Opinion on my work badly needed

[butch_welch]

I have been told that my work is static and looks like commercial

studio still life. Also that I need to shoot "looser" and develop a

more personal style and my work would sell better. These

comments were made about a series of Flower and Leaf

images I created in 1999 during a 3-month period. My thoughts

have been that this was the first really personal work that I had

done. I thought that this series was different from most similar

work in the simplicity of design (no background), strength of

composition (tight 2-3 times life size on 8x10) and the beauty of

the pure palladium prints. But I am getting older and I realize

that I no longer know all the answers the way I use to (think).

Was this really just an exercise in studio lighting and

composition drawn on the skills of my many years as a

commercial studio photographer? Are they really not personal

and somewhat different? A little background on me - I started

shooting fine art photographs in 1990, mostly landscapes in the

AA vein. I started looking for more meaningful images in the late

1990s and photographed the flower and leaf series in 1999. I

also began to show my work in 1999. I have had 1 one person

show and one group show of this series. My work is

represented by a well know gallery in Carmel, at their request. I

work 50 hours a week for a living and really don't care if I sell

prints, I just need to photograph for me. I have sold over 30

prints from this series, so I know some people like them. I am

not without ego, but I am also not too old to learn. I would value

all opinions, negative or positive. You can see my work at

http://www.handcoater.com. Click on the platinum images and

look at the first 2 still life galleries. Please be honest. I really

don't know what I want to photograph these days. If I can get a

good handle on where I have been it may help. Thanks.

[donald_miller1]

Butch,

 

I started doing photography following the beacon of A.A. but I have since discovered that what I was doing was emulating A.A. and in the process I wasn't being "myself". As someone has reportedly said "A good technical performance of a fuzzy concept will result in a fuzzy photograph"...or something to that effect. My memory is fading faster then my photographs it seems.

 

I have always admired the quality of your images. I guess the question that I would ask is do these images move you emotionally? Did they have meaning to you when you made them...or were you trying to do something that would impress others? Are you photographing subjects that have meaning to you? If they do then that is the most important thing. If they do not have meaning to you then perhaps it is time to determine what it is that has meaning for you.

[lucas_griego]

Butch,

I took a look through the Platinum album on your site. Nice work. I like the tonality of

the images. If I had to crit something - I'd say it's that many of the images don't have

enough room to breathe. The crops are tight. On some it creates tangent lines with

the leaf or flower. And on the "Palm Fan' it just seems odd. The leaf or flower in this

format isn't terribly original - but then again - at this date in human kind - not much

is. My crits are minor at best.

 

Take that or leave it. You really have to be careful how much you value other peoples

opinions. Photography more than anything else is full of self important folk who will

bring you down with dimestore crits - mine above : ) - Everyone has an idea of what

they should be doing themselves and know they aren't and the usually shows up full

stop in their observations of other peoples work (giving my shots room to breathe as I

type this.. LOL... so really - greatly discount peoples opinion who you don't truly hold

in very high regard.

 

If your looking for things to photograph - this is really quite an introspective journey.

Take some time and think about things you like to represent on film - are there

themes or issues that you feel you could provide unique insight with your

photographic skills? What 'new' angle can you provide with your eye?

 

LF is a great format to work in - you have the skills... now you just need to get in

there a muck around a bit. Sometimes the theme or the abstraction will reveal itself in

the process.

 

Again - nice work. Good luck in moving to your next theme.

 

Best regards,

Lucas

[bruce watson]

You do good work Butch. But really, what do you care what I think? You have to do what is right for you. You'll spend your time hopelessly confused if you try to do what is right for someone else.

<p>

I'll just be as presumptuous as hell and suggest a book for you that just might help with your current direction seeking: <i>Art and Fear</i> by David Bayles and Ted Orland.

[dan_fromm1]

Butch:

 

First off, you're a much better technician than I am. It leaps out of your work. So does your background as a studio photographer. You have a tool kit, you have standards, and you use the tool kit to produce work that meets your standards. So I'm not sure you have a problem.

 

A question. Are you shooting and printing now as you did in '99?

