The Classical Photographer

[hjoseph7]

<p>I was wondering, how many more pictures of flowers, pretty butterflies, ethereal waterfalls, cats, moon-lit skies, wrinkled face peasants and naked women, are we supposed to look at before we get tired.<br /> <br /> Believe it or not, I never learned how to take a pictures of ethereal waterfalls. It's not that I never learned, it's more like I figured the market was saturated already. Taking pictures of flowers is nice. You can't go wrong with flowers, they always look nice, but there are so many pictures like that, same thing goes for cats.<br /> <br /> I have hundreds of pictures of my cat because he makes the perfect model. Unlike humans, he never complains and is willing to have a camera pointed at his face sometimes with flash. But I never post these pictures because I figure the market is saturated.<br>

<br /> I don't want to get weird and shock the photographic community by taking and posting pictures of my toilet-bowl or anything like that, but sometimes I wonder if we/I are we stuck in a pigeon-hole of things that we are supposed to photograph. After spending hundreds and thousands of dollars is there more to this ?<br /> <br /> Some days I drive around in my car for hours and hours looking for something to photograph, but I just can't find it, so I go home disappointed. Maybe I lost the initial purpose why I got into photography in the first place, whatever that is ?<br /> <br /> I surely did not get in it to it to take the classical Photographer pictures which I mentioned and which saturate the web. I'm starting to wonder what makes a good a photographer, one that is remembered and if somehow I missed the mark.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>Harry I suspect that you are going through a stage that I, possibly all serious photographers, go through. I think that this is no bad thing as it challenges us to get the most out of our craft/art/profession. Digital has also contributed a lot of mediocre images which you can find aplenty on the net but the true photographers, IMHO, are people like you who think about it and not just fire away as if the camera/smart phone were a machine gun.<br>

I have never found that looking for original images to market has been easy and the competition now is even tougher given the sheer number of people with a camera, some of whom will get lucky. Moreover, some of the larger agencies pursue a shotgun approach to selling image rights which has effectively devalued images across the board.<br>

Don't get me wrong I am not saying there is anything wrong with digital, I have a Nikon kit in addition to my medium format film camera and will always stay with film, but digital has really opened up the world of photography to those who simply enjoy the fun of it which is no bad thing.<br>

Keep going out and look pursue your dream image(S) when you get the few that meet up to your ambitions they will far outweigh all the times that you go home empty handed.<br>

NB Looked at your images which I like a lot especially "statue". </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I don't know if you miss the mark, or not, to be honest. I don't think there is a mark to hit.<br /> I also never learnt how to take a photo of a flower, waterfall or anything like that. I did learn how to take a photo - regardless of its subject. Everything else beyond that is a matter of intrapolating and extrapolating that knowledge. I studied images of others, cliché images or not, to understand how some things were done, and then back on my way to do whatever I feel like doing.<br /> In the end, it is a vision and the ability to translate that vision into images that capture an audience that makes one remembered or not. You do not necessarily need unique subjects for that, nor little-know-techniques or heavy effects. A consistency of vision and presented images does go a long way (in my view, a much longer way than memory, even).</p>

