Sick of pretty pictures

[johnelstad]

On a recent trip through the Southwest I became acutely aware of my

tendency to seek out "pretty pictures." You know the ones, gorgeous

landscapes with perfect lighting and a marvelous sunset in the

background for good measure, or perhaps some clever composition taken

in the field. Although such pictures are challenging to capture and

generally appreciated by friends, family, and peers, I've come to

realize that the photos themselves don't mean anything to me. All

that the photos seem to say to me is that this was a pretty place or

that that was a clever composition.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I guess I'm just wondering out loud why we strive so hard to

capture images (sometimes already captured by millions before us) that

in the end inspire little more than an appreciation of some place,

composition, or photographic achievement.

 

 

 

 

I'd be curious to read from other LFers who may have similar thoughts

(differing opinions are, of course, also welcome) and how it has

changed their photography. I'm starting to wonder if LF still has the

ability to inspire, move, and effect change.

[donald_miller1]

John,

I, as you, have questioned the basis of my images at times. I wonder "who and for what purpose am I taking this image"? In my case, there exists a large volume of work that has never been recorded...so perhaps the actual duplication or emulation of others work is not as prevalent as it once was. But certainly emulation and duplication was certainly a part of my photographic evolution.

 

I have heard others allude to the same transition. In some cases this occurred more then once in their careers. Ultimately I have come to realize that duplications and emulations were merely an unfolding of the reality which I am still trying to access deep within myself.

 

I think that if I am doing photography to effect a change within others, while that is one avenue, it will largely be empty in the sense of self discovery. The motivation of creating change within the world seems to be largely ego driven at it's basis. The reason that I make that broad statement is that motivation presupposes that I have some knowledge of the change that is required and secondly that I have the wherewithall to effect this change.

 

I feel that the "real" images, of photographic art, that are created reveal far more about the artist within then they do about the outward reality.

 

Obviously I am viewing this from the viewpoint of a certain distinct group. I don't think that commercial or portrait photographers, in their chosen occupation, probably view it from the same perspective. Maybe I am wrong in this respect, but those that I have known seem to be viewing their profession from a different viewpoint then a Edward or Brett Weston did in their personal work for instance.

[david g. kelly]

<p>This post caught my eye because I have often had the same feelings. I think that large format photograpy is particularly well suited for landscapes because it can record the greatest amount of detail. The slow, painstaking process of making a large format image enables the photographer to carefully study and record the scene exactly as intended. This process is both time-consuming and financially expensive. Therefore, large format photographers are less inclined to take chances on images that may not work out. It is also difficult to be spontaneous or to capture fleeting events with large format equipment.</p>

 

<p>For the professional photographer, it is much easier to sell a "pretty picture" that conforms to the aesthetic expectations of the viewer.</p>

 

<p>Whenever I am facing a subject that has been photographed many times before, I enjoy the challenge of matching my ability against my predecessors. And, of course, the weather and the lighting are always changing, so each image is truly unique. And then, when the shutter has closed, I look for a new angle, a new location, or a different subject.</p>

[mark__5]

LF can't do squat, its the photographer that makes the difference.

[robert_a._zeichner1]

I often think of these types of images as "crowd pleasers". They are the kinds of photographs that the average art fair goer can relate to and would actually buy. I've got to believe the photographers that make them are trying to "find" these views as opposed to seeking out something a bit more unique that might have moved them emotionally. The thought of how many they'll sell is many times, I have to believe, the motivating factor. But, who can say for certain? I've certainly set up to make shots like that when the situation presents itself. I suppose part of me wants to build a broader body of work that will have greater appeal. It is quite gratifying when someone wants to trade their hard-earned dollars for my work. But, I do try most of the time, to search out that unique thing that moves me and if it moves others in the same way as it did me, that's great. If not, I still feel true to my creative instincts. What I really don't care for much is when images are "forced" by employing less than artful manipulation. I've seen work where the main subject is unflatteringly lit by an overcast sky and the sky has been stripped in from another negative made in entirely different lighting conditions. Then, to add "drama", the borrowed sky is printed at a higher contrast and burned to make the blue areas appear almost black. To add insult to unbelievability, the boundry between the two images shows obvious signs of sloppy masking. The question I ask myself when I see this sort of thing is "Why in the hell did anyone bother to make a photograph of such a poorly lit subject?" Was it Edward Weston who used the term "Fuzzy Concept?" When all is said and done, all of this is very subjective and so I hope others won't find my opinions too offensive.

