Hi all

After doing some rating on photo.net (I'm on http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=426947) I wonder how original we can still be (me included). After the ..th portrait, ..th corridor, ..th mountain range, ..th forest, ..th fog, ..th poor or foreign person and not to forget the zillionth nude in one way or another, I just wonder if there is anything to shoot that hasn't been done before? In itself most are nice pictures but I always have something like 'seen it' and 'has been done before'.

How would you define a top photographer and how to avoid the many traps of 'done before'

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 08, 2002

Answers

Heavy questions Reinier...

Why are we taking pictures?

Depending on each individual answer to THAT basic question, the issue of "originality" may or may not be relevant...

I'm mostly into portraits, professionally and as an amateur. I want the customers, the viewers and the models (often the same people) to be happy, and I want to "add" something to the process.

Are my pictures "original"? Well, they are as original as my models are individuals. But should I strive at finding angles/positions/lighting/expressions that have never been used before? Not so sure that really is an issue for me... I'd be delighted at developing a recognisable personal style though, but not at the price of using it as a gimmick...

Photo.net and other sites are good media to discuss techniques and to get good advice, but at the end of the day, the pictures posted there are posted outside of their context, as unique objects, and of course get classified by unrelated viewers as nude nr x or b/w portrait nr y or flower macro shot nr z. Of course they seem repetitive.

But they might be very successful and highly appreciated in the context where they are normally shared (client portfolio, advertisement campaign, newspaper report, glossy magazine, etc, etc).

So, no, for me, after 200 years of photography, originality is not the main Graal.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

I agree with that, for a certain portfolio/person the picture can be interresting, even if the technique is poor and originallity low. If I want a portrait, I'm probably not interrested in originallity.

But I asume portraits won't make a photographer famous, it is his originallity and technique in showing a topic. Then I come back to the question. Can we still be original in technique and aproach of a topic?

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 08, 2002.

Kiefer Sutherland's character in the movie "Crazy Moon" shot dog poop.

Is that the kind of original you are alluding to?

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

I myself am a strong believer in 'everything's been done before'. This does not, however mean that I cannot approach everything I shoot with the attitude that something I do (my perspective, my mood at the moment) will make it 'my' photo. I think that most artists (and I'm including pro shooters that don't shoot strictly to a layout), in the beginning, without knowing it, often emulate the people they admire. But as time goes on they start adding their personal touches to their work, and after a while it becomes identifiably theirs. I have been shooting for 25 years and have been influenced by a number of different photographers, painters and even writers. In the beginning I got comments like "that looks like a Ralph Gibson", which at the time I took as a compliment. Now when I exhibit I get comments like "when we walked into the gallery we knew we were looking at a Bob Todrick" (at least here in Edmonton where I have some degree of success). Yet I still feel that I am influenced by Gibson (among others), but that somewhere along the lines I have made my photographs 'mine'. Has any one photograph of mine been done before? More than likely. Does anyone else have exactly my outlook on life and will they create the same body of work (as opposed to one individual piece)? Probably not.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

Most of my photography is straight documentation - it's just craftwork - but I still enjoy doing it. Every now and then, the light is there, or the subject shows me something I've never seen before, and the work gets exciting. Sometimes creativity is just in the problem solving. Reinier, maybe you are at the stage where this material stuff is losing its appeal.

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

We all push within our own envelopes, it has nothing to do with what others are doing.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), January 08, 2002.

I am not trying to be HCB, Kertesz, Bailey, Sieff, etc; I am just trying to be me - enjoying photography. I will never forget the thrill of my first B&W print as the image became visible in the developer. I enjoy the process as well as the results. My photography is as original as I am; my work is for me and no one else. If others enjoy it, OK; if not, so what?

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), January 08, 2002.

I have a different take on this.

"Original" isn't defined by a single photograph. "Original" is defined by a body of work that holds together and represents a vision and style. Looking at a couple of photos here and there isn't going to tell you is someone is "original."

However, I sometimes do photographs in the style of someone whose work I find inspirational, as something of an homage:

Princess, after Iturbide, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 08, 2002.

