're not familiar with it and partly because they just don't think to. This is an example of how I avoid the cliche' myself--take shots in places no one else goes and at times no one else thinks of.
I have some thoughts on this topic here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0703/dw0703-1.html
and here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0305/dw0305-1.html
not sure if I have any real insights other than you will find your own vision if you shoot from 'within' rather than shoot to emulate what has been done before us. Darwin
Posted by Randy Beacham on August 3, 2006 at 1:12 AM
Kelly, our planet is a pretty darn large place, throw in the fact that it is dynamic and not static, ie. wildfires burn, shorelines erode, glaciers melt, etc.
If you look at every place as unique and avoid falling into the "I must shoot elk along the madison in september, aspens in colorado the first week of october, zion np the first week of november, so on and so on, I don't think there's really a problem with creativity and nature photography. I must admit though that I'm somewhat dismayed by how many people seem to follow in other's footsteps these days, as well as dismayed at how unimaginative I think the majority of madia outlets are these days.
I listened to a little of the lenswork blog with Brooks Jensen and he brought up some good points--creativity is not simply when you click the shutter but in how you work the image afterwards, how you put together and present your work, etc.
I have decided to spend half ot the next twenty years or so focusing on one ecosytem per year, working on a series of "a year in the life of" projects. This has me very excited and I just don't worry about creativity or how fresh a subject may be.
Here's a funny thing--last fall I spent 4-5 days photographing in Kootenay National Park, which is in British Columbia and is adjacent to Banff, just on the western side of the conitnental divide. I had a great time. The strange thing however was that in all that time I never once saw anyone with another tripod out. If I had headed down the divide into Banff I may have seen more tripods than wildlife though Randy
Posted by Randy Beacham on August 3, 2006 at 9:09 AM
I just wanted to add that if you want to see fresh and unique images just check out the posts in ES & S right now Randy
Posted by Randy Beacham on August 3, 2006 at 9:33 AM
Well, now I just listened to The Decisive Landscape Moment that Guy referenced. Excellent points, I think nowadays many people have developed a sort of seize and conquer mentality, where we have an agenda when planning trips without leaving time for those decisive moments. I think photo workshops can really fall into this trap when you have a list of places to visit within a few days time and the tour leaders want to give clients their money's worth. Randy
Kelly - - Maybe YOU, but not ME.
Don't use "we" unless you are speaking for everyone.
- - - Not sure if I should comment on this or not as I have no problem coming up with new ideas for new subjects and places to shoot. And the only reasons I can think of why others can't do the same is that they either do not know enough about photography, or they just are not of the creative nature, and should be trying some other interest. - - Not everyone is creative, just like not everyone spells very good, (why I would be lost without spell catcher) but I feel that those who can not create, COPY others who can. It doesn't matter one bit if you know all of the rules of composition, if you can't put them to use, and not everyone can. Someone in the family tells them they are good and not really knowing what "good" is, they believe it and think that every publisher should be knocking at their door. When that doesn't happen they start copying other people's work to try to prove they are as good as Aunt Gerty says they are, instead of trying some other interest that they can do better. - - Photography has a ratio of 10,000 no-talent, wanta-bees for every 1 with any real talent, and todays stock rates prove exactly that with people who will sell their images for a few bucks just to say they were published. They still produce crap, but it makes them feel like a real photographer.
Randy - - Yes this is a large planet, but I have found several images of mine came out having been shot from the same spots as AA and others, even though none of them were ever planned, and I never even knew it until years later when I saw an image of theirs. Many places just demand to be shot from the same areas, and at other times I would say that some people just think alike, so it is natural for their images to come out a lot alike. I have also seen several of my images shot by other well known photographers from the exact same spot, but AFTER mine were made. That would be cool to say that they copied my work, but that's not very likely. At least not from back then. Now maybe, as I have told a lot of well known photographers about little-known places of interest to shoot, along with samples from there, but even if they go there I doubt that they will be looking to do the same shots i did.
It sounds like you have an axe to grind. Just because a subject is as common as dirt doesn’t mean it’s not worth the time of day. I guess I look like the turnip that just fell of the truck for saying this, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I share your feelings - most of the images I see on display are just the same things done over and over again. More than the subjects themselves, its the almost identical treamtment that I find to be the biggest let down.
...And the only reasons I can think of why others can't do the same is that they either do not know enough about photography, or they just are not of the creative nature, and should be trying some other interest....
This is why I am thinking about giving up photography for good.
- - - Anil - - - In case you might have missunderstood what I was talking about I should add this,,,
I was talking mainly about people who think they can make a living and become world famous from their work just because they took a few good shots, or at least their friends said they did. They buy a fancy new camera, and have read a few books, and have been shooting for about a year, and they think they know all the need to know to make it big, when in reality they hardly know anything about photography, let alone making money from it. MOST people will take decades to refine their work to where it will be noticed, and even very talented people can take years to get a start. The biggest mistake most of them make is to think they can get into the market after only a year or so of taking pictures, and they don't want to take the time to learn the craft.