 

It may be that you're in a bit of a rut. I got that way with insect pornography and fish and flower pictures, mainly done close-up in color on 35 mm. After a time it hit me with great force that although the subject changed I was always taking the same picture. The underlying problem, which I haven't fully solved, is that the pictures I took were the ones I wanted to take. I just couldn't see others that could be made with the same subjects. I've thought that looking at other peoples' work and stealing ideas might help, but so far it hasn't.

 

I can't give you any concrete suggestions besides the obvious one that if it doesn't feel right, don't do it. One thing that has helped me has been to try to avoid bilateral symmetry. Eccentricity, as it were, has helped me somewhat. When its unbalanced, its not quite the same old shot.

 

But its hard to shake one's background. Last fall I sold a couple of macro lenses to Andy Bettles, who sometimes posts here, and asked him what he was up to. He sent me some macro shots that he'd done for a book project and directed me to his agency's web site. What he does, he does very well. I'm nowhere so competent. But, like mine, all of his macro shots were the same damned picture. Not my one great macro shot, his one great macro shoot and, as I said, very well done. His commercial work was also very competent -- if I wanted to learn more about lighting his stuff would repay study -- but much of a muchness and of a piece with his macro work.

 

The macro shots Andy sent me were all shot on a light table. His subjects, carefully posed and all that, stood out from a pale background. I'd never thought of that -- its hard to do consistently in the field without the control one has in the studio -- and have been wondering whether to steal the idea. You and Andy work in different universes --commercial studio work covers a lot -- but think the light table idea through, perhaps it will make a difference for you.

 

Remember that critics often push their own preferences and that there's not a lot of right or wrong in art. Ask the person who told you to shoot "looser" what he/she/it meant. And press for examples. That odious person Hermann Goering, whose works and associates I abhor, is supposed to have said "Whenever anyone comes to me speaking of aesthetics I instinctively reach for my revolver." This is not the worst policy, its proponent notwithstanding.

 

Best regards, deepest thanks for sharing your perplexity,

 

Dan

[eric merrill]

Is it really a bad thing to produce images that look like commercial

still life? I suppose it is, if that's not your intent. But when you

start off with good techniques, you use still life objects, and have a

simple background, that *is* commercial still life, no?

 

My opinion on your gallaries of still lifes is pretty much once I've

seen one, I've seen them all. By and large, they all have the same

look and feel. Set up the production line, and then just swap in a

new subject. Click. Ready to go on to the next one.

 

On the other hand, I like the rest of your work. "Palm Trees"

<http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ebutchwelch/palmtres.html> and "City Hall

1" <http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ebutchwelch/ch1.html> jump out from

the rest. If I were buying prints to hang in my house, I'd sooner buy

these two than any of the "studio" still lifes.

 

Do your still lifes speak out to you? Does the thought of creating

more create an unsatiable inner drive within you? If so, continue

down that path. Don't let me or anybody else dissuade you. If not,

then try something else.

[christopher_nisperos2]

Hi Butch. Your questions shows alot of wisdom, humility and � I'd

say�courage.

 

You said, "I really don't know what I want to photograph these days."

The only advice I feel qualified to offer (because not too long ago I was in

the same boat as you) comes second-hand from one of the best

photography teachers in the U.S., Al Weber.

 

He has said (probably more than once!), "If you're afraid to show who you

really are, you'll have nothing to express". My version: It don't mean a

thing if it ain't got your own personal swing".

 

The advice I c a n offer is: To find your "swing", you've got to honestly ask

yourself, "what am I absolutely passionate about?" If your answer is,

"photographic technique", that is what will primarily show in your pictures.

(As well, if you can't answer such a question, your "default answer" sort of

becomes 'photographic technique' anyway).

 

I sincerely hope this is helpful to you.

[Troll]

Oh dear, what a question. I have enjoyed your work in the past and was going to equivicate, but you asked a straight question and deserve a straight answer. I fear that their criticism is right on the money. It's not that the work is bad, it's just boring (seen one you've seen 'em all), and yet your "pear" and "sunflower" are absolutely gorgeous, and so different from the rest of the pictures that they could have been made by another photographer (I can't tell you what the difference is). I believe that you are expecting too much of yourself, you need to stand back and edit more. Remember that Edward Weston thought he'd achieved a masterpiece every time he clicked the shutter on a pepper, yet only Pepper #30 and one or two others are seen today. I apologize for my negative answer to your question.

