stepping back
Quite often I leave comments on images by my friends, some I know in real life, and some are still ‘virtual’ acquaintances. But I’ve reached a point where I’ve seen what they’ve been producing for at least six months now. It occurred to me the other day when I wrote an email and told someone what I thought of their overall style, their photography as a body of work and as an outlet for their own personality, that it’s much more revealing to step back and consider it as more than individual pictures.
Even if you aren’t trying to produce a cohesive project as such, or develop a particular style, and just shoot from week to week to please yourself, there’s still a lot to be seen from looking at the stuff both as a whole, and also as a stream, a line of progression in time. Some people have started out with basic snapshots and honed in on a more polished, possibly more commercial aesthetic, others began with a natural eye for composition and then steered away from the stock site/Photography Monthly/camera club type of work.
It’s made me think a bit more about my own photography, and how I have progressed over the last year since I went digital. I have no doubt in my mind that I have progressed, because I’m at that stage where I’m still getting to grips with the technical issues. But now I’m wondering if I’ve been sucked into the slick, polished, saturated flickr style rather than following my own vision. I need to go beyond that, and develop my own visual language. I’ve been defensive over the need to attack that which is so obviously attractive to the masses simply for the sake of going against the fashion, but at the same time it can be sickly sweet in vast quantities, and leave you wanting something more substantial. Looking back at my own pictures over the year I can see hints of something else trying to come through, but I could really do with the ability to be entirely objective – yet at the same time, keep my own feelings in mind so that I can be slightly more conscious about what I want to try to put across. Has anyone found any ways to help achieve something similar?
P.S. There is a group on flickr called “the co curators resource” which I’m tempted to take a shot at, but it is something that would take quite a bit of time and effort.
Interesting thoughts. I was just discussing this with my wife today. The struggle to find self. I browse a few photo blogs and find some are quite good, others are not so good. When I look over my body of work, I see that the vast majority are of grand landscapes such as mountains, beach, and sky.
I love wide open spaces and prefer to have a lot of negative space in my photos. It’s rare that I will fill the frame, instead opting to let the viewer image the scope of the image by leaving objects purposely small.
I don’t know that I do this with the viewer in mind, but more of, that’s the way that I see it. Occasionally, I feel myself drifting off course. This usually happens when I see a photograph, or series of photographs that are not in my usual list of subjects, I’m impressed by them, then I try it out. This is usually short lived and I soon find myself back to the vast open skies! :-) An example would be macros. I like them sometimes, but usually revert back to my wide open spaces.
I guess we all vacillate, from time to time, as we try to listen to the inner voice and find our direction.
Interesting thoughts. I was just discussing this with my wife today. The struggle to find self. I browse a few photo blogs and find some are quite good, others are not so good. When I look over my body of work, I see that the vast majority are of grand landscapes such as mountains, beach, and sky.
I love wide open spaces and prefer to have a lot of negative space in my photos. It’s rare that I will fill the frame, instead opting to let the viewer image the scope of the image by leaving objects purposely small.
I don’t know that I do this with the viewer in mind, but more of, that’s the way that I see it. Occasionally, I feel myself drifting off course. This usually happens when I see a photograph, or series of photographs that are not in my usual list of subjects, I’m impressed by them, then I try it out. This is usually short lived and I soon find myself back to the vast open skies! :-) An example would be macros. I like them sometimes, but usually revert back to my wide open spaces.
I guess we all vacillate, from time to time, as we try to listen to the inner voice and find our direction.
For the time being, anyway, and perhaps in perpetuity, I do not include people in my fine art photographs. I do include man’s presence, just not the man. It’s not really a conscious decision, it’s just the way I feel.
I’ve always wondered if people didn’t look at my fine art photos (as opposed to my work photographs which almost all include people) and make some sort of assumption about me or my personality. Would those interpretations be positive, negative, or even valid?
Geez, maybe others look at my photos and think I’m actually getting worse .
As for Flickr, and the like, I think there is a definite danger of succumbing to the will of the masses. Bright lights and shiny things seem to be favorites among the less experienced photographers, and the constant praise of such images only encourages others to shoot the same way. But, it seems you’re aware of the danger and, as they say, admitting there may be a problem is half the battle. FIGHT!
For the time being, anyway, and perhaps in perpetuity, I do not include people in my fine art photographs. I do include man’s presence, just not the man. It’s not really a conscious decision, it’s just the way I feel.
I’ve always wondered if people didn’t look at my fine art photos (as opposed to my work photographs which almost all include people) and make some sort of assumption about me or my personality. Would those interpretations be positive, negative, or even valid?
Geez, maybe others look at my photos and think I’m actually getting worse .
As for Flickr, and the like, I think there is a definite danger of succumbing to the will of the masses. Bright lights and shiny things seem to be favorites among the less experienced photographers, and the constant praise of such images only encourages others to shoot the same way. But, it seems you’re aware of the danger and, as they say, admitting there may be a problem is half the battle. FIGHT!
Paul, it sounds like you have a definite instinctive leaning there towards something that is particularly ‘you’, and it’s definitely worth developing further – I think that’s where you are likely to find out more about the elusive ‘self’. I’m still working on the how, though!
Chuck, I’m interested to know what you think it is about the bright & shiny that turns off so many more experienced photographers. Is it just a distaste for that which is slick and commercial? Do you think that you can have punchy, colourful pictures that aren’t slick and commercial – or even kitsch? What do you think about the new rash of high contrast black & white landscapes that seem, to me at least, to be just as popular as the super-saturated lot?
Paul, it sounds like you have a definite instinctive leaning there towards something that is particularly ‘you’, and it’s definitely worth developing further – I think that’s where you are likely to find out more about the elusive ‘self’. I’m still working on the how, though!
Chuck, I’m interested to know what you think it is about the bright & shiny that turns off so many more experienced photographers. Is it just a distaste for that which is slick and commercial? Do you think that you can have punchy, colourful pictures that aren’t slick and commercial – or even kitsch? What do you think about the new rash of high contrast black & white landscapes that seem, to me at least, to be just as popular as the super-saturated lot?