If you like taking pictures, then there is no reason to give it up. Just spend your time learning, and forget about the rest of it until you do learn how to become worth noticing. If you never make a sale, at least you may still have a lot of images for yourself and family to enjoy. If you give it up, then you also loose that.
...Just spend your time learning, and forget about the rest of it until you do learn how to become worth noticing. If you never make a sale, at least you may still have a lot of images for yourself and family to enjoy. If you give it up, then you also loose that.
Paul: I am not interested in taking photos for myself and the family to enjoy. At least not with a 6x7 camera (for something like that I can very well manage with a tiny point-n-shoot digital). So I really don't have much to loose in this dept. You mention that I should spend my time learning (until I learn how to become worth noticing). What is this learning that you speak of? Also, what are you exactly refering to when you say "worth noticing"? Do you feel that your work has reached a point where its been noticed?
BTW, I tried following the Portfolio link at the bottom of your post and it seems broken. Is there any way to see some of your work on-line? Thanks.
Anil- - - I don't know your work so I don't know what you know, but I am talking about learning what makes a good image, a salable image, and an image that is beyond just a snapshot. That means not just the tech part of taking a picture, (how to properly expose & such) but everything that comes from the creative side, called "Seeing." You may alrady have that, but from your other post where you were about to give up, I was guessing that you are lacking something in the craft. I have no idea what since, as I said, I do not know your work.
- - - By "worth noticing" I was talking about images that a buyer would notice and think about using.
I have worked with publishers for over 30 years and I can tell you that if an image is not strong enough to be noticed, which means a person stops at that image and keeps looking at it longer and starts thinking about possible uses for it, then those images are passed over so fast that you wouldn't even know they even existed. Again, I am talking about buyers and publishers here, not the next door neighbor. - - - Example; magazine covers are picked for one reason and one reason ONLY, and that is to stop you in your tracks and make you want to pick it up. NOTHING else sells a magazine except the cover, and the cover has to be something that catches your notice so that you do not just keep going and look at all of the others on the rack. - - (Todays photo magazines have become an exception with all of the ad crap they have on every cover to kiss the butts of their advertisers, but then those ads are what pays for 75% of the magazine cost, and why photo subscriptions are so much cheaper than all other magazines.)
- - My work has been getting publishes since the mid 1970s, so I guess a few people have noticed it.
As for the link, that is not my area. That's an NPN matter that you'll have to see Jim about.
Thanks for the helpful tips, Paul. I now see what you mean. I will try harder and hopefully one day my work will rise beyond being casual snapshots and get more than just my closest friends excited about it.
Guy, thanks for pointing me to Paul's portfolio. He has some good stuff on there.
Regards.
Posted by Becky Wolfe on August 7, 2006 at 9:09 PM
I have to agree with you Kelly. In nature photography, we do tend to see the same sorts of images over & over. And I have to admit I get bored looking at them some days even tho they are technically superb. And yet, if I compose an image like that, then I feel compelled to share it with someone because it is a standard that has been set before me as to what is considered 'good photography'.
So I have to disagree with Paul slightly, coming from someone who is working thru the photography process, the way I am learning the technical stuff is by copying what has come before me...for the moment. It doesn't mean I don't have my own creativity, but as I focus on HOW TO MAKE pictures, I want to see a scene that I've seen before & see if I can achieve it to some standard first. If I'm satisfied with my skill on achieving what has already been proven as good, THEN I can take that knowledge & apply it to my own style or creativity...which as a new photographer, I am still defining, still learning & still trying. Which is the reason I'm here.
Fortunately, I don't live near an area where 'every shot has been taken before' by someone important but themes & styles still run the the same. 'Golden light on mountain peak' can be beautiful or boring, no matter who takes the pic, just cuz its cliche.
I have to admit that I get all giddy when I see a new scene of an old barn to photograph or a gnarly old dead tree, and I KNOW they are cliche shots... but who cares. They will always be one of my fave things to shoot.
Posted by Stacy Egan on August 8, 2006 at 10:42 AM
I can resonate with some things Becky was saying. I suspect the truly original work comes from those with the talent and many years of passioned experience. But myself...I'm one of those that is new to photography and see beautiful work here I'd like to emulate (admittedly). I think by emulating work we admire, we learn. But I realize there is advancement beyond this phase that I'm in, advancement that with continued striving and passion about photography, and continued growth and experience, lead hopefully to more original work. I also think original work is a result of boredom with the typical, and the ability to see and manifest something else. I'm not there yet, and that's okay. I'm having a great time with it, even though I don't have aspirations to be a "professional".