<p>So, we all just try. Some prefer sunsets, flowers and silky waterfalls. Some prefer everyday streetlife. Some prefer portraits. We all saturate the web and the market in our ways. Yes, images of things commonly viewed as being 'beautiful' are less rare, but also there you will still find quality, work that stands well from the crowd. Harder to find, as Frank righfully said, but not impossible.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter whether the web is saturated; the market started saturating as prices of cameras, film and development dropped, and digital accellerated it to another level. If you're a good photographer, one worth remembering, you're not measured against that crowd - you'll be measured against you, and the other greats.<br /> Now what makes a great photographer - too hard a question to answer. But when I see the images, I know.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I get inspired by shooting with an eye toward telling a story, a bigger picture, where the individual photo serves a subject I care about and becomes part of a whole. That makes me project-oriented and my inspiration is often some sort of social phenomenon. My two main series of ongoing photo work center around, respectively, middle-aged and older gay men (particularly with an eye toward giving ourselves a kind of visibility we've lacked up to now) and a special needs community I'm close to. While I do a fair amount of just going out to find pictures, I'm much more drawn to the intentional photos I take and building bodies of work that have some sort of meaning and idea behind them. So, for instance, you mention you're bored with flower photos. Generally speaking, I am too. But, when I'm photographing at the community in New England, I may take a photo of a flower as an introduction to a particular passage in a series of photos I'm doing about the community and the surroundings. That gives the flower photo a place in a bigger picture and gives it meaning beyond the prettiness of the flower, for me. I find the more I personalize my work, meaning shooting things that are important to me rather than trying to make them important by shooting them (not that I think the latter is negative in any way, it just doesn't happen much for me) the more inspired and fulfilled I feel by photography.</p>

<p>What you're describing I don't take to be a function of the subject matter <em>per se</em>. You seem to be blaming your disinterest on the subject matter, too many flowers, waterfalls, etc. I'd blame it more on the photographers who shoot this stuff with no personal investment, no unique vision, no caring for what they're doing other than wanting to make a "good" photo, where "good" photo means just like other photos they've seen that they know a lot of people like. Yes, <em>that's</em> boring, not the flowers or the waterfalls. When I look at <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=blossfeldt+flowers&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=OD6xVLiLDInQoASz94K4BA&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1434&bih=802">BLOSSFELDT'S FLOWERS</a> or <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=mapplethorpe+flowers&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ND-xVKPeA8ypogS9uYAI&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1434&bih=802">MAPPLETHORPE'S FLOWERS</a> (and there are things I don't like about Mapplethorpe's in particular), I'm moved by the individual voice and particular style of their work, the way they personalize this otherwise tried-and-true subject matter. I'm anything but bored by their work and find both bodies of flower photos quite fascinating in their own ways. Note how Mapplethorpe's are interspersed with his male figure studies. That in itself gives his flowers a different slant than much other flower work. </p>

<p>[Caution: I didn't post the links to Blossfeldt or Mapplethorpe to get into a discussion of their individual work and don't really care whether anyone else likes them or not. That wasn't the point. The point is that I'll bet anyone could find a photographer of flowers or female nudes or waterfalls that has an inspired take on the subject matter. That seen and felt <em>inspiration</em> or <em>passion</em> or <em>curiosity</em> is the point more than any given subject matter].</p>

<p>What drives YOU to photograph or, more importantly, what's a driving force in your life that you'd want to figure out a way to photograph that has enough significance and meaning to you that it would translate as worthwhile and interesting to someone else?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Another thing: I don't think there is such thing as "the" audience - there are many different audiences. The audience for the "pretty pictures" is large and has its favourite photographers. Probably photographers many that reply here do not particularly like.<br /> Those who like things a bit more edgy and out of the mainstream have their favourites, which the other audience won't like, or get, or even ever get to see. Not really a problem, you cannot please them all, and even if you could, it's worth wondering whether you'd want to. Or, as many say they do, don;t even care about the audience, and just do what you want to do. Another can of worms whether a photographer really can ignore his audience, but for the sake of brevity, I'll skip it this time :-)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>One way possibly to enhance your photography is to think more in terms of the subject matter than the beautiful or astounding image that awaits you, possibly only by chance. One does not need to go far before finding a subject or event. Maybe just the backyard or the building you may work at. What does the chosen subject mean to you? If you spend time with it, can you develop better perceptions of its physical, symbolic or emotional nature? How is it changing (whether an apparently static subject or human event) with time? What factors impact on it? Is it worthwhile researching what the subject is or has been in past, or may become in future? How do you, as a person, interact specifically with the subject? How can you transfer that into your handling of it? What do you want the subject to say to others by your interpretation of it? Can you modify that (composition, emotional quality, etc.) by introducing or subtracting other elements? How do you want to mold it to your perception (by light, composition, subjective intent)?</p>