Develop your style, develop your technique, and most of all, develop your soul. If you are dedicated and have potential, after many years originality will come of its own accord.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 08, 2002.

BTW, there are many "top" photographers who are boring hacks who have weaseled their way to the top of their profession by cranking out junk to appease clients and art directors, by kissing all the right butt and attending all the right parties, by supporting all the right political causes and by deliberately avoiding originality like the plague.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 08, 2002.

Jealousy will get you nowhere, Peter!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 08, 2002.

Reiner,

Everything has been done before, but it is still possible within constraints to be original. Peter Hughes (if I mention his name correctly) produces beautiful and original portraits unlike anything you've ever seen before. Originality in photography does not come from the subject matter that you shoot, but from a personal style that you develop for shooting a particular topic. Mike Dixon is an other example that comes to mind.

These styles develop over a period of time, sometimes even years. How? I don't know. It's kind of magic. I think we should not strive to be original but merely to produce great photography. If you do that, and focus on a particular topic matter as well, the originality will come by itself, just because we all see things differently. Then after you start to know your equipment, materials and subject matter inside out and have developped your own style your shots will become original.

I still hope to get there someday, my photograhy still @#$@

-- Bas Wip (bas@baswip.com), January 08, 2002.

Hi guys

You guessed my strugle with originallity. I like the (selection of) pictures I make, and so do some others. What I struggle most with is trying to bring in some own style/originality. Watching others on photo.net doesn't help much, in contrary to be honest. And I'm too proud to try copying someones style.

Currently I'm doing a (very good) amature B&W course which focusses on the artistic element in photography. Wwe get assigments like: Bauhaus, photo-poetry, "man and his environment" and "on the edge", all pretty heavy stuff. A real challenge for a rational computer system engineer :-) (We make fun of that during the course, there are more like me).

I already found out that a good worked-out serie takes a lot of time and frustration (I shot 4-5 roles of 36 from people while driving their car which resulted in maybe 10 useable pictures, but the whole result is disappointing). My 'problem' is a little unpatience, once I get the idea of what I would like to do, it should be ready :-). And some of the nicest result are by accident (escalater serie on photo.net which other's don't seem to like because the see one pic only). I think I to rationalize and control originallity and creativity, it seems.

So I'm currently in the phase where my creativity is developing I guess (my teacher believes that with most people it isn't encouraged after their 8th year, than you have to start become an adult and rational).

:-) Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 08, 2002.

Reinier - individual style is something that takes years to develop. One typically spends the first few years learning the basic nuts and bolts of the medium. It's at this point, I think, that most people do a lot of looking at photos, deciding what styles they like and don't like. But few people (IMO) do a lot of 'emulating', whether they realize it or not. It isn't till years later, and many thousands of frames that one can start to put together a cohesive body of work that shows personal intent. This can't be done with 1 roll, or 100 rolls for that matter, of film. Try thousands. But don't give up. It takes years, but every artist, in every medium goes through it. BTW Peter, I agree with your observations about some well known photographers......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

The above should state that at this point most phtographers DO a lot of emulating........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

Shoot, Minor White (or somebody) said as early as the 1970s that (paraphrase) "Everything has been done - all we can do now is emulate the masters who came before."

I find the best way around this is to quit worrying about the images and concentrate on the subject and his/her/its story - because there may be a limited number of ways to compose a picture, but each subject has a unique, new and different story if you dig deep enough. Mix that unique story up with your own experiences and knowledge and you will get new pictures.

One piece of advice I got from David Alan Harvey (and others) is - photograph what you're passionate about. The problem for many of us (myself included) is that what we're MOST passionate about is photography itself. It's important to break out of the cloistered world of image making and find SOMETHING external to care about (with Harvey it's the Spanish diaspora throughout the New World, for Salgado it's manual labor in a post-industrial age, or displaced people, or whatever, etc. etc.)

Then the pictures will come, and they will be original

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 08, 2002.