[leica ron]

Huh, Butch if I could shoot with the same technical proficiency and vision that you have I'd be over the moon.

 

Your vision is yours alone to shape, form and direct.

 

When others critique my stuff, they're typically trying to force 'their' vision on to me. I shoot for me and those whom are interested in my vision.

 

Cheers,

Ron

[francis_abad]

One of the hardest things to do is to make our work dynamic, eclectic, ever changing but improving. Like him or not, Edward Weston showed all these qualities in his photography which is why I like looking at his work over and over again.

 

There is a reason for people's opinions about our work, whether complete or incomplete there is some truth in there somewhere. Clear your mind and let not these views force your hand into something that is not your own reflex. Be true to yourself while heeding what people say about your work is a difficult balance at best.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Butch, what are you doing listening to cr*p like that? Who said that, a salesman?

<p>

"I really don't know what I want to photograph these days."

<p>

Now you're talking. If your still-life cycle has run out of meaning for <i>you</i>, then you're due for a change, and you know it.

<p>

But don't listen to salesmen or negative punters of any kind. Your work will sell better if it has wider public appeal, yes; and that often coincides with people recognising that your photographic 'language' is unique, but not necessarily, and certainly not always ... and you in any case say that sales is not the motivating factor.

<p>

So, be rightly proud of your past and recent work. And wait and watch.

[don_bryant1]

Hi Butch,

 

I was able to look at your palladium work first hand at APIS 2001 and there was no doubt that your prints were great. I've visited your web site and enjoyed your Piezo prints as well. I 've enjoyed all of the images you've shown there and don't think you have much to rue about your work. And the cameras you've built were astounding to say the least.

 

I know from your article in View Camera a while back there was about a year's period where you didn't shoot at all and perhaps that has helped foment some dissatisfaction with your work. I'm going through a similar period myself with a big remodeling project at my home. It has given me time to reflect about my own work and made me realize that I need to climb out of my rut too. As others have pointed out sometimes we realize we are repeating ourselves in the photographs we make, finding a subject that we can become involved in and excited about is difficult and the only way that I've been able to push forward is to keep thinking, write a journal and keep shooting.

 

One of the things that I did for a good while was to attend a monthly critique of a local photographers group and get feedback about what I was photographing, that had its pluses and minuses. It made me realize that I obsesse too often about technical aspects of my work. But it also made me realize that one should shoot for themselves and that there are some pretty smug photographers who love to critique OTHERS work to bolster their own egos.

 

Brooks Jensen wrote an article in Lenswork a while back which addressed the isssue of showing work and getting feedback. According to him he got the best (heart felt) feedback from non-photographers.

 

FWIW, Michael A. Smith told me that after a point in ones photographic life, you learn to inspire yourself and I think there is a lot of truth in that.

 

The answer to your question isn't an easy one to resolve. Just keep working. Look at the good side, you don't have to fret about issues related to technique.

 

Good luck and let us know how it goes,

 

Don Bryant

[emile_de_leon10]

It's obvious that you are a perfectionist and have much to say in that arena. Now perhaps for some guts and substance.... A little pain perhaps? A little chaos? Fun? sorrow? Wierd? Lighten up man! Let it all hang out.I want to see your humanity! What do you really want to communicate? What are you really trying to say? What are your fears? If you only had one more photograph to take for the rest of your life what would it be? Only you can answer that one man. You might alter your approach in some way or another(lighting perhaps) to express yourself more fully. That said I like your work a lot and hope you do really well! No question about your talent here. All the best!

[upscan]

Butch: you have some lovely shots that you have every reason to be proud of. The criticism you received is not altogether well founded in my opinion but I would have one word of advice with regards to a few (not all) of your shots: Do not be a "Forensic Photographer". Be more selective and get rid of what I call the forensic shots, those that picture a landscape as a record for a catalogue or history museum, although there is no emotion about them or something in shape, form or texture that makes them memorable. This is hard to do. Often I think we see what we want to see and what we remember about the image adds content to it in our minds, content that is not in the image. Looking at great photography is one way of sensitizing and inspiring yourself. I'd recomend you spend sometime studying the photography of Paul Schilliger from Switzerland. To my way of seeing he has to be one of the great landscape artists living. It can not fail yo inspire you. (paulschilliger.com) Yes, it is in colour and that makes it far more difficult as the photographer does not have the help of BW in simplifying and abstracting. In your photographs you will know in your heart of hearts what moves you and what is only pretty. Go for what moves you , get rid of the rest and do not worry about other's opinions including my own. And remember, printing technique is only the means to and end and not the end itself. Platinum, quadtone and all the current fashions can pretty up an image but not make it live. You love what you do and you love your subjects and because of that you will succeed.

