J Lind wrote:
> Er, um, uhhhh, I don't quite know what to say. There are a
> good number of superb photographers on this list (including
> Joel). Don't speak too quickly about me though. My ADITL
> shot (being scanned now) is workman-like and not that
> exciting.
It is one thing to learn techniques and "ways of seeing" from
others, but a totally different thing to copy them. I look
through my files and see hundreds upon hundreds of John Shaw
photos. It wasn't until I woke up one day and started applying
my own "DISTORTED" view of the world into my photographs that
they started becomming my own. This came through radical use of
the wrong lenses for a task (like your wide-angle close-up shot)
or using a shift lens the wrong way. My personal style tends
towards the abstract. How many of you have used a 35/shift as a
macro lens? (14mm extension tube, lens dropped all the way
down. Try it by laying it on on a flat object like a CD or a
dollar bill at the edge).
Of course, professionally, it isn't the abstract that usually
sells. It's the mundane "tractor in a field" or "hey cow, look
over here" shots that sell. One thing to remember in STOCK
photography is that the photographs' purpose is typically to
sell product, therefore, the picture must reinforce or attract,
but it must not become the primary focus of its final use. In
portrait and wedding work, we must remember that "artistry"
doesn't apply too well. The artistic shots sell in a blue moon.
It's the standard "18" in wedding work and the "6 poses" in
portrait work. Doesn't get too exciting. Just like those
wedding shots I took that are in the online gallary,
artistically they are awesome, but it was the "granny and me"
shots that got the reprints. There are always exceptions to
these rules, but generally speaking.
I know from experience that the abstract prints rarely sell in
galleries either. Not everybody can "see" what you see. Just
like those stereograms (?) either you see it or you don't. No
middle ground. That one abstract print may sit for two years in
the gallary before someone comes in and immediately recognizes
it and buys it. Meanwhile, those "hey look at the pretty
picture" shots sell over and over and over... There is a
"dumbing of the masses" in which the ability to see the abstract
has disappeared--if it ever really existed.
The world is flooded with John Shaw, Galen Rowell, and other
"workshop" photographs. G.R. is particularily good at
"inventing" a new shot, but within a year it is so copied by
others that it no longer is unique or fresh.
I've learned a lot from Joel as we have photographed together
several times and the resulting photographs are so totally
different. He sees framing opportunities that I completely
miss. One thing is that back in the '70s and '80s EVERYBODY
framed EVERY shot with trees, branches, walls, etc. I so
totally revolted from that era that there is just a handful of
shots in my entire file that are "framed". Still, there are
times when it is an appropriate technique and when used smartly
may be the only way to properly photograph a scene--and I was
missing that. So much is personal style. I will not copy my
style after anybody else. I've developed my own, and I think
that there is sufficient uniqueness that people who have been
adequately exposed to it will recognize it immediately. If
anything, my style is to extend the photograph way beyond the
edge of the print and to extensively use the "colorwheel" as my
own form of the zone system. (ie. Purple=zone 1, green=zone 9).
The TOPE events have been good as there have been really cool
"ways of seeing" revealed that I had never seen before. Just
like going to an art gallary, I study these pictures to learn
techniques and study "flow".
Part of artistry is knowing which rules to bend--when. Art
students frequently come up with brilliant, creative ideas, but
fail to apply the right rules and the results are truely
garbage. The idea was wonderful, the implementation wasn't.
You can't defend it as "art" and say the viewer was an idiot.
Junk is junk, but unfortunately there are plenty of grants to
fund the junk. Anyway, I digressed.
Back to the point of this post: I do learn from others and
constantly try to make my images more marketable. Immitation
may be "the sincerest form of flattery", but it is also a sign
of a lack of personal vision.
I'm looking forward to trying out the 600mm lens. I'm already
visualizing shots that will be both unique and a creative use of
a lens not particularily designed for the purpose.
Ken N.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
|