Do subjects get "used up" in photography?

[gatorgums]

Subjects never become used up- it is the approaches which become stale and lifeless- used up as you put it.

What if the man who photographed Martin Luther King in the sixties

had said, " no, i can't be bothered photographing him or going to the event. Its been done so many times before" .

What if the guy who took his video cam to Texas

the day J. F. K was shot had the same attitude?

Successful artists and photographers ALWAYS find new approaches and angles which give their work fresh dynamism.

As someone once said of Monet, "ah , but he does not breathe

the air WE breathe! "

[jtk]

Arthur, let me put it another way. The factor that differentiates photography from other image-making is the instant.

 

Everything in life, including breathing, involves preparation time. To argue that its preparation time makes photography less a matter of the instant seems specious.

[see_r]

Going back to the OP comment, "light and timing are **the** creative tools used by photographer" ... Dick, Arthur, and Mike discussed composition in a way that supports it as a fundamentally important creative tool in photography. As Arthur mentioned, it can be planned, ie. used independently from light and timing. New composition is an integral part of the fresh eye and offers hope towards persistence.

 

The payoff of composition is perception, which is partially independent from the subject. To use artistic language, composition affects shape, and as such can be used, for example, to produce images that are entirely unrelated to the subject. The viewer may be concious of these mentally-synthesized images or the perception may be subliminal, producing novel emotion just the same. And this can happen even with landscapes.

 

If you are tired of a subject, yes, put it away. Maybe revisit later. You won't likely have the innocent sunset experience again, but you may be refreshed partially.

[aplumpton]

Because a photo is made by a more or less instantaneous exposure, we dwell on its

instantness. Baloney. Well, I admit at least that in some cases that may be true. But all

the intrinsic preparation (meaning perhaps decades of thinking, instruction,

experiences and photographing, which have a conscious or unconscious impact on

the result) and the "theatrical" preparation (light arrangement, timing of dynamic

subject elements, arrangement of angle or objects that affect the composition, etc.,

etc.) have an impact on the image, notwithstanding that it is actually captured more

or less instantaneously.

 

But specious or not, this is what makes the photograph, as well as the post exposure

manipulation which is used to either (1) save the image, (2) enhance the viewpoint of

the photographer or (3) add new elements of light and tone and composition

(reframing) to the conceptual latent image.

 

I like the phrase "latent image". It can refer to the excited silver molecules before

their development (usual interpretation in a pre-Boolean electronics world), or it can

refer to the potential, oftimes artistic, of the image., both in the head of the conceiver

(photographer) or as a challenge to the darkroom photographer (or lightroom

photographer) in transferring the in-camera image to a final print.

 

Chip and John, planning does indeed involve light. How many times have you chosen

to make your photo under different light conditions (clouds do move) or different

times of day (colours do change) or with reflectors, light absorbers or other

techniques that, in addition to angle of view, can impact heavily on the perceived and

photographed image?

[Sanford]

I live in the Monterey, Carmel area and I think people are nuts trying to reproduce what

Adams and Weston did. They will never even come close. Those guys had bigger cameras,

clearer weather 50 years ago, better technique, and try and find a misshapen pepper in this

day of perfectly shaped, genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. What they did can

never be bettered. Best to move on to other subjects.

[jtk]

Sanford, there's little in common with Weston and Adams. Weston got laid by interesting women and had interesting friends, wrote well. Adams didn't(as far as we know). That screams out from the work they've left us. I think Weston was a better printer than Adams during the same era.

 

There's plenty of reason to ape Weston. Somebody else might feel safer with Adams.

 

If you're confining your comments to their prints, I think you left out the most important difference between them and us: history.

 

My own interest is generally some kind of low key story-telling, along with low key oddities I may notice, maybe something graphic. It's been that way for decades.

 

I wonder how you'd describe your photographic interest? It appears to involve brightly colored objects in strong sunlight...

[Sanford]

You got that right John. I haven't seen the sun for a week here and I'm getting anxious get

out there and photograph something with bright colors, and preferably black shadows.

