This guy is good

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@h00ligan and Jsrockit

 

Not sure if this will help or not, but I've mentored a few people in the past and have found a few things that can help someone discover their own perspective or style in photography.

 

First of all, a jack of all trades is a master of none. A photographer only has to be good at a handful of things to develop his own personal style within the medium. The key is to understand an individual's unique personality a bit. Sometimes it's difficult for a person that searching for a personal vision to know where to start, so I usually attempt to find "themes" already present in a person's work that may reveal a bit of his/her own personality. Sometimes, I'm wrong..so don't take my word as gospel...but a lot of times I'm right

 

h00ligan, I checked out your gallery and the first thing that jumped out at me is you have quite a few shots that are focused on details. There are a lot of photographers that try and include everything in the frame. They like to show entire scenes and landscapes etc. But I don't see any of that in your pictures. You seem to carefully focus in on details or parts/portions of a subject or scene. This leads me to believe that you might be trying tell a story from just a few small parts of a larger subject or scene. I would encourage you to start looking at photographers that work with details. Maybe, try and figure out what makes their photographs of details successful. What elements are in the details that make them interesting? Is there symbolism? Geometry? Is it light and shadow? Is it color? Is it texture? Details details details. Some people are "big picture" oriented while other people notice the subtle details. It's possible that you may be the detail person. Who knows?... but it could be a place to start An element that is often present in great art is interaction between what's inside the frame with something that is outside of the frame. The interaction with something unseen allows for a sense of mystery and intrigue on the part of the viewer. Well excecuted detail oriented photographs often allow the viewer to know what is outside of the frame even if they can't physically see it. Hope that makes sense.

 

Jsrockit, I checked out your gallery and the single theme that popped out at me was a sense of stark contrast in many of your photos. Sometimes this was accomphished by emphasizing heavy shadows and silhouettes. Other times this was done by showing strong beams of light cutting straight through the middle or edges of the subject or scene. But the overall theme that I saw was a sense of stark contrast, heavy shadow, strong hard beams of light, and clever use of silhouettes. How might a person develop on this theme? Well, for one thing....cloudy days don't often provide stark contrast in terms of lighting. So a person that is drawn to contrast might find he likes shooting in direct sunlight or conditions that other photographers consider to be too "harsh." Harsh conditions like midday sun might be good conditions for somebody that likes stark contrast. Who knows Just an idea. Strong beams of light are often present just before sunset, as teh sun goes down really low and shoots through alleyways, between parked cars, over rocks and through trees. See where I'm going with this? There are certain times of day where wonderful silhouettes will be present and subjects might cast long deep strong shadows. Lotsa mood. Another thing to think about is nighttime shooting. The night, especially in the city, can be a wonderful time to play with shadows and silhouttes provided by the sometimes ugly and harsh available electrical street lighting. There are no rules that prevent a leica shooter from using a tripod at night. One final thought, people that are drawn to stark contrast often work very well in B&W. They can also work well in duotones or desaturated colors. Just something to think about

 

Just some ideas guys....take them with a grain of salt....just one guy's observation and it might not be useful at all. But it can be a good exercise to look for "themes" that develop in your work over time...it can help guide you through the process of discovering your own personality through photographs. If there is one word that is most important...it is "themes"

Always be on the lookout for themes.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pthurst]

This happens all of the time when something genuine is taken by people who are just looking to make money. If it works, people will steal it and try to make money with it.

 

That's a little cynical for my liking. I think that people like what they know and often know what they like. As such it's quite 'natural' for styles to develop and change.

 

People often have different things in mind when they take pictures too. Sometimes picture may act as a mere record, fire and forget! Other times, the photographer wants to share much more than the placement of people and objects.