There is a quote pinned to our refrigerator: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." The statement was made in 1899 by Charles Duell, US commissioner of Patents! I share Andy's opinion that one should focus his or her Art on subjects that have meaning and passion for that artist. I frequently catch myself thinking that if I just could buy a Hasselblad, I could take great landscapes, or with a new summilux I could take better street photos. I always manage to talk myself out of such thoughts by imagining the images I'll create. Then I realize that my passions are elsewhere and I focus my priorities back to where they are happiest. I'm looking forward to seeing your new "original" images. Good luck, Pat.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), January 08, 2002.

Jealousy will get you nowhere, Peter!

I’m not jealous of those people. In fact, the day I end up like the "top photographers" I describe, you have my permission to shoot me--and I don't mean with a camera.

If I have any faith in life left whatsoever, it's that once in a very great while, though some bizarre chance, or twist of fate, or aberration of the marketplace, a truly original artist--a person with soul, technique and something interesting to say--will emerge, despite all of the obstacles in the path of such genius. If I didn’t believe this, I would probably give up photography tomorrow, move to tropical paradise, buy a boat and sail away into the sunset.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 08, 2002.

A friend of mine said that he'd given up taking pictures while on holiday because he could more easily buy picture postcards. I was surprized at his point of view but as far as he was concerned he was just being practical. He couldn't understand why I felt that I wanted to record what I had seen, the way I saw it, at the time that I saw it. I find my own pictures to be evocative. YMMV :-)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

Peter, you are right about the chances of genius. Look at another popular art form: music. How much utter crap do we have to endure for one moment of inspiration?

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), January 09, 2002.

Well, the comment 'everything has been invented before' was on science in general. Indeed it amazed us over and over after that. However photography is a technique that didn't change for decades (I call digital photograpy 'imaging' and not photography, because it brings new possibilities that are beyond plain photograpy. I see it as a new art-form). I think all techniques that are possible with this have been tried. Positions, angles ov view, chemicals, playing with light etc, etc. It is the creativity of the photographer towards a old or new topic or a special moment (e.g. journalism) that does the trick nowadays. A major shift like bauhaus was is very unlikely.

I too got rid of my SLR on hollidays. When I went to a decade of slides I found that most pictures contained mountain ranges and views, and nothing new. Those are however still worthfull as memory but for that I don't need a SLR. I now cary a 30-110 zoom compact camera. Quality is low, but it's just for memories and I don't feel the weight in my backpack.

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 09, 2002.

Take back to mind the first moment you were interested in photography, what inspired you to take up a camera and get something, was the machine itself, was the way the photographers look, was the power of the media, was to be famous or was it just a nonscence reaction, a need to fix something before you.

Where originality lives, it lives in your desires to print what barely you see, but strongly feel.

Only Love can take us and our work into originality, because originality is within us.

Love, empathy, respect, compasion, sincerety, can easily show what´s inside us, and that´s originality.

Hate, jeaulosy, discrimination take out other values.

Still don´t now what´s originaliy.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 09, 2002.

A lot of sensible things in this thread, including the sane realisation that buying postcards of the Tour Eiffel makes much more sense than taking the billionth picture of the Tour Eiffel.

Again, it all boils down to "why are we taking pictures".

Regarding "personal style", I agree with much of what the various posters write. However, I put forward the suggestion that we might sometimes tend to confuse "personal style", "artistic value" and "nice gimmick".

Nothing wrong with systemizing the usage of a set of gimmicks.

In portrait applications, this can be done quite easily through the repeated usage of similar pose, same light setup, same angle of view, same exposure settings, same darkroom colour/contrast tweaking, specific accessories, coherent make-up, etc.

In landscape applications, through the usage of one focal length, similar compositions, similar flash/daylight balance, same filters, etc.

Once you produce a certain number of series with such coherence, your gimmick might be lauded by viewers/customers as "personal style" or "originality".

Again, that is OK. And, no, that is not so difficult to achieve.

But you (and I) will know that this is often nothing more than a gimmick, and has often very little to do with original artistic expression...

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

I don't agree with the love part. Hate, anger, etc can bring you with many new angles to approach a subject.

They are all part of normal human emotions and will infuence the way your portrait things. I can bring my anger about pollution, hate, (and anger), etc nicely in my pictures. They are very good emotions to make strong pictures.

-- Reinier (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 10, 2002.

Reiner, you make an interesting point, which I will disagree with.