[clayh]

Shoot weird crazy stuff at 'bad' times and in non-picturesque places as often as you

can. Sooner or later you will bring back an image that lights a fire under like nothing

has before, and you will take off in a direction that is all your own.

 

Clay

[ralph_barker]

I think it's good, John, to re-examine one's photographic vision and purpose from time to time. When the "pretty pictures" cease to have personal meaning to the photographer, it's probably time to change directions. I don't, however, think that is a matter of LF versus another format. It's a state of mind of the photographer. LF jsut enables the photographer to state his/her mind differently.

 

Personally, I still love to do landscapes and scenics, concentrating on the beauty and inspiration of nature that motivates many of us. Even when shooting people, I tend to take the more idealistic beauty-oriented perspective. However, I also like to document "Americana" - the disappearing aspects of the country that harken back to different times and different social standards. Thus, what I'm doing is to try to combine both elements in the selection of what I choose to photograph. I still make the "pretty pictures", but I do so because the place means something to me personally, and/or has some historical value that resonates for me at a personal level.

[wieslaw1]

Yes, unfortunately it is very difficult to be creative with landscape photography, although easy to please large audiences. Equally well you could photograph �pink poodles�. I have stopped taking color photographs of sunsets around 1975, only to undertake the landscape photography (and sunsets) with LF in 2001! These are beautiful, but the least interesting, inspiring and frankly, the worst pictures in my portfolio. I was there, you were there, and many other BIG FORMAT guys were there. So what? Millions of snapshooters did it. Modern art is elsewhere.

[michael_a._smith1]

Since it is how one sees rather than what one sees that makes

any photograph interesting, the problem with one who

continually makes pretty pictures is with the photographer, not

the location. And that has nothing to do with format, nothing at all.

 

Since many of your photographs don't mean anything to you, it

sounds like you are photographing what you feel you are

expected to photograph and not what truly moves you.

 

The painter, John Marin, wrote this:

"How to paint the Landscape:

First you make you bow to the Landscape--

Then you wait and if and when the Landscape bows to

you then and not until then Can you paint the

Landscape"

 

The same holds true when photographing the landscape.

 

Michael A. Smith

[john_gerndt1]

John, this is John. I have been shooting only 20 or so years as an unpaid artist and only half of those with the big cameras, so my story is different. I have also been an illustrator and studied human visual perception at Cornell. I am way into seeing well what I am looking at. Large format is one way to increase one�s vision. It is only one way. It is suited to things and times of stillness. I used to shoot urban stuff from a rolling car, thousands of frames. Now I photograph trees. They have my full attention. It is weird.

 

Read some. Shoot some stuff you�d never want to show someone else. Take up drinking, really. Do some distorted thinking to give your mind some new shapes to work with. If you are not interested in anything you cannot make interesting pictures. It is you brain that is bored I�d bet. Your eye is as fine as ever. Good luck.

[john_cook1]

Recently retired from commercial work, I now make three kinds of photographs for myself.

 

First, I depict the world distorted as I might like to see it. For example, a few years ago I blew through eightly rolls of tri-x in London in a month. In all the images, including many street scenes, there is neither a person nor an automobile. I am fond of the period between the world wars.

 

Second, sometimes like the nineteenth-century painters I forget about subject material and concentrate on technique alone. A good example might be Van Gogh's painting of his very modest bedroom. I hasten to add I'm not in his league.

