Trying to be different...

I constantly try to avoid the obvious when taking photographs, but

always end up with exactly that - the obvious. Perhaps I try to

emulate famous and successful photographers, or look for images they

produce and try to copy them subconciously; is this a bad thing?

Perhaps certain images are fixed in our heads? When I look for a

landscape photo for example, I try and find something new - but end

up with a corn field, a sunset, or something "chocolate-boxy". I

recently had some pictures published and overheard someone talking

about them in the local pub: the general feeling was that they would

look OK on the wall of a cafe or an Athena poster. The comments were

not supposed to be complementary. They were very much in the "black

and white only camp". They are probably right, but I found it hard to

accept. It seems highly saturated colour landscapes sell very well,

but are frowned upon by others. Is a book good if it sells millions

of copies or is it good because critics say so? Perhaps my efforts

are just poor copies of original ideas. I tend to sway between two

schools of thought on this: 1) trying to do what the pro's do is no

bad thing and helps no end to build confidence and develop ideas

about photography, or 2) It should all be new, fresh and original or

whats the point? Perhaps we are just re-writing old ideas? Are all

the great photographs already taken?

If it helps, it's not that all the great photographs have been taken, it's that all the great minds are already taken:) It's up to you to create a mind that sees things differently then others.

 

It's about learning to put your spin on tired old subject matters, what ever the subject matter might be.

 

One needs to take the time to learn about themselves and what they're, as a person, about. Reading what others have to say on the subject helps. Not looking at what others are doing so much as reading what others have to say on the subject. It's learning to ignore what others have to say about your efforts as you strive to create images which reflect your thinking and not the thinking of others.

 

Part of originality is learning how to think/see photographically. You need to take time to introspect so as to be able to say what it is that you want to share with the world. What's your visual spin on life. And then when these questions are answered, one needs to mature their visual spin so as to give it depth of thought; should that be what you're striving for. You have to also get use to the idea that not all your ideas are going to be an inspiration for others although they're an inspiration for you.

 

Another couple of questions. Do you want to create eye candy for the walls of a hallway where someone passes by and says, "That's nice." and walks on by or something that will cause one to pause and ponder each and everytime they go by the image? Eye candy, content, eye candy or content? Do you want your images to hang on the walls of a poster shop in town where folks come to buy stuff to then hang on their walls at home or are you wanting to create something different that's gonna cause someone pause and maybe not be hung on anybody's wall?

 

It takes a bit of time to push your thinking; one step at a time. It takes time to push your learning; one session, one essay at a time. It takes time to learn about originality and impact; reading what others have to say, one thread after another. And then it takes time to mature the thinking so as to give it depth. It's, overall, a learning experience and I'll wish you well with this journey.

 

Hope my above isn't too confusing or shallow in nature and is found insightful and helpful.<div></div>

This recently from luminous-landscape.com.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/learning-to-see.shtml">Learning To See</a><p>

 

To me, it's about reading, learning, practicing and questioning your motives in the creation of an image. Two words to centralize your learning thoughts on; originality and impact.<p>

The LensWork Audio blog

"Getting It Out of the Way"

(Mon, Oct 04, 2004) might give you some inspiration ;-)

<p>

<a href="http://www.lenswork.com/stl-web/b2/index.php">

http://www.lenswork.com/stl-web/b2/index.php

</a>

Not everybody has to be a genius and invent/found things (like, destructionism ;) )in order to survive. People who can do not-too-original things in a very good way are needed too, and can achieve respect, fame, happiness, a yellow ferrari, whatever they would strive for.

 

Of course, i don't mean that you are not a genius:) you certainly are!

 

"I constantly try to avoid the obvious " -maybe there's your problem, you try too hard, you know too many great photographs so you are always influenced, or, at least you have this painful feeling that you always copy somebody (even if it's not always true).

Forget about trying to be different and just be yourself.

You're right...

<i>2) It should all be new, fresh and original or whats the point? Perhaps we are just re-writing old ideas? Are all the great photographs already taken?</i><P>

Would you apply similar standards to having a conversation with your friends, making love, cooking dinner, playing an instrument, or going for a walk? Why not? Just something to consider . . .

Mike

 

Interesting point...and lots to think about from all these posts. It depends on your outlook surely? Yes, I sit with friends and we sometimes talk about things we have talked about before, and thats one of the things which make us close; shared experiences, memories etc. Like most people when we get together we repeat the same old stories and they are still as funny as they were the first time. Thats just human nature - thats how myths formed, around a campfire generation after generation. Repetition in that sense is very comforting and cathartic. I will never get bored of looking at a beautiful sunset no matter how many times I see one...

Originality is almost fetishized at times in our culture. Shakespeare wasn't bending over backwards trying to be original, neither were many great artists from Michelangelo to Mozart.

