Do you compare yourself with other photographers?

<p>Do you compare yourself with other photographers? </p>

<p>Do you find yourself doing it even if you had no such intentions? </p>

<p>Would you compare yourself to other photographers if their style or choice of subjects were similar to yours? </p>

<p>My answer: I don't consciously compare but I'm sure there were times when I did. I'm usually only interested in understanding how a photographer thinks and try to figure out his approach to his work. </p>

<p>Often when discussing photos with others, I hear "I would have done it this way, moved over there, framed like that" etc... and I do really try to refrain from doing that. Partially because I feel the image should be 'judged' as it is, not as what you think it ought to be, and moreover because each photographer is another person with other ideas, approaches etc. So, yes, I too am usually interested in understanding how somebody works, thinks and approaches his work. I learn a lot more from that, I think.</p>

<p>That said: often it ends up being good intentions; I do compare. It happens unintentionally, especially if I've been to the same place or dealt with a same subject. It's inevitable, it seems, certainly when speaking with photographers with equal or less experience. But then, it can start discussion, which can lead to actually discovering how they work, their approach and so on - so it's not necessarily a bad thing as that otherwise might not have happened.<br />And quite often I end up prety short in my comparisons, seeing what others did (in my view) better is giving me also something to aspire to, things to try. Seeing how some approaches simply do not work for me also helps me understand better what does work for me. Comparisons aren't that bad, as long as the conclusion is a bit more elaborate than right versus wrong, or good versus bad.</p>

<p>I don't really compare myself to them but often I see work that I admire and would like to emulate. I too dislike telling someone else how to improve their composition beyond the very basics. </p>

<p>I believe in talent. As old fashioned as it might seem I think that one can't learn to have a unique and exciting point of view from someone else. One can be inspired by them but not taught to be one of the great ones. On photo.net I see the work that really wows me yet I don't think that I can learn to make it mine. I can pretty much copy a shot but day-to-day I just don't see what they see.<br>

Great wedding photographers often really stun me with their talent. Though I know 'how' they do it, in the heat of the action I just don't see the shot in as interesting a way as they do. I wish I did. </p>

<p>I think there are some photographers (myself included) who can learn to be good, soldier-like, pros but who do not have that spark, talent, vision, whatever you want to call it, that elevates the art. I find it good to look for inspiration from others. I don't beat myself up about it but often I am left a bit disappointed by my own lack of this creative vision I am seeing. </p>

I started shooting portraits late last year. I am now

spending more of my time on a modelling site. While it

is a hobby, I have set myself certain goals. These goals

were to work upon a look that pleases me. Initially, I

found myself looking at the works of Avedon and the

British trio from the sixties and seventies - Donovan,

Duffy and Bailey. Interestingly, I actually wanted to

emulate some of the ideas and effects these

photographers had achieved. The first studio shoot went

well. When post processing the images I noticed that I

was gravitating towards a slightly darker and often

underexposed look. In comparison, the most adored and

FPI (officially displayed front page images by the

modelling site) were deliberately overexposed to an

extent where the final product looks very bland. By the

second shoot I had started to process my images to the

site standard as well as making the effort to do pixel-

level face retouching. Having done the third model

shoot, I am now in a situation where models are telling

me just how beautiful my work is and how's much they

would like to work with me.

 

I don't like this overexposed and blatantly retouched

attitude to photography that is getting attention, but

it would appear that if I stuck to the look I liked

initially, I wouldn't get any free collaboration or that

my work would get as much praise. So my goal has ended

up being trying to shoot what people like to see than

what I want to create.

<p>We tend to be a competitive species, at least the males among us. I prefer to learn from and be influenced by, to pay homage to and empathize with. I fail sometimes.</p>

<p>Not consciously, but I can't say I'm not influenced by the work of some like Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange (two of my favorites). Much like poets and writers who are influenced by their predecessors, but their work is still their own...</p>

<p>I don't think I do a direct comparison, but like the others, I try to learn from what I see and apply things I think make my results more appealing.</p>

<p>Even if we try not to compare ourselves to other photographers, our close friends and family will do this for us. I've been to exhibits by both major photographers and "emerging" photographers. I can easily separate the work I'm looking at on the wall from my own. I do this by acknowledging the fact that I was not standing beside the photographer when he/she took this picture, thus I have no way to know if I would have shot the scene differently. However, whenever I see an exhibit, especially if it's street photography themed, and I see it with a friend or family member, they always mention to me on the way out how they felt that work compared to my own. </p>

<p>When other people view work, they will see it through a prism that is built up based on their individual tastes and many other elements. My older sister and I went to see Garry Wingrands exhibit at SFMOMA a couple of years back. I don't think she ever saw any of his work before, but she always took an interest in my street photography. As we were leaving the museum, she mentioned that she thought my work was better. She may have really been saying that she LIKED my work better, not that it achieved greater artistic principles then Wiongrands; but she's my sister and she may be considering my work as tied into her feelings about me, her brother. The work produced by people close to us always will be important to us because that work is a part of that person, so we regard it higher. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>In my early years I was certainly influenced by Ansel Adams and Edward Weston for landscape, and a variety of other photographers for other things. I think by emulating those you admire, you learn. But, after 4 decades I just do my own thing. I know I am unconsciously influenced by others, but I no longer try to emulate anybody. Do I compare myself to others? Not really. I know when I like something, but I try not to be judgmental if someone else's style doesn't appeal to me. We humans have a wide range of differences: genetics, backgrounds, training, talent (as Rick M states), etc. so I wouldn't expect us all to have the same way of seeing things, or all liking the same thing!</p>