Becky - Stacy - - -
I can understand where you are both coming from,
BUT,
I think that you are missing the point of HOW you learn photography,
or should I say, how you create good and better than good images.
You DO NOT learn by copying or emulating other people's work,
no matter who the other people are.
YES, you do use their work, but ONLY to study.
NOT to copy.
YOU learn how they did what they did to get that image looking the way it does,
and then you use that knowledge when doing your own work.
Copying someone else's image teaches you NOTHING,
if you don't know how they did it, and once you do know HOW they did it,
then what good does it do you to making a copy of theirs?
You can read all of the books in the world on photography,
but learning photography still only comes down to two lessons.
You first learn how to make a correct exposure.
Then you learn how and what makes a good composition, with that correct exposure.
Everything else in photography is nothing but leaves on those two branches.
When you have learned those two things, then you "study" (not copy) other photographers work and see how they applied each to their images. As you learn how others have done it, you will then know how to do it with your own images,
and you won't have to have copied anything, from anyone.
- - - I have taught a lot of people in the past, and the ones who started out the way several here say they do by "emulating" someone else, they take a lot longer to learn the craft than those who just worry about learning the steps first, and only then go on to the "creating" part of it.
You can't run until you first learn how to walk,
and you can't learn how to walk until you know HOW others do it.
In this case that is just two steps away.
Paul, thank you for your eloquent and instructive words. I'm going to have to give what you say more thought, to maybe try to shift my thinking. I'm certainly willing to give your advice a try. I have a particular habit of thinking, from many years of working as a scientist/engineer, that tends to look for formulas and algorithms for solving problems. Though I have heard that photography is an artistic and creative pursuit, I admittedly tend to use a more formula way of thinking about photography. I see my mind glombing on to aesthetic "rules" as I study other's work, such as: longer exposures make moving water look soft, water is great for reflecting the sky's color and/or clouds (better yet if the clouds have color!), or the better light is in the dawn or dusk hours, or clouds can make for a more interesting image than plain blue sky, it's often compositionally more interesting to place your focal point according to the "rule of thirds", or keep your compositions simple (remove unwanted clutter as you compose), etc. I guess this is what I mean when I say "emulate"...study other's work, make note of what kinds of techniques/choices of time of day, exposure, composition, and yes, filters, make an image look good to me.
But yeah, I have to be honest in that I also mean "emulate" in a "copy" sense of the word as well. When I see a beautiful ocean or lake scene, where gorgeous sunset or sunrise cloud color is reflected, I find myself thinking, "oooh, I want to try a shot like that!". This is the kind of attitude I hope to grow beyond, and I expect I would, once I've "been there done that". (Of course this may be a while since I don't live near any oceans or lakes.)
But your words, Paul, do give me food for thought...about making sure I more thoroughly understand the basics of exposure and composition before getting so caught up in all the other "aesthetic rules".
Posted by Becky Wolfe on August 9, 2006 at 9:57 AM
Paul - I think you're over-reading into the term 'copy' in this subject. Its not like we 'newbies' are searching for that exact tripod position that world famous 'blah blah' photographer stood so I can create the exact same image. Its more like, I see what they created & I want to try & achieve that same standard. Not copy the exact same image. I learn from studying what has come before me, like Stacy says, I look at what has been proven as good, and try to create something of the same standard in a way that has already been proven as good. That's why we post the exif data in here - I want to learn what settings someone else used for a shot that I admire & that others have obviously admired. As I learn, I want to try & make all the shots that have come to be accepted as good to help me further in my learning process. Once I achieve that particular shot, I move on & try another style I haven't tried before. I don't really care that I'm not unique YET because I'm still learning. And I'm really enjoying the way I'm learning, especially in a place that's as helpful & encouraging as this!
- - - This will be my last reply here as I have to go in for an operation in the morning.
Don't know when I will be back.
- - - Stacy - - NO, NO, NO, NO, Hell NO!!!
You can not learn photography with "formulas."
This is not rocket science where you have to balance weight, to thrust, to get lift-off.
It is an "artistic" craft where EVERY image is different, thus you have to learn the basics first
in order to know what to use later in each situation.
Filters, lenses, ASA settings, shutter speed, etc. are all a part of the exposure branch.
Rule of 3rds, angles, shadows, reflections, etc. are all a part of the composition branch.
Now there are some of these, like lens choice, that will fit into both areas,
but they are all still just the tools you need to learn first in order to use them correctly
for the creative process.
It's like people who bake wedding cakes.
It doesn't matter one bit how many other beautiful cakes they see.
If they don't first learn how to mix the ingreadients, they will never be able to create a good one themselves.
Photography is nothing but mixing the tools and techniques in order to get the result you want.
There can be no formula for it as each and every subject and location conditions are different,
which with common sense tells you that no formula could ever cover each and every one of them,
and it would be nothing but a waste of time trying to find one.