 

I know this sounds strange but sometimes its as if the eye sees in black and white while the mind sees in rich colour. With this in mind, it seems quite natural to me to dodge and burn here and there to make both pictures even more vivid :-)

[jsrockit]

this approach seems reasonable but I don't believe it will get you where you want to go. if you just try to 'learn from the past' you will likely internalize that way of seeing, and this will unconsciously steer you to similar shots, similar styles. it is a form of pattern recognition which our brains are very good at. nothing wrong with this but for an original vision i think its best to ignore the past altogether and see the world fresh without the weight of all the photos that have come before. an original vision is a highly personal way of seeing the world, it is much harder to do this when you are used to seeing the world with someone else's eyes imho.

 

I can't agree. I'm a photography fan. There is no way I'm going to ignore the past and not look at other's work. It's up to you to use what is relavent and not rip off other's from the past and do your own thing. Most people, even original artists, still know their history.

 

I'm not new to photography at all. I have a BFA in photography, I did a huge series on teens / 20-something in Northern NJ (slides, photos and text, large prints etc) during the 90s, I've had shows, I've used everything from Large Format view cameras to P&S to pinholes / holgas and I know many processes in a wet darkroom (cibachrome, c-41, B&W, cyanotypes, etc). I got burnt out at the end of the 90s until about 8 months ago when I started making photos again. So, now it's digital... I'm learning that part of the process and find it relatively easy for my style and like it better than the darkroom. I feel like one of the few that like digital more than film and fully embrace what's changed since I was last into Photography.

 

I'll figure out my own personal way of seeing things again... but I will do so while knowing my history. My theme for now is NYC. Generic on purpose... it's a new city to me and since I just got back into this, I think it is good for me to be open. I even shoot the cliches just because you never know and I'm re-learning.

[jsrockit]

That's a little cynical for my liking. I think that people like what they know and often know what they like. As such it's quite 'natural' for styles to develop and change.

 

Sure, they do change over time naturally and the same thing happens in several places in the world all at the same time without knowledge of each other. However, once a style is made popular and is in the public, I don't think it is cynical to say that many people use that style for the purposes of gaining cash - watering it down completely. It happens in music, it happens in art, it happens in products, it happens all the time.

[LuxBob]

The fact of the matter is that post production is part of photography. I think many want something magical to happen straight out of this camera. I don't get it. I'm not trying to be rude, but when people get a $2000 camera they aren't generally interested in stopping with the images produced by the camera. You're at least going to want to tweak the exposure, etc. Since we aren't using film, people are trying to replicate certain films by tweaking saturation and desaturation, etc.

 

The fact that the X1 is Leica's true entry level digital camera now means that it'll be used by a wide range of photographers for many different types of photography, from family snapshots to "art."

 

Why are people obsessed with straight of the camera results? I never heard this in film days.

I'm with you. Digital and the resulting software tools have opened up many new possibilities and that's where I really like spending my time. The image, out of the camera, is the start point not the end point for me.

My consideration of an X1 or M8 is due to them being relatively compact and I prefer the immediacy of control that dials give versus menus.

[h00ligan]

Gentleman Villain - thank you for your genuine response. I am probably in a very very very small minority of people on this forum in that I AM completely new to photography from a perspective of more than clicking off records. As such I have been and continue to read voraciously on the subject, both technicals and history. That said I had never looked through my photos for a theme - which I should have done - so I will take your consideration to heart and explore that avenue. I appreciate the considerable effort you put into the offered guidance. One thing I know I really like shooting is geometry in buildings - that seems to catch my eye walking around.. which is sort of a curse in Arizona as it's a stucco jungle for the most part. Two of my favourite pictures ever made were actually done with an iphone - as that's all I had with me... Im sure there are a ton of technical problems with it - 0 post processing, but I just liked the shapes and colours. You've definitely given me things to think about - thank you.

[stkorn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't agree. I'm a photography fan. There is no way I'm going to ignore the past and not look at other's work. It's up to you to use what is relavent and not rip off other's from the past and do your own thing. Most people, even original artists, still know their history..