Maybe tomorrow if I can believe the weather reports.

[iliafarniev]

... there's joy in repetition

[michael_bizon]

You must be in Oregon, cause I haven't seen the sun here in months. Pulled out my B&W

kit for the effects. I went through Death Valley the other week (to Vegas) on my way back

to Oregon (Grey!) and noticed that some flowers were already coming out! (Hope!) There

is no such thing as " used up subject matter" just used up "attitudes", find something that

compels and work it through! The images you create should be for you, and you alone, if

and when you feel you created something unique then please share it..

[see_r]

Arthur, yes I agree lighting requires planning, although perhaps I should have made that clear here (and I don't think I refuted that). My point was to clarify composition as its own distinct creative tool in photography which can be used independently.

 

C'mon, enough geeking out...time to check out Julie's chubby pupppies!

[Julie H]

Fred and Chip, when I said "light and timing are **the** creative tools used by photogaphers" I should have also included "as opposed to painters" (photographers and painters make comparable use of subject, arrangement and emotional input). I had that in my mind -- because I think this issue of using up subjects does not apply to painting and wanted to describe why -- but I guess you guys can't read my mind (I hope not).

 

Also want to stress that I don't think we will ever run out of subjects; just that some subjects will get ... tired. This won't happen because of one or a hundred or a thousand photographers working on the same theme. It's when you get to the billions -- 3739 per minute -- that I get worried.

 

Nevertheless, all of the postings have not been in vain. I will agree that unexplored territory will remain for any given subject. I think (as several people have pointed out) that this is because the thing does not define the limits; ones creative mind is the source and therefore the only limitation on what can be done.

 

But, but, but ... that is not really what I was after in this thread. If a tree falls in the forest ... and I'm the only one there to hear it (crash, thump!), it's a nice private experience that I can cherish. However, if I make a career out of hearing trees falling in the forest, eventually I'm really going to want to share my crash-thumps with other people. Problem is, 2 billion other people have crash-thump recordings that they want to share.

 

Or, suppose, having been inspired by all of the (sincere) advice about finding personal satisfaction in my work and seeking for deeper meaning, I have made a lovely picture of a green pepper (not really -- I hate green peppers; they make me burp). Now, can I get anybody to look at it? Any volunteers? I'll throw in a dozen pictures of flowers and another dozen of sunsets.

 

Even if there was a patient and receptive audience out there, it's not possible for them to look at even a tiny fraction of what is being done. Therefore we all filter -- heavily. This is what I mean by subjects being "used up"; not so much the shooter as the viewer (though, therefore and in response to the reality of the 'market', the shooter has his audience in mind so its circular). I think endless exposure leads to deadened or non-response. Nothing controversial or unusual about that.

 

The odds of even a perfect picture of a commonly or famously photographed subject being seen, much less recognized by someone who can promote it are incredibly long. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.

 

Chip, don't start me on chubby puppies. I can't help myself...

 

-Julie

[Norma Desmond]

Julie--

 

I imagine there are many who feel as you do and many who feel differently. I imagine there is someone out there whose challenge it will be to do a green pepper that everyone will notice. Look what Andy Warhol did with a darn Campbell's Soup can. That right approach to the green pepper, especially because it is already such an icon, is just waiting to be found by the next Warhol or Avedon. There are billions of snapshots of folks who live in the parts of the country Avedon liked to explore. How did he do it? How did Bach build upon a genre of music, the world of Baroque, that had been around for decades, and transform it into something so fresh and new?

 

On the other hand, you are more likely to find something different to pursue. Maybe look for more different subjects or less familiar ones. Like it or not, that's likely what led Jock Sturgess and Nan Goldin did by taking controversial photos of children. Just like our vocabulary has increased to accommodate new words for things like "google" and "cursor," our photographic vocabulary is likely to keep increasing and changing. Photography is a means of expression and communication. It's tools, like language, are symbols and meaning. Those will never fade.

