Breaking Down the Walls of Predictability…

[my stuff]

<p>Breaking Down the Walls of Predictability…<br /> <br /> On one of the photography forums a photographer who read my article “A Funny Thing Happened to Me in the Camera Store” responded by saying “ …Thanks for sharing. Still waiting on my accident.” I thought about her remark and my response was the following;<br /> <br /> Whenever you are about to do what you think SHOULD be done, stop yourself, take a deep breath and do the opposite. If you think you are coming in too close to the subject, come in closer. If you set up your lights for a subject with your intended orientation to be at point “x”, move to point “y”. If you are standing up to take the shot, don’t. Get up on a ladder or lay down on the floor to do your capture. If your images look too bright make them brighter. If someone tells you that your images are too dark, make them darker. If your images are looking too normal, fuck them up. If you are worried about camera shake, don’t. If the dress the model is wearing is begging for the classic accessory, don’t do it. Take that Lagerfeld dress and stick a 3,95€ tacky “Eiffel Tower” huge chain around her neck.<br /> <br /> Breaking down the walls of Predictability is a tough call. If all of the competing photographers are cropping one way that is in “Fashion” do it the other way. When I was using film, I would go to the store and ask, “what is the shittiest or most obscure brands that you have?” Ever tried Konicachrome or 3M or “CrappyChrome”. Everyone was shooting Ektachrome…BORING. I would use Agfachrome 1000 ASA film. Polachrome or anything that would make my stuff stand out from the norm. I would set up shots using totally insane Fashion Stylists, Make-Up and Hairstylists, telling them to fly and that fear is the greatest hindrance to creativity. Let accidents happen. That is how they happen. Better yet, don’t even worry about them happening, just be open to the possibilities. Don’t be AFRAID to be different. Just BE.<br /> <br /> Thanks for your inspiration “Becky T”<br /> <br /> Ben:-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p> In the world of commercial photography, predictability might be a liability, but is it so in other facets of photography? For example: Avedon's use of similar lighting, same background, etc. utilized <em>consistency</em> towards his own ends. His good friend Diane Arbus used the same potato-masher flash on her Mamiya to light most of her famous pictures. Jeanloup Sieff used 21mm lenses for his nudes, and photographed them often in his own house. Terry Richardson is shooting the biggest fashion accounts in the world with a particular point and shoot that he is inordinately fond of, and often doing so in motel rooms. Helmut Newton loved noon light and used it often. There are many other examples.</p>

<p> They all adopted simplified gear/methodology and in fact, made a large portion of their work deliberately predictable. Why one should break down the walls of predictability is as important as adopting the walls.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>"Break the circle", is a phrase that appears on my list of phrases, which covers what you propose from my perspective - I think. <br>

There are a number of approaches to image making - all are legitimate depending upon circumstance, individual purpose and state of mind - 'any old crap' is just as legitimate as any other. If one has a 'mind's eye' image to create I see little point in creating something else. There's no doubt that during the creation of the image further inspiration will be forthcoming, it's part of the creative process. <br>

Luck is one of the most important elements of photography/digital imaging - a 'poke and hope' approach simply draws to a greater degree on luck than say a carefully considered still life - in other words 'luck' is a slliding scale like any other. However, I feel the more you engage with luck the more of a loser you are - ie not competent enough to know what or how to get what you want.<br>

I think we also have to consider level of knowledge of an individual, I suspect that you have some knowledge as to the effect of usiing 'crappychrome'. Another person may not - in other words your suggestion would be less unexpected/adventurous than you think.<br>

Personally I don't see that using Ektachrome is boring - it's easy enough to screw with the chemicals to develop it. Now I think about it, nor do I think some of your other suggestions are particularly 'off the wall' - all very 60s 70s maybe - for some reason 'Punk' comes to mind too.<br>

To my mind photography/digital image making has become a bit of an 'over the hurdles' occupation. First we have to learn how to use a camera, then there's the software/printer, then there's the rules, then there's the 'conventions', then recognition (which ensures we jump over the previous hurdles - nearly all criques seem to be rules based), then there's the pursuit of a 'killer image' and then perhaps when the individual relaxes a bit, there's the accidental or deliberate pursuit of 'style' and with it confidence in what you're doing. Unfortunately, style does need an element of consistency in which case 'poke and hope' tends to lack the control we might want.<br>

I think if somebody is struggling to get something different/stylish, a valuable approach is to stop with the photography/digital imaging. Go places without a camera. Start to see things in a less 'photographic' way - don't view the world through a mental frame. Go and touch stuff instead of viewing from a distance (which is what camera uses tend to do). Talk to people, in other words, hone the supportive skills. Enjoy the event, stuff the image making - one can spend an entire family vacation looking for shots and not be part of the moment (so how do you know how the moment feels, if you don't, how can you portray it?) Put your best suit on to go to the supermarket, wear jeans and T-shirt to the wedding you go to. (Do you get a reaction, is it positive/negative - would an image get a similar response?) Change your state of mind (no that doesn't mean get pissed, or shoot-up - though both were legitmate 'artistic' ploys in years gone by). </p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>Basically you're saying that photographers should experiment. That's hard to argue with. Anything can get stale after a while. That doesn't mean that a more classical approach to photography is bad. There's room for both. If I'm shooting a well known building or whatever I'll take the conventional postcard shot and then look for something different.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ben's comments, coming from a professional who faces that issue often, are worth reading, and re-reading. Often. What else is art but the unknown, the unexpected, the novel approach. As creatures of habit, we have to work at breaking the barriers of our own paradigms of thought and vision. Experiment, even when the objective to realize seems obvious. </p>

<p> </p>