[dave schlick]

i dont know how to look at your work as i cant find it but i do know about artists and buisiness.. there are basically two kinds of artists.. (of course no one likes to be put in a clasification and they are never compleetly correct).. one type of artist makes art or photos, carvings etc for money and does what pays best and re-copies art that sells, or does work for hire.. the other kind of artist does what he likes and doesnt care if it sells, or if anyone likes it, and usually is not makeing alot of money..but this kind of artist usually makes the most if he does get on top... from a buisiness point of view you should have a huge portfolio of available negatives that can be printed for your customers that you seek out thru various means,, that you carfully cultivate into repeating buisiness.. you can buy prortfilos from widows and estates that are clearly marked not yours with the artists name for your money paying customers and of course fill in empty spots withyour own work that will keep cutomers from going elsewere.. then you can do your own thing and have some money to do it.. youl probably get some great shots filling in your portfolio tho. , ... i run a small buisiness and am constantly amazed how different my competition is in how they run thier buisiness.. to a great extent your cusomers will lead you the way to profits.. if you want greater profits i would have a large selection or varitey, and go by what sells not what others say.. if you want fine art i cant help you there.. my son is 17 and designs my store windows and gets plenty of compliments.. never had a days training.. he was good at art in school tho.. just kind of had a knack for what looks good.. artists are born not made, but they have to cultivate it with expereince, trial and eror.. .. if an artist does what others say he should do, he will be lost in the confusion.... you will have to follow your heart to do original art..... good luck.. dave..

[jean-louis llech]

I don't like to give an opinion about people's work. But if you need some advices, and if our opinions may help you, I'll <u>friendly</u> give you my feeling.<br>

About these two galleries, photos seem rather "cold", mostly because of the "scientific" aspect of the subject, the BW print and the repetition of similar images, with a similar framing.<br>

Your photos are great ones, and quite perfect, but only technically speaking. <br>

But they don't cause any emotion. It looks like a series of illustrations for a dictionary.<br>

Don't worry, I sincerely think that shooting leaves and fruits in BW could'nt be done in a different way. (btw, the same images in color wouldn't have the same aspect)<br>

When you change the subject, for instance in the third gallery, your photos look warmer and more human.<p>

When you see a landscape which brings you some emotions, like a beautiful sunset, just try to share these emotions with people who will look at your photos.<br>

IMO, here is the key of photography. <br>

When I look at photos made by some photographers I particularly like (Atget, Adams, René-Jacques...), I feel an emotion. I'm sure they felt the same emotion while photographing.<br>

Do not let the technique direct you, let your emotivity take control.<br>

Your photos must be a present made to other people. Just try to share your emotions, without selfishness.<br>

[friedemann_pistorius]

Hi Butch, you've got many friendly and thoughtful answers here,

which you've earned undoubtedly. No one pushed you into a

specific direction, but don't be dissapointed. The all were right. I

started into photography at the age of 12, when I got my

grandfathers old 35mm EXA Ib as a birthday present, and I still

remember him saying: your eyes are only the windows for your

soul to look at the world around you. In my own words: try to see

the world around you with your heart, and use your eyes only to

frame the picture on the ground glass. And don't hurry. It will

come to you in a moment when you don't expect. That's what

inspiration is all about.

[ken_lee11]

<i>I have been told that my work is static and looks like commercial studio still life</i>

 

<p>The trick, as I see it, is to strike a balance between abstraction and literal representation. Perhaps your critic would like you to move a little more towards the former.

[david_f._stein]

Much wisdom in Ken's answer. Photography can only accomplish or represent so much.