If anyone does not think that this is correct, then just take a look at all of the photo workshops that people PAY to attend. They ALL do nothing but first teach you how to make correct exposures, and next how to put together a good compostition in the viewfinder. Everything else is nothing more than going out and showing you how to use all of those things and putting them together to get a good image.
You find yourself saying;,,, "oooh, I want to try a shot like that!" which for most people usually means to try to copy it as closely as possible.
The only trouble with that way of thinking is that NO ONE can ever create the same shot someone else has.
At least almost never. To recreate a shot just like someone else has would require that EVERY condition for it would have to be exactly the same. The same lighting. The same angle. The same weather. And to a degree, even the same equipment, and post processing used. Since that will never happen, then all you can do is use what you have learned, on the subject you have to shoot. I always tell students to NEVER use another persons work for anything except to study and see what they did to make it work, and that also includes what they did NOT do. A good image results as much from what you do not do, as it is what you do, and those are the only parts they should be studying in other people's work.
One of my B&W images from Canyon de Chelly is a lot like one done by Ansel Adams a lot earlier, but I never knew it until years after I took it. (you can see it on page-2 of my portfolio) Even if I had had a copy of AAs picture with me and found the exact same spot to stand in, (which I was close to that day) I still could not have gotten a shot that looked like his because EVERYTHING would have been different after several decades had gone by. Trees grow and others die, weather is never the same, the ground weathers away. In fact I have been to many famous locations years after the images were made there, and 90% of them didn't look much like the pictures of them.
Bottom line is that the odds are so much against anyone making an image that looks like a well known one that it is a waste of time even trying. So why bother? Spend that time learning it the right way, and that'll also be faster.
Becky - - - All of what I said above, plus - - -
I have found over the many past years that MOST people DO try to copy well known photographers work, thinking that if they can do that then they are talented photographers on their way to being a pro. They don't have a clue about the creativity that went into it. They learned how to use a few techniques to make a good copy, but not much else. Then when it came to actually making something new of their own, they are lost. All they ever paid attention to, and all they ever learned was how to "copy."
You "look at what has been proven to be good," but what does that teach you when it comes to WHAT made it good in the first place? On page-1 of my portfolio is a sand dune shot at sunset. It is filled with shadows from front to back. This shot was used in one of my articles on creating depth in an image, but if a person has not learned how to use shadows in a composition in order to create a 3-D feeling of depth, then just looking at this shot will not teach you that. All a person will see is an image full of shadows. You have to learn the two basics first, before you can see how they work in other images, and how you can later use them yourself. How can you learn from "what has come before" you, if you first haven't learned what made that a good shot?
I'll say this until the day I die; "You cannot learn by just looking at what someone else has done."
You have to learn WHAT they did so that you can then understand HOW they used that technique.
Once you know WHAT and HOW, then you can use that to create your own images and style.
I also tell people not to waste a lot of time with who used what settings.
I never keep exposure records, and many top pros in know don't either.
As William Neill once told me, he never keeps exp. records because it interfiers with his creative process.
I never keep them because when you come right down to it, they are only good for that one shot they were used on. If you are out on a hilltop and take a shot at 125th @ f/16 and I go to that spot an hour later I am not going to use the same settings as yours, so why bother to record it? In fact if you went there the next day you would probably not use it again either. So what's the point of even bothering with them?
Too many people make a big mistake of worrying about what someone else used, instead of what they NEED to use in their own situation then and there.
The only times I keep tack of exposure times is when shooting something like waterfalls that I want to have a special effect with, but experiance will record that info in your brain, so records are a waste of time. All other recorded settings are pretty much meaningless. Every single part involved in taking a picture determines the exposure setting, and for you to use the same setting as someone else did would mean that you would have to have the exact camera and lens they used, with the same becnhmarks, under the same conditions and lighting, and same film batch processed at the same time at the same place, (to name just a few variables). So, if I can't use the same settings as someone else used, then it seems stupid to me to even waste my time with them.
And AGAIN, that also comes right back to "copying" what someone else did.
or whatever you wish to call it.
In the end, the truth is that, creativity is a personal thing!
It can not be copied from others.
New ideas, yes, creativity, NO!
What is the truth anyway?
Are you a person dreaming that you are a butterfly,
or are you a butterfly dreaming that you are a person, dreaming that they are a butterfly?
- - - from my old "Hippy" days - - -
Posted by Becky Wolfe on August 9, 2006 at 2:44 PM
I think I'll just agree to disagree & leave it at that
Posted by David Taylor on August 9, 2006 at 4:13 PM
The good thing about photography is that you don't have to know anything about it to take
an image that will cause a positive reaction! You can do almost everything wrong techically, and still produce an image that people will appreciate for having that 'je ne sais quoi'. Conversely, you can know everything there is to know, technically, about photography and produce images that are stultifyingly boring and cliched. My pet hate is images of waterfalls
that have the falling water blurred by a slow shutter speed to ostensibly portray a feeling of movement. It has become so cliched it is unbelievable, IMHO. Trying something new (to you)
every day applies to photography as in everyday life, not forgetting 'there is nothing new under the sun...'