[pnital]

Julie human life are and never will be dull.Imo what a photographer needs is developing its vision( seeing), as matterials are everywhere. what is needed beside well understanding composition, light, right time,right place, is the skills of especially OBSERVATION, imagination, good "gut"feeling/perception. I think that with all these qualities present, even used subjects can get a new flavor.

[dickhilker]

Julie, when you said, "In which case you can do as Anthony says and shoot for your own pleasure, without an eye to history. But that concedes the wider audience." I feel you've struck a chord that resonates for those of us who make photographs essentially for our own pleasure -- stop worrying about whether anything's been overdone because at this moment, you haven't done it yet. Using peppers as an example, though the subject's been arguably overdone, even I have succumbed to temptation and added my own version. However, it was done just for the fun of doing it, has been shown only in one local gallery and will probably never reside on anyone's cocktail table. But, it's my pepper and I like it and that's all it has to do. If I were a pro and concerned about filling a market need, I probably wouldn't have made the picture, but I'm not and I did.

 

Thanks, Julie, for helping me get this straightened out in my mind.<div></div>

[jtk]

Dick, nice. It looks exactly like a professional's portfolio shot (humor is very common in portfolio shots)...a professional would have asked his food stylist to find peppers without that much character...I know mine did :-)

 

I like your "creation" joke...or maybe it's a pornographic moment involving two races of pepper :-)

[aplumpton]

Julie, thanks for catalysing an interesting, possibly even a personally cathartic

discussion (for those taking part). It confirms what a lot of us believe, that, like

painting or sculpture or architecture, photography is a fascinating medium and the

imaginative use of it (still) knows no bounds.

 

"The odds of even a perfect picture of a commonly or famously photographed subject

being seen, much less recognized by someone who can promote it are incredibly

long. You have a better chance of winning the lottery."

 

Sure, you are right there. But that is not of much concern for the artist, as there are

so many new subjects out there, or to be imagined. Becoming famous is secondary.

My humble sales of photos are not far into the double digits in number in the past

few years, but when someone plunks down the 200$ or so for a print, he or she has

made a very close attachment to it and will hopefully continue to get pleasure from it.

In fact, I am greatly embarrassed that a genius of the likes of Van Gogh sold nothing

in his lifetime, yet a small photographer writing this note can find an audience in the

seasonal galleries or commerces in his region.

 

Live for the aesthetic challenge and pleasure! Fame is but a wild variable, and as you

suggest, often no more controllable than a lottery result.

[kristina_kraft]

I like to photograph the same objects. I like to take a research on one object, often coming back at the same place with different films in a camera. And it is the same with people, having the same one. Also, capturing myself, rather practicing on myself.

I'm enjoying studying different natural lights how it reflects on one object. I Connecting an old camera Olympus OM1 with the modern dia Kodak E100 (which gives a blue transparency) is very interesting bond, giving an interesting results. Specially now at winter time.

In short, I like to study for a long time with one equipment, with one object.

People like when I'm capturing them. I have good relationship with them via camera. But I most prefer an objects. Well, for now.

[Allen Herbert]

With 2 billion images on Flickr, with more people making and more people looking, will fresh subject matter become ever harder to find? Where does this lead?

 

Does it really matter if a billion people take an image of exactly the same subject? It's the individuals " take " that matters. And why would it matter what others are doing, or, have done? All subjects are fresh if we use our own mind in different creative ways.

[johncrosley]

Dennis Aubrey connected me to this 'thread' about 'used up' photographyt. I defy anyone to look at a substantial portion of my work and decide that it's 'used up'. I shoot, most often, people, and even a slight nuance can make or break a photo, a blur here or there can take on great meaning within a composition, desaturation (or not) can help (or hinder), but most of all when you look at my photos (other than the portraits of unusual people or people looked at -- I hope -- unusually -- in the 'better' folders, I hope you see that they are not copies of anybody's work -- they are entirely original and almost every one is unique -- they are not copies and you have never seen them before and probably will never see them again -- they are unique to a place, a time and a circumstance. Even if I wanted to (which I don't), I couldn't replicate them -- I just go out and take new (and I hope very interesting) photos.