It is not an emotive art. It is not a song, a poem, an opera, a dance, a musical score

or a mystical chant-as much as an entire train of fine art photography would like to

think so. And shame be to us if we can't see that! It is, however, a possible act of

communication and the best photography always understands what can and cannot be

communicated. It never hurts to put the film and cameras down for a while and pick

up a sketching pad and pencil, charcoal, etc. GOOD LUCK.....

[friedemann_pistorius]

David, most photographers know the difference between a poem

and a photographic image.

A good picture always touches the visitor, visually and

emotionally. Look into the face of a father, who buried two sons

after the earthquake in Iran, or simply enjoy a great landscape

image (for example one of Butch's beautiful quadtones). Do you

feel nothing? Of course you do. There was an emotional

communication between the photographer and you. There's no

mystery.

And no shame to those of us who see photography as an

emotive art.

[jim_galli4]

Hi Butch. This is very subjective stuff isn't it. What is a fine art photograph but a series of shapes textures and tones that goes straight to the subliminal psyche? The subject is almost secondary. We know that natural <b><i>S</i></b> shaped forms can strike a note deep within that is difficult to analyze. They make us feel warm. For some indefineable reason there is beauty in graceful shapes and forms. Your piezo prints of a staircase that you were kind enough to send to me when I was curious about piezography are still a benchmark. Haven't seen anything before or since that comes close in that medium. That said I'm afraid I will agree with your critics. The series in question is "too perfect" if that is possible. Remember I can only give you one person's perspective, neither right or wrong. When I am dead and a talented mortician has made me perfect and laid me out in a casket under perfect blue light will that be how my wife and children remember me, or will the memories of light dancing off of some amused but loving expressive moment be the ones they cherish. I'll be willing to bet it will be moments when I was most alive that they'll recall. Of all the things God created, perhaps light is the greatest gift. Yesterday I was up in my future studio which at the moment has digressed to a cluttered storeroom (I will wrestle back control of this) and the light and reflections from a 42cm Heliar lens beckoned. I stopped what I was doing and put a 7 inch Protar on the 4X5 and captured that and a few others. Souped that stuff this AM expecting nothing, and first look is that the stuff is killer. Mignt not please any critic anywhere but it's exactly what I was after and they'll be fun to print. I works my 40 hours for others but when it comes to <i>my</i> pictures I pleases <i>me</i>.

[art_haykin]

Art and sex are two of our most personal activities, and what may be appealing to some may be unacceptable (and even repugnant) to others. When the critics of his day savaged his work, Degas said "I paint for myself." Try to buy one of his paintings now! Picasso was a gifted artist, but near the end, he admitted he was giving the public what they wanted. He liked money too. Love him or hate him, he was a shrewd self-promoter. It's a rare combination in ANY artist to have both high technical skills AND the creative gift. The technical skills can be learned, but the creative is just that....a gift. If ya don't got it, ya don't got it.

[eric rose]

Your work is beautiful and well executed. Looks very much like AA and numerous other well known photographers. And that is where the problems lies (looked at your landscapes in addition to the flowers). I think you have run out of tripod holes to plug and now have to rely on your own creativity. To find ones voice so to speak is a tough one and has to come from within.

 

As Don said you have to do what pleases you. Beyond imitating others, what do you have to say photographically? When you find this out you will produce a flurry of truly creative and original work. I for one look forward to seeing it. Clearly you have the technical ability to create anything you set your mind to.

[ken_lee11]

<i>...please be honest"</i>

 

<p>Your critic is suggesting that your images are elegant and tasteful, but they lack a touch of subjectivity.

 

<p><center><img src = "http://www.kenleegallery.com/handofman.jpg"></center>

 

<p>Consider this clasic Steiglitz image from 1903: It's a clear representation of a train - but there are certain intangibles and subtleties that make it slightly more, and slightly abstract. With only a touch of dream-like quality, it's not overly subjective, but just enough.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Butch

 

I really like your work it is technically perfect sometimes to perfect but better then worse!

But of course it is a bit tricky on a monitor to see how good the pictures are.

I prefer your landscapes over the stillifes but I also like many of your stillifes.The stillifes are a bit to similar to me but 80% percent of them I really like!

What you should do is just do what your heart tells you to do then you are totaly right! Don't listen to much to others just be yourself!

Fuck them all!