 

well i didn't mean not to look at photographs but just to be aware that it may inhibit developing your own vision

[jsrockit]

well i didn't mean not to look at photographs but just to be aware that it may inhibit developing your own vision

 

I know, I didn't take it in a bad way. You're right, but then again, you may as well poke out your eyes because everything you see, read, etc influences one's photography.

[stkorn]

I know, I didn't take it in a bad way. You're right, but then again, you may as well poke out your eyes because everything you see, read, etc influences one's photography.

 

true, that's probably why there are so few really original photographers out there.

[Gentleman Villain]

Gentleman Villain - thank you for your genuine response. I am probably in a very very very small minority of people on this forum in that I AM completely new to photography from a perspective of more than clicking off records. As such I have been and continue to read voraciously on the subject, both technicals and history. That said I had never looked through my photos for a theme - which I should have done - so I will take your consideration to heart and explore that avenue. I appreciate the considerable effort you put into the offered guidance. One thing I know I really like shooting is geometry in buildings - that seems to catch my eye walking around.. which is sort of a curse in Arizona as it's a stucco jungle for the most part. Two of my favourite pictures ever made were actually done with an iphone - as that's all I had with me... Im sure there are a ton of technical problems with it - 0 post processing, but I just liked the shapes and colours. You've definitely given me things to think about - thank you.

 

That sounds great! Best of luck with your photography

[peterb]

I'm all for post processing but nothing beats a simple beautifully composed image of a great subject in great lighting .. IMO of course.

 

I'm pretty much in that camp.

 

That said, I think there are two basic types of photographers. Ones who take a more literal view by finding great pictures out there of what they saw, capturing them and sharing them.

 

And those who take a more abstract view and see the capture as the beginning to more wondrous imagery. Whether it's collage, HDR, photo illustration composite or something altogether never imagined but made possible by the all the incredible tools at our disposal.

 

While I am more comfortable and prefer to be the former I am often in great admiration (and even envious of the capabilities) of the latter.

[peterb]

I can't believe what a wonderful thread this has turned into.

 

Should you look what others have done? Sure. Why not? Picasso did it (you should see his early work.). And by doing that then he was able to truly take off. (Although one can certainly take off without doing it. It's just that I think it's so much cooler.).

 

I agree with JSROCKITT in that why can't it be the same for photographers? I mean I also looked at images of HCB and Winogrand et al. to try to understand what it was they saw and how they saw it. My personal favorite is Elliott Erwitt (with the apropos emphasis on "wit"). He shot people. He shot dogs. He shot birds. He also just shot. But in all his shots there was a smile. A bit of humanity that always poked through. Almost the way Allen Funt of the Candid Camera (remember him?) would do on his weekly TV show that would have these outrageous situations where unsuspecting people would try to cope with resolving or dealing with that situation in order to capture people, as he put it at the beginning or end of every show, "in the act of being themselves."

 

Today, with several billion people in the world all trying to stand out, it's natural to want to develop ones unique own style. Whether it's a purity of a shot straight out of a camera, a shot with some minor pp or a shot with some major manipulation. The difficulty, of course, is that we may not always succeed. And being different for difference sake is not enough. And I feel, there's are many trying so desperately to be different that they often fall short. There must always be something. Something that conveys some impact on others when they see what you've seen or want others to see. As JS said, one must be very lucky.

 

I think the important thing is to be able to see. And be able to convey what you see. Whether it's a story you wish to tell or a viewpoint you'd like to share that others may miss or a capture of some naturally occurring compositions or some fantastic imagery brought to life with your own skills either creating sets, playing with light or amazing post production tweaking every possible pixel to be exactly the way you want them to be.

 

I probably have a style but I'm not sure I do (I'd be curious what Gentleman Villain would make of my oddball approach which the best I can describe is to constantly try to find things in the world that have some inexplicable arrangement worth capturing).

 

And I guess that's what's so cool about photography. There are no right or wrong answers per se. You can take stuff right out of the camera. You can add a little manipulation. Or, you can start somewhere and take it where no one else has ever seen.