Posted by Kiliii Yu on August 13, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Hey everyone,
Thought I'd add a thought here. We're all nature photographers, are we not?
I started doing nature photography for one majro reason: to connect me to the natural world more deeply and in a more substantial way. Photographing a mole makes me search for moles, learn about their burrows and tracks, and will give me the patience to watch them for many hours. Photography gives me the energy to rise before dawn to listen to the early morning song chorus so I will be at my spot when dawn breaks. It makes me look closer at the living things in our world that are not immediately useful (i.e. edible, medicinal).
Connecting to all of this is a deeply spiritual practice, and for me, photography, as most everything else is for me, is about one thing, "How do I live my life?" I try not to think, "What did I accomplish?"
We change everyday. Our values change, our goals change. The one thing that makes life living is the set of moments that we experience.
I will keep shooting nature photography as long as it draws me it deeper into life and the living world. If it starts to impede my ability to be where I am, I'll lay down my lenses.
Good discussion, everyone!
Posted by Stacy Egan on August 13, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Well said, Kiliii. I've been learning more about the natural world, too, through nature photography, and that's great!
Yes, I believe so more often then not. I'm certainly guilty of them. There are exceptions always however, Anil's work being one of them (Rocks `n Stones comes specifically to mind). I think there's more to discover if we are willing to truly look. If I didn't feel this way, I'd give up now. It does not help though that we applaud cliche's.
Posted by Doyle Thomas on August 20, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Any discovery or idea independently arrived at is no less legitimate than the original thought.
Isaac Asimov
Posted by Bill Stice on August 21, 2006 at 1:32 PM
A lot of great comments above. I understand that many folks take photographs to show them to others for their approval. Obviously I show some of my work to others as well and enjoy any feedback, good or bad. My personal approach to this is slightly different however. I take photographs for myself. My greatest challenge is improving my own photographs. I often return and re-photograph the exact same subject dozens of times. Each time I am looking for something that I feel speaks to me. It really doesn't matter to me if it is a common mallard duck, Yaki Point at the Grand Canyon, or the middle of a wilderness area where no one has ever stepped before. My goal is the same. For that reason I don't consider any photo I take as cliche. I am in photography to please myself first. If others like what I take great but photography and art in general is so subjective that there is room for all photos. Have I taken a lot of images that others think are cliche or actually foolish ( I have a series of photos of slugs and have been kidded about them)? The answer is yes. Have I enjoyed taking them as much as the ones that others think are great? Usually. It is all about what you get out of it.
Discussion
27 repliesHas all original thought been done? Are we now just imitators of the masters that pioneered our art? How do we bring fresh ideas into an art where at times it seems like it has all been done before us? I am partial to photographing sunrises and sunsets; very much concidered to be a cliche among our ranks. Each one brings something different, more or less spectacular, but from the perspective of one who does not share my passion, they blur into one image with no defining detail. Pretty purple, orange, yellow and blue colors in a sky over some non-descript, unimportant bit of land or sea. Here I go on a quest to find something original, not just the run of the mill view of another Short Billed Dowitcher...
I think you will enjoy this Lenswork blog:
http://www.lenswork.com/lwpod.htm
Click on The Decisive Landscape Moment.
Guy
Kent in SD
and here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0305/dw0305-1.html
not sure if I have any real insights other than you will find your own vision if you shoot from 'within' rather than shoot to emulate what has been done before us. Darwin
If you look at every place as unique and avoid falling into the "I must shoot elk along the madison in september, aspens in colorado the first week of october, zion np the first week of november, so on and so on, I don't think there's really a problem with creativity and nature photography. I must admit though that I'm somewhat dismayed by how many people seem to follow in other's footsteps these days, as well as dismayed at how unimaginative I think the majority of madia outlets are these days.
I listened to a little of the lenswork blog with Brooks Jensen and he brought up some good points--creativity is not simply when you click the shutter but in how you work the image afterwards, how you put together and present your work, etc.
I have decided to spend half ot the next twenty years or so focusing on one ecosytem per year, working on a series of "a year in the life of" projects. This has me very excited and I just don't worry about creativity or how fresh a subject may be.
Here's a funny thing--last fall I spent 4-5 days photographing in Kootenay National Park, which is in British Columbia and is adjacent to Banff, just on the western side of the conitnental divide. I had a great time. The strange thing however was that in all that time I never once saw anyone with another tripod out. If I had headed down the divide into Banff I may have seen more tripods than wildlife though
Don't use "we" unless you are speaking for everyone.