 

That's my ultimate goal, to take 'interesting photos' -- anything else is less than my goal (sure I post a cliche from time to time, and also post less than my best, just to try it out, and it'll end up in a lesser folder, just to have some fun -- there are way too many serious people here and in photography in general -- with their noses in the air -- thinking -- this is art -- it makes me 'feeeeeel' and this is not art it's a cliche, but one person's cliche may be another person's art, and a person may move along a continuum as one's exposure to photography (and other arts) progresses.

 

I think among some there's far too much pretension (and thank God, they're the persons who'll pay $100,000 for a series of photos of a guy masturbating (truth) or a the same guy smashing a wall then plastering his head inside, while the photos are taken by his assistants.

 

Where would the financing come from if some didn't take this craft/art ultraseriously -- and call it, however speciously, 'conceptual art' at that level?

 

For me, it's all about 'the photographic, the moment, and the composition, and not 'the concept'. That's for the elitists to worry about . . . I just am a guy who likes to take interesting photographs, and I think a look at my best work will reveal few works that are like my best (or recent best).

 

And that inclues my captures even today where I took at least 20 good ones - ones that an old friend photographer who happened by looked at on the cameras and had wonderful words of praise for - scenes he had passed by, too, and he was amazed I got such wonderful shots.

 

(posting probably starts today or tomorrow, but maybe in a week or so, if delayed).

 

My thesis is if you're shooting Bryce Canyon, much of what you'll shoot will be a cliche, and the same with 'The Wave' in Utah, but if you shoot people on the street, there's not so much chance you'll end up repeating anybody, if you keep your eyes open.

 

Take me up on my challenge (but don't expect every photo I post to bear out my thesis - I post less than the best lots of times.)

 

John (Crosley)

(thanks Dennis Aubrey for the link)

[johnw436]

JDM von Weinberg-

 

Your is the best post I've read in a very long while! Ditto.

 

Catbert, Evil Human Resources Director

[jtk]

"For me, it's all about 'the photographic, the moment, and the composition, and not 'the concept'. That's for the elitists to worry about . . . I just am a guy..." - JC

 

JC, you seem anxious that many of us are interested in ideas, find something ephemeral in some photograhy (fyi this Forum addresses Philosophy).

 

Hostility to "elitism" is nothing more than the effort to divide and dumb-down.

 

The Reds cynically cried "elitists" when they first invaded Poland (read Isaac Babel's exciting "Red Army"). The Nazis, Pol Pot and Mao all relied on that polarizing label. Blue collar folks are trained to despise "yuppies," yet their parents hoped they'd aspire beyond Homer Simpson.

 

I've visited your gallery. It looks exactly the way you said it would look. Nice work.

 

Almost everybody here does nice work. You're more of an elitist than you know.

[Allen Herbert]

Blue collar folks are trained to despise "yuppies," yet their parents hoped they'd aspire beyond Homer Simpson.

 

Of course there are always two sides to any coin.

 

White collar folk are trained to despise those who do menial work "grunts" yet their parents aspire for them to be happy in their lives regardless of their ability or choice of career...not all folk are entrepreneurs, or , are particularly clever...does that make them inferior to others? or, some sort of sub-human class of a human being. Perhaps there parents would like to think they can look beyond Dallas.

 

 

Generalisations methinks, but just walking a path that someone has trodden.

 

Most, so called, "simple common" folk i have met are kind genuine people....not like a little egg cup filled with an over inflated ego because they have a read a book.

[Allen Herbert]

Something ephemeral in some photography

 

Truism

 

Perhaps the conscious shaking hands with the subconcious or something else.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

Lives....

[Allen Herbert]

And they always travelled on the same railway track....

 

And they always travelled to the same place; they could not image any other view....

 

 

Because they had long forgotten they had a mind but only wanted to suck others views......

 

The sea was their vision, their only view...