 

Confidence in one's self and that you may be onto something is key. Alas, again, only time will tell for sure.

[batmobile]

I think it is extremely important to see other people's work. Most famous photographers are not only intimately familiar with the work of many others, but often very knowledgeable about other mediums too.

 

Looking at other people's work and deriving thoughts from it is not the same as copying it. I think that being familair with what is out there makes it easier to avoid unoriginal work. Carrying around with you the feel or mood of other work is a powerful motivator, but this is very different to having templates in your head.

[Dan States]

While it's always good to know the "masters" I think the best way to keep fresh is to blast through the thousands of posts daily on flickr. It's ALL there, including what will be the next big thing this year and in ten years.

 

While the vast majority is junk like mine, there are amazing images taken by creative people world wide and it goes on line for free every second of every minute. It's really inspiring and puts the focus where it should be: On creating something that you love.

[jsrockit]

I think it is extremely important to see other people's work. Most famous photographers are not only intimately familiar with the work of many others, but often very knowledgeable about other mediums too.

 

Looking at other people's work and deriving thoughts from it is not the same as copying it. I think that being familair with what is out there makes it easier to avoid unoriginal work. Carrying around with you the feel or mood of other work is a powerful motivator, but this is very different to having templates in your head.

 

True, and many famous photographers end up photographing many of the same things, and at times, even photographing the same areas outside their native living area. The Ongoing Moment from Geoff Dyer seems to touch on the former, but I just started reading it so I can't be sure.

[stkorn]

While it's always good to know the "masters" I think the best way to keep fresh is to blast through the thousands of posts daily on flickr. It's ALL there, including what will be the next big thing this year and in ten years.

 

While the vast majority is junk like mine, there are amazing images taken by creative people world wide and it goes on line for free every second of every minute. It's really inspiring and puts the focus where it should be: On creating something that you love.

 

I could not possibly disagree with you more. this is the worst way to stay fresh, it is a way to destroy any originality still left in your head. yes you will be inspired, inspired to mimic what you've seen consciously or not and the result will be a derivative style based on other people's pictures. its like listening to every song on the radio and then coming away inspired to write one. you will write a pop song maybe a good one but you will not get from there to merzbow.

[Dan States]

I could not possibly disagree with you more. this is the worst way to stay fresh, it is a way to destroy any originality still left in your head. yes you will be inspired, inspired to mimic what you've seen consciously or not and the result will be a derivative style based on other people's pictures. its like listening to every song on the radio and then coming away inspired to write one. you will write a pop song maybe a good one but you will not get from there to merzbow.

 

Everything there is on earth made by people is derivative...nobody creates anything out of whole cloth. Monks in caves don't take pictures

[stkorn]

well certainly monks in caves don's use cameras but 3200 on the x1 is pretty clean so who knows? the rest of your comment seems to be 'everything is derivative so why bother?' which is utter bs

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jsrockit]

its like listening to every song on the radio and then coming away inspired to write one. you will write a pop song maybe a good one but you will not get from there to merzbow.

 

That depends what your influences are before you listen to pop songs and the radio. Many underground artist make "pop" music that is off-kilter and strange, but is definitively influenced by mainstream music. Just because Merzbow is very experimental and noisy doesn't mean he has not had mainstream influences.

 

It is all about taking certain elements and twisting them... but not ripping them off.

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at images and learning from images. Certain popular photographers have been inspired by snapshots. I wouldn't rule anything out.

[Dan States]

well certainly monks in caves don's use cameras but 3200 on the x1 is pretty clean so who knows? the rest of your comment seems to be 'everything is derivative so why bother?' which is utter bs

 

 

What part of my post states "why bother?" I don't see that in the sentance.

 

 

In all the world of art, music, literature and any creative trade yours is certainly the minority view. What great artist in history ever claimed to have NEVER looked at or been influenced by the works of others?

 

Just because there is nothing new under the sun doesn't mean we all hang ourselves.