- - - Not sure if I should comment on this or not as I have no problem coming up with new ideas for new subjects and places to shoot. And the only reasons I can think of why others can't do the same is that they either do not know enough about photography, or they just are not of the creative nature, and should be trying some other interest. - - Not everyone is creative, just like not everyone spells very good, (why I would be lost without spell catcher) but I feel that those who can not create, COPY others who can. It doesn't matter one bit if you know all of the rules of composition, if you can't put them to use, and not everyone can. Someone in the family tells them they are good and not really knowing what "good" is, they believe it and think that every publisher should be knocking at their door. When that doesn't happen they start copying other people's work to try to prove they are as good as Aunt Gerty says they are, instead of trying some other interest that they can do better. - - Photography has a ratio of 10,000 no-talent, wanta-bees for every 1 with any real talent, and todays stock rates prove exactly that with people who will sell their images for a few bucks just to say they were published. They still produce crap, but it makes them feel like a real photographer.
Randy - - Yes this is a large planet, but I have found several images of mine came out having been shot from the same spots as AA and others, even though none of them were ever planned, and I never even knew it until years later when I saw an image of theirs. Many places just demand to be shot from the same areas, and at other times I would say that some people just think alike, so it is natural for their images to come out a lot alike. I have also seen several of my images shot by other well known photographers from the exact same spot, but AFTER mine were made. That would be cool to say that they copied my work, but that's not very likely. At least not from back then. Now maybe, as I have told a lot of well known photographers about little-known places of interest to shoot, along with samples from there, but even if they go there I doubt that they will be looking to do the same shots i did.
Pete D. over and out (for a week).
I share your feelings - most of the images I see on display are just the same things done over and over again. More than the subjects themselves, its the almost identical treamtment that I find to be the biggest let down.
...And the only reasons I can think of why others can't do the same is that they either do not know enough about photography, or they just are not of the creative nature, and should be trying some other interest....
This is why I am thinking about giving up photography for good.
I was talking mainly about people who think they can make a living and become world famous from their work just because they took a few good shots, or at least their friends said they did. They buy a fancy new camera, and have read a few books, and have been shooting for about a year, and they think they know all the need to know to make it big, when in reality they hardly know anything about photography, let alone making money from it. MOST people will take decades to refine their work to where it will be noticed, and even very talented people can take years to get a start. The biggest mistake most of them make is to think they can get into the market after only a year or so of taking pictures, and they don't want to take the time to learn the craft.
If you like taking pictures, then there is no reason to give it up. Just spend your time learning, and forget about the rest of it until you do learn how to become worth noticing. If you never make a sale, at least you may still have a lot of images for yourself and family to enjoy. If you give it up, then you also loose that.
Paul: I am not interested in taking photos for myself and the family to enjoy. At least not with a 6x7 camera (for something like that I can very well manage with a tiny point-n-shoot digital). So I really don't have much to loose in this dept. You mention that I should spend my time learning (until I learn how to become worth noticing). What is this learning that you speak of? Also, what are you exactly refering to when you say "worth noticing"? Do you feel that your work has reached a point where its been noticed?
BTW, I tried following the Portfolio link at the bottom of your post and it seems broken. Is there any way to see some of your work on-line? Thanks.
- - - By "worth noticing" I was talking about images that a buyer would notice and think about using.
I have worked with publishers for over 30 years and I can tell you that if an image is not strong enough to be noticed, which means a person stops at that image and keeps looking at it longer and starts thinking about possible uses for it, then those images are passed over so fast that you wouldn't even know they even existed. Again, I am talking about buyers and publishers here, not the next door neighbor. - - - Example; magazine covers are picked for one reason and one reason ONLY, and that is to stop you in your tracks and make you want to pick it up. NOTHING else sells a magazine except the cover, and the cover has to be something that catches your notice so that you do not just keep going and look at all of the others on the rack. - - (Todays photo magazines have become an exception with all of the ad crap they have on every cover to kiss the butts of their advertisers, but then those ads are what pays for 75% of the magazine cost, and why photo subscriptions are so much cheaper than all other magazines.)
- - My work has been getting publishes since the mid 1970s, so I guess a few people have noticed it.
As for the link, that is not my area. That's an NPN matter that you'll have to see Jim about.
Not sure why the link doesn't work, but Paul's portfolio can be seen here.
Guy
Guy, thanks for pointing me to Paul's portfolio. He has some good stuff on there.
Regards.
So I have to disagree with Paul slightly, coming from someone who is working thru the photography process, the way I am learning the technical stuff is by copying what has come before me...for the moment. It doesn't mean I don't have my own creativity, but as I focus on HOW TO MAKE pictures, I want to see a scene that I've seen before & see if I can achieve it to some standard first. If I'm satisfied with my skill on achieving what has already been proven as good, THEN I can take that knowledge & apply it to my own style or creativity...which as a new photographer, I am still defining, still learning & still trying. Which is the reason I'm here.