 

Lastly, I like to do work which is the result of research. A series which documents all the Baptist churches in rural Maine would interest me. I am also especially proud of the old barn I tracked down in England, constructed from timbers salvaged from the original Mayflower.

[michael_kadillak6]

Since I find analogies classic learning tools, the situation your question poses on the subject of pretty pictures reminds me of my early professional career while I worked for a number of larger corporations.

 

Every year I would scratched my head about the generic set of earnings objectives and the internal inefficiency that continued to procreate within the confines of the "system" only to learn that the stated objectives were really not the goal. Perception of you in the corner office was more important than numbers. It was not until I jetisoned the whole self serving process that I finally found my niche on my own.

 

Large format photographers need to realize that conventionality and what is considered generically sellable might be flat out BORING and without real professional challenge. Generating a personal style that is yours is very difficult, but it can be done. Just like some folks that absolutely need to work for the big corporations and would be far to stressed out without someone sending them a check every two weeks, there are many like myself that are willing to take the professional risk associated with doing their own thing and the satisfaction that comes with it. Sounds like you are wanting to strike out in a divergent arena and I applaud you.

 

Good Luck

[ken_lee11]

For the joy of it. Beauty is delightful.

[wayne_crider4]

I do it hoping that I can in some way leave a peice of myself behind so it can

be said I existed and did something, here it is. I have no heirs. In the end,

most likely, all my pictures including those of myself will have been destroyed

and/or be meaningless to others. It will be as if I did not exist.

[jim_becia]

John,

 

And what is exactly wrong with capturing "images that in the end inspire little more than appreciation of some place, composition, or photographic achievement." I find that when I add my experience to the mix, I hopefully come away with an image that I like. I have seen too many photographers try to be different for the sake of being different. No message, but just different. I think that's a mistake also. Some people would say that it's all been done before. Well, maybe it has by someone else, but If I haven't done it, then I get a chance to put my imprint and vision on the scene. For some reason, I use to get offended when someone would call one of my photos "pretty" or beautiful. If in fact, that is what I was trying to convey, then I guess I succeeded. I have no problem getting inspired by "beautiful" areas. I photograph what I enjoy, if it's a sunset, fall color, rocks, etc., so be it. I only have to please myself. If those same things bore you, then I suggest finding something else to photograph. There's very little in the world that is truely original these days. I just try to find those things I like and put my "imprint" on them. And like most photographers, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Jim

[guytal]

I admit I fall for the "pretty pictures" every now and then, but I don't photograph icons anymore. It's really images like this that give me the most joy:

<br><br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com/scenicwild/html/gallery/showimage.jsp?cat=c000248">Moqui Marbles on Sandstone Swirls</a>

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

[__jon__]

Hi John,

<p>

Wow, some very interesting insights on this post. I don't really like landscape--it isn't a subject that moves me. Some of the photographs are technically stunning, but I don't feel much when viewing them. I got into LF because of camera movements and negative size. And a bit of, for lack of a better term, 'zen'. I feel more like I'm crafting something using a 4x5 as opposed to using my 35mm or MF.

<p>

I usually come up with a theme and go about setting it up and shooting it. Sometimes it takes quite a while to get what I want. I guess that is what led me to LF; on some of my 35mm shots, I was taking 20-30 photo's at different times until I got exactly what I wanted. It was then that I figured out that a 4x5 would be much preferable to a 35mm on a tripod.

<p>

I tend to shoot things that have to do with either my philosophical views or somehow relate to what is happening in the world at the time. It keeps things interesting... and I haven't run out of ideas yet! Far from it.

<p>

I'm currently trying to capture the mood of NYC after the events of the last two years. I don't know if I'm going to be successful, but it has been a worthwhile challenge. Here is a test image that I'm going to reshoot when we get some clear days.

<p>

Thanks for the interesting post.

[stephen hazelton]

You need to get together with that guy who posted a while back, wanting to document road kill. Photograph enough squashed critters and you'd probably appreciate a "pretty" picture a little more!