<p>You may not get a classical intepretation of your subject but you may obtain a successful personal view of it. I don't think we can ask for any more than that in our enjoyment of photography as an expressive medium or art.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Harry: Photography is a form of communication, just like writing. Driving around looking for a non-cat, non-flower, non-waterfall to photograph is like picking up a pen because you just want to write <em>something</em> and looking for some rhyme-resistant paper lest you accidentally write a cat limerick. <br /><br />I agree with Fred.<br /><br /><em>Before </em>you pick up your camera (or start your car!), find something to talk about. Something to care about. Embrace a bit of your world view, and ask yourself how something (anything!) might be photographically portrayed in a way that reinforces or challenges that world view. It doesn't have be weighty stuff - in fact, trying too hard will usually result in something that looks over-wrought. Tell a story. It could be about the amount of effort involved in changing the oil on your car, or about the amount of effort involved in something impossible, like tying a bow tie. Or about a thankless job, like being a cop. Or about operating heavy equipment at a construction site, or doing paperwork at a dentist's office. When you identity a narrative - <em>any</em> narrative, no matter how epic or just simple slice of daily life - and decide that it can be told, or at least enriched through the use of photography, the photography will take care of itself. Just prose or poetry almost writes itself when passions are sufficiently stoked. <br /><br />When you're in that mode - communicating because you actually have something to say - your existing skill with the camera will immediately serve you. It's just a tool. You need a job to put it to.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I don't want to get weird and shock the photographic community by taking and posting pictures of my toilet-bowl or anything like that, but

sometimes I wonder if we/I are we stuck in a pigeon-hole of things that we are supposed to photograph. After spending hundreds and

thousands of dollars is there more to this ?

 

Rather than search for random subject mater looking for something that might stick, make photographs of subjects/things you care about

and which might satisfy an inward curiosity.

 

Projects help me satisfy that curiosity I might have about some thing or cause, and help keep me focused.

 

For me... Since all too often and for many people photography is only about "taking," I try to structure my project activities so that I'm also

giving back. My past projects were structured so that money raised from sales would go directly to an organization helping disadvantaged

kids living on the street, and will do that as well with future projects.

 

Also, in the past I engaged random strangers on the street for conversation which ultimately led to making portraits. While I enjoyed the making

portraits aspect, what really drove and satisfied my curiosity, was talking to subjects and learning something interesting about their life and the

area during the engagement. Many times I would subsequently encounter a subject I made a portrait of previously and then give them a

print - my way of giving back.

 

In both of the above activities my camera was simply a tool that helped me explore something I was interested in and curious about.

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Don't photograph for the web, photograph for yourself. Completely avoid any thought about what other may or may not get out of a photograph. Instead, photograph instinctively - not instinctively regarding the technique, but regarding the theme. Then publish what you come to like.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>After decades of taking landscapes, city-scapes, sunsets, flowers, bugs, dogs, cats, etc. I've experienced exactly the same concern as the OP.</p>

<p>Many of the above posts have taken a broad view of this issue. I'm simply going to tell you how I personally solved that problem, and what presently turns me on.</p>

<p>My solution has been to take pictures of events and "things" for which pix on the web simply doesn't, and maybe can't exist. My interest level goes up one more notch if someone else is paying me for the photographing something in one of the above categories.</p>

<p>Probably the most popular form of photography, snaps of family and friends falls right into the above category -- no one else is likely to take such pix, certainly not at the level people on this forum can take them. I don't feel the least bad about stating that I think this most humble form of photography is a very worthwhile and important activity.</p>

<p>The same goes for pictures of my students and student teams, unique equipment produced by my students, tests of such equipment, etc. Quite of few of these pix have been published and had world-wide distribution.</p>