I think that while your photography may be fueled or driven by the wish to expose injustices or abuses, it can only be _good_ photography if the actual _aesthetic_ side (which is what determines whether the snaps _as snaps_ are any good or not) is driven by a passionate love of the visual which transcends your political or social aims in making the pictures.

That is why, for instance, it is absurd to object to Salgado on the grounds that his pictures are too beautiful representations of suffering, that this is somehow inappropriate. They are beautiful because he is a great talent (although a bad documentarist, IMO) and they wouldn't be successful if they were not beautiful. (bad syntax, sorry).

That implies a love for his subjects, at least on the visual level.

As for originality, let other people worry about that fifty years after your death. The important thing is to take the pictures and tell the stories.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 10, 2002.

Yes. A top photographer is someone who's not into being a top photographer, but either enjoys taking pictures or is forced to do so. I'm sure they have gone through this stage as well, and have overcome it by defining their own style. My advice is to take pictures that mean something to you.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

Originality is vastly overrated in photography. If our pictures look like the best from one of the masters, will we have failed as photographers? Raghubir Singh’s SLR color street photography in India is usually compared to Cartier-Bresson. Is Singh an original just for using a Nikon and Fuji film? Should he be faulted for adapting the Master’s style to his own ends?

If you take a close-up, seemingly unflattering portrait with a medium format camera and a garish side-mounted flash, you will be compared to Diane Arbus.

If you shoot the poor in the Third World, you will be compared to generations of Magnum photographers.

The point is that no matter what or how you shoot, someone will be able to draw a comparison. I don’t think this is a bad thing.

I agree that to be a “top photographer” you have to avoid the “done before” trap--but the real question there should be, “Have _I_ done this before?” The photographers we all admire developed their styles by stealing from their predecessors, continually retooling and refining their own techniques, being rigorous in the pursuit of new subject matter, by experimenting with different equipment and printing methods, and by continually seeking new outlets for their work. In shooting for different audiences or by expanding your own interests, you will produce different pictures. The point is to be adaptable and to banish complacency.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 10, 2002.

An epigram that sums up Preston's last paragraph - attributed to Isaac Newton, but possibly even earlier:

"If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants."

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 10, 2002.

Reinier, another intriguing philosophical question! Well, I don't class digital manipulation as that original, sometimes it's just plain odd. When you've seen the umpteenth cow driving a car or morphing into a fish you just yawn and think so what - you've seen it all before. Like the weird so-called "fashion" creations that nobody wears, we have lost our capacity for being shocked. What's left? How about a return to the good old original unmanipulated, straight image which relies on harmony, beautiful lighting, humour, or spontaneous expression? Not novel lenses or filters or special FX. There is no limit to such images. The just published MILK (Moments of Intimacy, Laughter and Kindness) collection is tribute to this.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 11, 2002.

I don't call morphing art (I saw the fish on photo.net as well: boring) but digital processing of an image can create an interresting, funny, or otherwise appealing picture for the right purposes and also as art. E.g. in a simple demonstration a picture was created of a globe caried by two hands. With analogue photography almost impossible to make. Digitally it is done in less than 30min. Another person showed a picture of a girl in a bath in which flowers were floating. Problem was they only had 1 flower, so they copied the one flower that was in the original picture several times to make the image more appealing.

I agree that it is the moment and the message that have become important in photography. The technology is worked out very well.

I would like to make a series about my hate/anger against all religions (and I mean all of them). Or the apathy people nowadays have (as you mention, we hardly can be shocked anymore).

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 11, 2002.

I think you're right - the moment and message, or emotional impact, make the difference. Do pictures make you laugh, cry, smile, shake your head sadly, or recoil in shock? I'm not against all digital images. For example, I saw one of a woman transformed into a green wood sprite and she really looked just like I would expect a wood sprite to look. It's just that, sometimes, the FX can be overdone, as in films - people say, "wow, weren't the special FX great?", but the real message gets lost. The FX are there for their own sake. Religions - it is easy to illustrate their power (eg, I saw a book on Militant Islam), but starting with a preconceived idea then searching out images to illustrate it seems fraught with potential problems.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 11, 2002.