 

Seriously, there are lots of people that are not looking for the "pretty picture", just they don't typically use LF.

[howard_anderson1]

I do not want a photograph of a mountain unless I've climbed it nor a river unless I've fished it nor even a barn unless I've made love to a passionate woman within it.

[antjam65]

I think this is a great topic, as I am one of those who find the work of the countless "Ansel's hiers" to be extremely boring. It must be said, however, that part of the problem is that these days we're often viewing people's work on websites, or reproduced in other ways, and the (sometimes stunning) quality of the photographic print is lost. Even an unimaginative "I was in this beautiful place - it looked like this" photo can be impressive when you see the actual print and can enjoy the textures, tonal range, details, etc. I just find that all too often that's all there really is too enjoy. The response is, "wow, that's nice" and we move on and it's out of our concioussness. It's not that that's not enough - it is, depending on one's expectations. Making photographs such as those is more than most people will ever do. BUT, it is far less than can be done, in photography or any other medium. Here we must face the fact that most people are not especially talented. Technical mastery and some sense of composition is the most the majority of practitioners can achieve. In photography it is very easy to become absorbed in technical details or emulating work that has impressed us, perhaps at the expense of our own creativity, or simply as a result of our own lmitations. But, hey, aside from sometimes taking pretty photos, which is worthy in itself, techies and Ansel Jr's make other contributions to the medium - if nothing else they keep the photo industry healthy. If the 8x10 landscape duffers suddenly stopped working, I wonder what would happen to the availability of 8x10 film, for example? If the lovers of high-tech glass decided to give it up, what would happen to the lens industry? What would this site be without these people? I'm glad the photo world is full of all sorts of enthusiastic people who love photography in their own way, even if a lot of their photos aren't very thought provoking.

[antjam65]

I just re-read my above response and want to apologize for the typos. Next time I'll post AFTER having my morning coffee.

[per_volquartz1]

The subject matter is immaterial.

Its how you reveal your feelings about the subject matter that is important!

[alex_hawley]

Great thread John. The few months that I've been doing LF have made me realize that I need to photograph things that I like, subjects I have a feeling for. I have yet to think of myself as an artist, and if I ever do feel like one, I seriously doubt I will achieve Master Sainthood. So why not shoot what I like? There thousands out there that do color flowers and chipmonks far better than I. Maybe I'm strange, but vivid saturated color flowers don't do anything for me.

 

Here's a proof of an unpretty subject that I just did tonight.<div></div>

[jim_galli4]

"Pretty Pictures" do have thier place and can do some good things. Here in Tonopah I have had the privilege to be a player in saving our historical mining district. The cold facts are that the pretty pictures are behind many thousands of $ of grants that never would have been possible without the recognition. In fact that has opened up a niche for me here in central Nevada and even today I'm just home from delivering 90,000 post cards "pretty pictures" all that the Nevada commission on Tourism has paid for. They will have a life of their own now and who knows how many people may respond by adding Central Nevada to their touring calendar.<br>

 

<p>That's the up side. The down side is that's all the paying public is interested in. As an artist I've grown way past those but find myself constantly having to spend time messing with pretty color pictures. After I delivered those today, I spent the rest of the afternoon until sun down working in black and white photographing peeling paint on the old gas station at Death Valley junction with the 8X10. I noticed an old above ground gas tank with RICHFIELD logo and while photographing it noticed a second <b>RI</b> that was long since covered by later ones that was in the style of about 1918, so moved in close for that. Then there was the old Tonopah and Tidewater train station long forgotten and ignored inside a fenced area where no one goes. I had a grand time photographing for <b><i>ME!</b></i>

[antjam65]

"The subject matter is immaterial. Its how you reveal your feelings about the subject matter that is important!"

Regarding this assertion (made previously in this thread), I'd just like to point out that there are also a lot of great photographers who would say the opposite is true. Although I am always skeptical about so-called 'objectivity', there are those who strive to objectively investigate their subject matter. There are a lot of ways of working.