Fortunately, I don't live near an area where 'every shot has been taken before' by someone important but themes & styles still run the the same. 'Golden light on mountain peak' can be beautiful or boring, no matter who takes the pic, just cuz its cliche.
I have to admit that I get all giddy when I see a new scene of an old barn to photograph or a gnarly old dead tree, and I KNOW they are cliche shots... but who cares.
I can understand where you are both coming from,
BUT,
I think that you are missing the point of HOW you learn photography,
or should I say, how you create good and better than good images.
You DO NOT learn by copying or emulating other people's work,
no matter who the other people are.
YES, you do use their work, but ONLY to study.
NOT to copy.
YOU learn how they did what they did to get that image looking the way it does,
and then you use that knowledge when doing your own work.
Copying someone else's image teaches you NOTHING,
if you don't know how they did it, and once you do know HOW they did it,
then what good does it do you to making a copy of theirs?
You can read all of the books in the world on photography,
but learning photography still only comes down to two lessons.
You first learn how to make a correct exposure.
Then you learn how and what makes a good composition, with that correct exposure.
Everything else in photography is nothing but leaves on those two branches.
When you have learned those two things, then you "study" (not copy) other photographers work and see how they applied each to their images. As you learn how others have done it, you will then know how to do it with your own images,
and you won't have to have copied anything, from anyone.
- - - I have taught a lot of people in the past, and the ones who started out the way several here say they do by "emulating" someone else, they take a lot longer to learn the craft than those who just worry about learning the steps first, and only then go on to the "creating" part of it.
You can't run until you first learn how to walk,
and you can't learn how to walk until you know HOW others do it.
In this case that is just two steps away.
But yeah, I have to be honest in that I also mean "emulate" in a "copy" sense of the word as well. When I see a beautiful ocean or lake scene, where gorgeous sunset or sunrise cloud color is reflected, I find myself thinking, "oooh, I want to try a shot like that!". This is the kind of attitude I hope to grow beyond, and I expect I would, once I've "been there done that". (Of course this may be a while since I don't live near any oceans or lakes.
But your words, Paul, do give me food for thought...about making sure I more thoroughly understand the basics of exposure and composition before getting so caught up in all the other "aesthetic rules".
Don't know when I will be back.
- - - Stacy - - NO, NO, NO, NO, Hell NO!!!
You can not learn photography with "formulas."
This is not rocket science where you have to balance weight, to thrust, to get lift-off.
It is an "artistic" craft where EVERY image is different, thus you have to learn the basics first
in order to know what to use later in each situation.
Filters, lenses, ASA settings, shutter speed, etc. are all a part of the exposure branch.
Rule of 3rds, angles, shadows, reflections, etc. are all a part of the composition branch.
Now there are some of these, like lens choice, that will fit into both areas,
but they are all still just the tools you need to learn first in order to use them correctly
for the creative process.
It's like people who bake wedding cakes.
It doesn't matter one bit how many other beautiful cakes they see.
If they don't first learn how to mix the ingreadients, they will never be able to create a good one themselves.
Photography is nothing but mixing the tools and techniques in order to get the result you want.
There can be no formula for it as each and every subject and location conditions are different,
which with common sense tells you that no formula could ever cover each and every one of them,
and it would be nothing but a waste of time trying to find one.
If anyone does not think that this is correct, then just take a look at all of the photo workshops that people PAY to attend. They ALL do nothing but first teach you how to make correct exposures, and next how to put together a good compostition in the viewfinder. Everything else is nothing more than going out and showing you how to use all of those things and putting them together to get a good image.
You find yourself saying;,,, "oooh, I want to try a shot like that!" which for most people usually means to try to copy it as closely as possible.
The only trouble with that way of thinking is that NO ONE can ever create the same shot someone else has.
At least almost never. To recreate a shot just like someone else has would require that EVERY condition for it would have to be exactly the same. The same lighting. The same angle. The same weather. And to a degree, even the same equipment, and post processing used. Since that will never happen, then all you can do is use what you have learned, on the subject you have to shoot. I always tell students to NEVER use another persons work for anything except to study and see what they did to make it work, and that also includes what they did NOT do. A good image results as much from what you do not do, as it is what you do, and those are the only parts they should be studying in other people's work.
One of my B&W images from Canyon de Chelly is a lot like one done by Ansel Adams a lot earlier, but I never knew it until years after I took it. (you can see it on page-2 of my portfolio) Even if I had had a copy of AAs picture with me and found the exact same spot to stand in, (which I was close to that day) I still could not have gotten a shot that looked like his because EVERYTHING would have been different after several decades had gone by. Trees grow and others die, weather is never the same, the ground weathers away. In fact I have been to many famous locations years after the images were made there, and 90% of them didn't look much like the pictures of them.