<p>I also have become one of the official photographers for my county's fire and emergency services organization. This gives me access to events and gear that few others have. Some of these shots might be considered completely mundane (eg, we're selling an old ambulance and want to get the best price for it, so could you come over and take a few nice photos), but this doesn't bother me in the least, either, because *somebody* wants the shot and it will benefit an organization. Other tasks for them are at the opposite end of the spectrum, eg, a request to photograph a deeply emotional private memorial service for fallen fire and EMS personnel. You can't find these on the web, either.</p>

<p>So, to the OP, I would say that maybe what's troubling you (as it did me) is lack of unique subject matter. If so, think about how you might find it.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>[<em>Harry I suspect that you are going through a stage that I, possibly all serious photographers, go through.</em></p>

<p><em>I don't know if you miss the mark, or not, to be honest. I don't think there is a mark to hit.</em></p>

<p><em>I get inspired by shooting with an eye toward telling a story, a bigger picture, where the individual photo serves a subject I care about and becomes part of a whole.</em></p>

<p><em>there are many different audiences.</em></p>

<p><em>One does not need to go far before finding a subject or event.</em></p>

<p><em>Photography is a form of communication, just like writing.</em></p>

<p><em>Rather than search for random subject mater looking for something that might stick, make photographs of subjects/things you care about and which might satisfy an inward curiosity.</em></p>

<p><em>Don't photograph for the web, photograph for yourself.</em></p>

<p><em>My solution has been to take pictures of events and "things" for which pix on the web simply doesn't, and maybe can't exist.]</em></p>

<p>Thank you very much guys ! I will read and re-read all of these posts, they are very helpful. I really need to do some serious thinking... </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>You can never have too many pics of your cat.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I'm with Gordon. <br>

I gotta get a cat.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I prefer dogs, really. Too bad my current habitat isn't suited, so I'm constrained to old crumbling buildings and trips around historic sites....</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>The important thing is that the subject is important to you. The next thing is to know the subject you are shooting. All also you have to have some sort of sympathy for it. Cats are fascinating creatures. I grew up with cats and love the creatures. I know how to approach a cat and talk to it so it doesn't get freaked out. I know something about cat behavior. Women, naked or not, are always fascinating. I do portraiture; and the rules of portraiture are similar to the rules regarding cat photography.</p>

<p>If you know flowers and waterfalls you will see things other photographers miss.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>You can go on and on, but I still say that somewhere out there is the perfect shot of staghorn sumac in autumn, and I intend to keep trying for it until I die. Of course first you have to find the perfect sumac, and it has to be in the perfect place on the perfect day, and then you have to capture it just right with the right equipment. </p>

<p>The flowers and waterfalls are just space fillers while I work toward that goal. The iguanas and penguins are just practice, and it's all just an excuse to buy more gear. Nobody's making you do it.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I try to keep my eyes open for images that please me. If I have a camera with me I try to capture it. If I

don't have a camera with me I just enjoy it and file it in my memory bank. I have a lot of cats there.

[ficarelli]

<p>Picture this :)<br /> I have really short budget for photography, a good camera and some lenses. One of the lens is a pretty good prime and I've been adventured to take pictures at night with it, walking downtown. One night I saw a white classic Impala parked in front of a old fashion theater, and shot some pictures. Some of then was really sharp, with just the car parked, another was shaken, you know, low light, but the guy was opening the door of the car and smiled for me and his face was almost right. I spend a few days thinking about those pictures to decide which one was a good or a real photography for me.<br /><br />To be short, I decide that the sharp one was a good picture of a Impala, nice colors reflecting from the theater, nothing else, but, the one a little blur was telling the real story, actually the fact that it was blur was showing a more natural touch of the happy guy.<br /><br />There are thousands and thousands of sharp pictures of white Impalas but only one of just somebody walking to his car, proud of his car, on that specific light situation on that Friday night. <br /><br />The mood, what cross my mind before, during and after a shot is the big part of the process of shooting photographs. The subject really doesn't matter, unless is a technical photograph or documentary.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The subject really doesn't matter, unless is a technical photograph or documentary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're story is very poignant, Adriano, and a really good one. IMO, your ultimate conclusion is not what the story is telling and your statement that I've quoted rings untrue to me. Subject can matter plenty, in all sorts of photos, even if it doesn't always. The way I see it, the Impala simply wasn't the subject at all. The subject was something much broader and more important than just the car. <br /> <br /> In any case, I'd say another lesson from your story is that sharpness and "perfection" and sometimes "things" as subjects are overrated and there can be something much more inspiring for a photographer to be on the lookout for.</p>