 

Yes, perhaps most of the great photographs are already taken but I don't see why that should be a deterrent. If I could rewrite Hamlet, would I kick myself for not doing it first? This weeks POW is a case in point. Have I seen this idea before? Yes. Does it change my opinion that it is simply sublime? No. In other words photography is not like inventing the phonograph, where once someone does it, you say what the heck and just buy one at the store.

 

Personally, I am a beginner and I took up macro photography over the summer because it seemed to me to be one of the most technically demanding areas. I had to burn several rolls before I could get the damn bugs in focus! But I never kicked myself for making yet another pretty butterfly shot. There is always a better butterfly shot to be made, not just in terms of technique (more and more magnification) but in terms of photography. It helps me sharpen my technique, nevertheless, and maybe if the Grand New Photograph comes my way someday, I will be all the better prepared for it.

 

-Anupam

This is an extremely emotive issue...I think we are talking about "What is Art?" here and lets be honest - we wouldn't be the first. I could sit down with a paintbrush (or without one) and copy a work of modern art that was fairly simple to copy. Does this mean that the original is no good? Does it mean that I am equally as talented as the original artist?

I am convinced that you need to take your art a little on the tangent. Do not make photos to follow standards set by others. You are already finding it unsatisfying.

 

However, you should not let some vague concept of originality lead your vision, let your vision lead and originality will be created in the process. Our vision does not develop fast. It all depends on the talent and practice. Give it some time.

 

One thing you can do without is looking at other peoples photos. Spend more time looking at your own and eventually you will find some that have evolved beyond the generic and have a style of their own. You will be inspired to explore that genre and build on it.

 

Photos taken by someone else can be a good starting reference. Mostly they are a source of frustration. You only get to see the final product, they never show you what the entire scene looked like in real life as your eye sees it. So next time you run into the same subject you wont recognize it. Learning books publish the best pictures they can find, telling you to do the same. They know you cant match these pictures, but they would never sell the book if the pictures werent perfect.

 

Shoot away!

I don't think one can 'try' to be different. The important thing is to 'find your subject', that is, what 'moves' you, then react to it. I think the process is akin to Stanislawski's 'Method' acting.

It boils down to this: I have - like many others - often seen commercial success as "success". Be it rightly or wrongly I have thought subconciously about how to get pictures published. It was quite an ambition when I first became interested in photography. Now I look at these pictures and others that I would call cheesey, and don't see any real value in them at all. They are there to show me what I was doing 6 months ago, a year ago. I think my attitude has changed of late and now if something ends up in a magazine, website, or whatever, - OK. If it doesn't? Who gives a f**k? Being able to do whatever feels right is so liberating - keep your money capitalist pigs!

I'll try to avoid being pretentious, but I believe that if you do anything for the sake of being original, being different, impressing people etc., then you will probably fail.

 

Just keep taking the photographs that you want to take. If they are orginal, different, and popular, then good for you. If not, then hard luck. However, I think you are much more likely to get a positive response (even though success is something of a lottery) if you just do what you want to do instead of obsessing about what others might think.

 

Photographers need to be confident; I lose interest very quickly when I start wondering if what I am doing is "worthwhile", and end up putting the camera away. As someone who values the documentary aspect of photography more than anything else (I hate most of the artistic photographs in photo.net's top-rated gallery), this is a BAD thing.

 

P.S.

 

Making money is a completely different (and laudable) objective, but commercial photography isn't for everyone. I have often thought about it, having seen the money (via audits) that wedding photographers can make (as well as their arsenal of equipment). However, I just can't get enthusiastic about subjects that don't interest me, whether it is what the market wants (postcard landscapes etc.) or a wedding that involves the two "least photogenic" families in the world. Commercial photographers can't afford to be choosy with their subjects.

I'll take being a good photographer over making different photographs every time.

Once you know what you want to photograph and, more importantly - why - your photographs become different because just as you are different.

It's the acceptance thing, that's what it's all about. Different is dangerous. Best to follow, and copy the masters..... nice and safe.......please your peer group.

 

Acceptance.<div></div>

Different, therefore unacceptable. Out of focus...means bad. Try going for the feeling of the image. Drop those inhabitations.

 

Just a thought.<div></div>

Now lets go for clever and acceptance.<div></div>

I tried dropping my inhabitations, Allen, but I had to keep a roof over my head.

I tried dropping my inhabitations, Allen, but I had to keep a roof over my head

 

There is some life on this forum. Gives us hope there might be other life forms in the universe.

 

Of course you are right, Mr Somerset. Fortunately, some did dare and moved humanity forward.<div></div>

trying to do what the pro's do is no bad thing and helps no end to build confidence and develop ideas about photography,

 

If you really, really try hard you can become a very poor copy.

 

Anyway, i'm going to leg it...i've heard you guys are flesh eaters. Sort of feed on each others flesh. Scary or what!

Originality has little to do with being different, it's about being true to yourself.

All though I don't completely agree with the article, it is, in it's own way encouraging and goes along with what others are saying in their above comments.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/done_that.shtml">Been There -- Done That</a><p>

 

Hope it helps.<p>