<p>I emulate photographers whose work I've never seen. That way I can convince myself it was my own idea. Then I move on to the next thing that someone else has already done but which I've never seen either. There's a fine line between synchronicity, emulation, homage, ironic meta-reference and plagiarism, and it's usually drawn in the sand by someone forgetful and a little crazy. Then a curator or critic tells you which side of the line you're on.</p>

<p>I have never had the idea to compare myself with other photographers. However I continuously compare my photos with photos of others. That's how I learn and maintain my modesty.</p>

<p>There's one photographer I "know" through Facebook and every time he posts a self-portrait, I can't help but compare how fit he is with my own state of body, not that I'm risking heart failure, but he is ripped and I am not. Sort of a troubling comparison.</p>

>>> Do you compare yourself with other photographers? Do you find yourself doing it even if you had no

such intentions?

 

Outside of the locker room, no.

<p>Although some of my photos were compared to Paul (who ?)...and, yes, I have heard of him. I'm not dodging....I do give credit to many visual artists, but I have no desire to emulate anyone. When the subject/light presents itself I have some options and I follow my instincts....sometimes I could do an omage to certain folk in the media. Overall, I don't compare myself to anyone, but I can see some tighter compositions> influences of certain cinematographers....and less so from still photographers.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>I don't know if I try to emulate anyone else. But when I see a super photo, I just wish I could do as well. Like Fred said, most of us are pretty competitive which is OK. It makes us try harder. Nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't get too obsessive. Having said that, at my age I'd probably be better off and not look at the photos of others and just stay focused on my own work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you find yourself doing it even if you had no such intentions?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Always. It takes me about 5 seconds to determine if given the same scene and equipment I feel I could have turned out a better effort. But it's always from a technical aspect not an artistic one. Was the camera handheld instead of mounted? Did they use a cable release or induce vibration by manually pushing the shutter? Was the tripod weighted or did the wind move it? Were they shooting through a skylight filter unnecessarily for fear of marking their lens? Do they not notice the horizon is running downhill? Why didn't they use a sunshade to prevent that flare? Too much stray light was allowed to enter the viewfinder and it affected the exposure. Did they even use a light meter? <br>

Yes, after 50 years I've become a photo snob. </p>

<p>I used to compare my work with that of others, followed by a certain amount of enforced humility.</p>

<p>In the last few years, I no longer worry about satisfying anyone but myself. Far less stress, and I am able to admire or dislike others work more honestly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I often judge myself in how I react to seeing so many wizbang, Marvel Comics style, dynamically rendered images on Photo.net and linked by other members where I end up saying to myself I don't know how to top that, but also don't know why I don't have any feelings or connection to them.</p>

<p>I've never seen so many images so beautifully lit and rendered at the same time feel nothing from them to the point I have to get away from them because of this puzzlement. There's so many over the top gorgeous images by numerous photographers that I've become numb to the sameness in their beauty. It troubles me so I try to stay away from them as much as possible.</p>

<p>It's like looking at expensive jewelery and knowing you can't afford it but can't explain why you really don't want it even if you could.</p>

<p>I like my images though because I've grown attached to them for different reasons and motives mainly from memories acquired during the process of creating them that started from where I was at the time I first saw and framed the scene, snapped the shutter and all the way to final rendering. I remember the joy and satisfaction as well as the journey.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But it's always from a technical aspect not an artistic one........Yes, after 50 years I've become a photo snob."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gup, come to think of it, I do all those things too, and maybe it's only natural rather than any form of snobbery, but I think it's hard to separate technique from aesthetics due to their interdependency because when we question technique, we're also expecting a "better" aesthetic outcome resulting from it. </p>

<p>When you are in school you compare your work to all the other students work, there is no way around it. In real life while I might admire someone's work, I try to avoid comparisons especially if that photographer's work is way beyond mine. </p>

<p>I don't so much compare myself against other photographers; admirable people they may be. I tend instead to compare my photographs with their photographs. This often involves travel, studio and workshop visits, and gallery appointments. But I think it is worth the effort and expense otherwise all I get to see are my own photographs and endless computer monitor pictures.</p>

<p>Now that I think about it, I remember wanting to break all of Simon Jenkins' fingers when, in the space of only a couple of years, he went from asking me for advice about some basic photo editing techniques to far surpassing anything I'd hope to do in terms of photographic artistry. The guy really found an artistic niche when he stopped slinging mud or plaster or whatever it was he did before picking up a camera.</p>

<p>Just remembered a video on Eggleston's life I found indirectly from a thread posted here on his work called "The Colourful Mr. Eggleston" where it shows him wandering about aimlessly taking random point and shoot single shots of anything that crossed his line of sight and struck his fancy. No thinking, no multiple shots at different angles, no fiddling with the camera, a Leica rangefinder.</p>

<p>I don't shoot like that but I understood why he did and how it got him the shots that have made him famous. I tend to linger and obsess over what I'm looking at where Eggleston goes for a glancing glimpse that can only be seen in the blink of an eye without time to inject preconceived notions, attitudes and design sense into the final results. It seems every shot is taken with a fresh eye.</p>

<p>It did open my mind and give me other ways of shooting outside the box so to speak and I guess that's my first influence from another photographer I could be inspired by and compare myself with. Never heard of Eggleston until I came across a Photo.net discussion on him several years ago.</p>

<p>By carefully studying other photographs, it's often possible to learn things from them -- especially lighting methods. So sure.... I do that.</p>

 

<p>Now that Sarah chimed in, it made he think that there's probably a gender component to this. Men tend to be competitive with other men..</p>