[ficarelli]

<p>You get me right. May be I exaggerated a little on "doesn't matter", may be meaning that what was first THE subject, sometimes, and often to me, became secondary later, but it was the first to attract me, as on this story. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You might want to start looking at the world you want to capture not just strictly based on subject but rather more on compositions of lights, darks, shapes, colors and angles that fill a frame much like what I discovered this morning on CBS Sunday Mornings story on Henri Matisse's cut out colored paper shapes he took up after an illness prevented him from painting...</p>

<p>http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/henri-matisse-the-cut-outs/</p>

<p>If you could see the world reduced to its simplest elements as presented in Matisse's cut-outs, you might find more to photograph of even the most over done subjects in order to capture something that hasn't been seen before.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A photographer can engage himself in an endless quest to see and realize an image of a subject that he has heard about but has never seen and photographed. Such is the life and passion of the main character of Gabrielle Roy’s novel « The Hidden Mountain » (Original French version « La montagne sécrète, 1961), an artist who becomes obsessed with finding a secret mountain in the far Canadian north and painting it.</p>

<p>Not all photographic quests are so unidirectional, but sometimes it is good for the soul to try to do the improbable in art and photography. It's not a banal objective, which might suit some who are not content with making a « classical » photograph.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>People's faces are an endless and inexhaustible source of inspiration for me and always has been. Other than that, I find that the visual geometry found in everyday life is also quite abundant. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>These are indeed the right questions to ask. If we look at it closely, or even not very closely, pretty well everything has been done before and probably better than most of is can do, so what, indeed, is the point? With the deluge of great and awful imagery that constantly showers us every day, this is the dilemma of everyone who used to take some degree of pride in being "a photographer". Although I agree finding a story is a good idea, this does presuppose that the story is in itself interesting to anyone other than yourself. It should be, but you may be disappointed to find that it may not interest others to the same degree. Personally, I am completely undirected, I take everything and nothing, but in addition, I do also take assignments that I may or may not be interested in (dance, plays, basketball games etc). I enjoy doing the best I can in the circumstances. The quest for me is almost always ultimately aesthetic - it must have some aesthetic quality that appeals, or is interesting to me, but I rarely take shots of things that I think will solely interest me, unless there is a strong aesthetic component too.</p>

<p>I also agree with Antonio, photograph what you like and ignore the rest. If you can't ignore the rest, then don't photograph: after all it no one is paying you to do it in your case.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>In one of Sir Ken Robinson’s TED talks about creativity and education (2010) he says this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I also meet people who love what they do and couldn't imagine doing anything else. If you said to them, "Don't do this anymore," they'd wonder what you were talking about. Because it isn't what they do, it's who they are. They say, "But this is me, you know. It would be foolish for me to abandon this, because it speaks to my most authentic self."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know for myself this would be my answer if somebody asked me why I take photographs. There are other things I do too, again, because they “speak to my most authentic self.”<br>

So, what are the things that speak to your authentic self? Investigate those things. Maybe photography really doesn't fall into this category for you, but other things will. Just a thought. I'm not trying to discourage you from pursuing photography, but it does sound like you are struggling with it. <br /> </p>