Bottom line is that the odds are so much against anyone making an image that looks like a well known one that it is a waste of time even trying. So why bother? Spend that time learning it the right way, and that'll also be faster.
Becky - - - All of what I said above, plus - - -
I have found over the many past years that MOST people DO try to copy well known photographers work, thinking that if they can do that then they are talented photographers on their way to being a pro. They don't have a clue about the creativity that went into it. They learned how to use a few techniques to make a good copy, but not much else. Then when it came to actually making something new of their own, they are lost. All they ever paid attention to, and all they ever learned was how to "copy."
You "look at what has been proven to be good," but what does that teach you when it comes to WHAT made it good in the first place? On page-1 of my portfolio is a sand dune shot at sunset. It is filled with shadows from front to back. This shot was used in one of my articles on creating depth in an image, but if a person has not learned how to use shadows in a composition in order to create a 3-D feeling of depth, then just looking at this shot will not teach you that. All a person will see is an image full of shadows. You have to learn the two basics first, before you can see how they work in other images, and how you can later use them yourself. How can you learn from "what has come before" you, if you first haven't learned what made that a good shot?
I'll say this until the day I die; "You cannot learn by just looking at what someone else has done."
You have to learn WHAT they did so that you can then understand HOW they used that technique.
Once you know WHAT and HOW, then you can use that to create your own images and style.
I also tell people not to waste a lot of time with who used what settings.
I never keep exposure records, and many top pros in know don't either.
As William Neill once told me, he never keeps exp. records because it interfiers with his creative process.
I never keep them because when you come right down to it, they are only good for that one shot they were used on. If you are out on a hilltop and take a shot at 125th @ f/16 and I go to that spot an hour later I am not going to use the same settings as yours, so why bother to record it? In fact if you went there the next day you would probably not use it again either. So what's the point of even bothering with them?
Too many people make a big mistake of worrying about what someone else used, instead of what they NEED to use in their own situation then and there.
The only times I keep tack of exposure times is when shooting something like waterfalls that I want to have a special effect with, but experiance will record that info in your brain, so records are a waste of time. All other recorded settings are pretty much meaningless. Every single part involved in taking a picture determines the exposure setting, and for you to use the same setting as someone else did would mean that you would have to have the exact camera and lens they used, with the same becnhmarks, under the same conditions and lighting, and same film batch processed at the same time at the same place, (to name just a few variables). So, if I can't use the same settings as someone else used, then it seems stupid to me to even waste my time with them.
And AGAIN, that also comes right back to "copying" what someone else did.
or whatever you wish to call it.
In the end, the truth is that, creativity is a personal thing!
It can not be copied from others.
New ideas, yes, creativity, NO!
What is the truth anyway?
Are you a person dreaming that you are a butterfly,
or are you a butterfly dreaming that you are a person, dreaming that they are a butterfly?
- - - from my old "Hippy" days - - -
an image that will cause a positive reaction! You can do almost everything wrong techically, and still produce an image that people will appreciate for having that 'je ne sais quoi'. Conversely, you can know everything there is to know, technically, about photography and produce images that are stultifyingly boring and cliched. My pet hate is images of waterfalls
that have the falling water blurred by a slow shutter speed to ostensibly portray a feeling of movement. It has become so cliched it is unbelievable, IMHO. Trying something new (to you)
every day applies to photography as in everyday life, not forgetting 'there is nothing new under the sun...'
Thought I'd add a thought here. We're all nature photographers, are we not?
I started doing nature photography for one majro reason: to connect me to the natural world more deeply and in a more substantial way. Photographing a mole makes me search for moles, learn about their burrows and tracks, and will give me the patience to watch them for many hours. Photography gives me the energy to rise before dawn to listen to the early morning song chorus so I will be at my spot when dawn breaks. It makes me look closer at the living things in our world that are not immediately useful (i.e. edible, medicinal).
Connecting to all of this is a deeply spiritual practice, and for me, photography, as most everything else is for me, is about one thing, "How do I live my life?" I try not to think, "What did I accomplish?"
We change everyday. Our values change, our goals change. The one thing that makes life living is the set of moments that we experience.
I will keep shooting nature photography as long as it draws me it deeper into life and the living world. If it starts to impede my ability to be where I am, I'll lay down my lenses.
Good discussion, everyone!
Yes, I believe so more often then not. I'm certainly guilty of them. There are exceptions always however, Anil's work being one of them (Rocks `n Stones comes specifically to mind). I think there's more to discover if we are willing to truly look. If I didn't feel this way, I'd give up now. It does not help though that we applaud cliche's.
Isaac Asimov