There are some on this forum who have found their voice as photographers and show work that consistently attest to that. For me personally, I am still searching even though I think I may be close. So my questions are:
Is finding your voice as a photographer important?
Does you body of work have to say something or fit into some niche, genre or category or is it Ok to shoot whatever catches your eye?
For those who have already found their voice, what did it take? How long?
It just happens.
For instance, I wanted to learn "minimalist" composition, so I went out to make minimalist pictures.
I failed. Other stuff crept into the pictures that were "me," but mot minimalist. Surprise! I liked them.
If you keep making pictures, they will become more and more "yours."
In fact, a good place to start is to imitate your favorite photographers. You won't imitate them well, and "you" will creep into your imitations more and more as you do them. This is a good thing.
Moral of the story: Make many pictures, and the issue will take care of itself.
Bruce Barlow
author of "Finely Focused" and "Exercises in Photographic Composition"
www.brucewbarlow.com
Interesting take! Thanks!
This is a tough question that someone can spend their ENTIRE photo life searching for...
I have been stuck in the battle of me photographing "it", or letting "it" happen for as long as I can remember... I figure that it's kinda like having a dance partner... I'm maybe the one that showers/shaves/dresses up/gasses up the rod, and pays admission to the dance hall, but when we hit the dance floor, I better let "it" lead, because if I lead I'll be stepping on my partner's toes/fumbling around and not really getting in-to-the-groove as well as following my "partner's" lead and it taking us to some place "we" didn't think "we" could go together...
And what you feel moved to do/where you would have to go/what you would have to do, then... A stream of questions emerge, and hopefully we have gained the experience/insight to keep moving along the process...
One recent realization for me is that with the urban landscape stuff I do, it is mostly about 3 things; Location, Location, Location... But then I have to respond to the complex set of conditions and THEN find order within the framelines... So first, I have to cover a lot of ground to find potential sites, then everything else...
But I'm starting a still life series, and I realized (as I was holding a prop in my hands) that the issue was "what is the meaning of this thing in my hands, and how does to relate to, well, anything else???" And if I put this into a set next to something else, will there be a "conversation" between these items that will speak beyond the frame???
So there just two examples of "different approaches" that are dictated by many elements... Hopefully we are not slow to pick up on the whispers...
Sometimes you have to "shut-up" and listen, and let it speak...
Steve K
As "it" speaks, what do you listen for? Shouldn't whatever you hear/feel touch a chord in you to be effective?Originally Posted by LabRat
Not always... Often it is there, and we don't see/feel it, but sometimes it will creep into what we shot, and reveal later...
I think of a camera (at best) as a "Twilight Zone" device... It can see more than us, (as we seem to have this JPEG compression/like thing in our brain, that limits the amount of information that we can process...) I figure I have to know where/when to aim the beast, what allows the process to happen, and let it do it's thing and see what got dragged up in the net... Hopefully I have the good judgement to know what the camera "likes"... But also keeping in mind what I'm trying to find... (This is the "dance" I was talking about...)
One way is to photograph stuff, and read it with a different eye later... What else is going on in there??? Maybe someone else sees something you didn't in it...
This is one place where I think shooting my digital point and shoot has been helpful... As I'm looking at the image on the screen (right after a shot) I can see how the camera "froze" this moment, and rendered something on an edge or background that may be worth exploring... (I sense that with many people, a problem with a LF camera would be that so much attention has to be given to the rig to "get it right", that it might draw away from the focus to explore the possibilities of the scene...)
Not to be Woo-Woo, but I had some Zen training some years ago, that actually had a positive effect on my photo stuff (and life)... (I'm not usually that type of guy, but I liked the people, they offered, so I learned to meditate...) It opened up the veil of "awareness" as I could now sit in an empty room, and be aware of many different elements floating around there...
It's not what you shoot, or how, (technically) It's how the elements interrelate... And what "mood" might be captured... For example, one could see a marble sculpture (or gravesite) outside somewhere... At first glance it could be boring looking, but with a certain light interacting with it, and the layer of dust/grime creating an artificial "shadow", dark clouds or light sky behind, and other elements, maybe it brings out a sadness or other emotion... And will this "connect" with a "viewer" of the print??? Will others see something else to connect with??? (Check out the work of Clarence John Laughlin to see what he was able to work using found scenes/items... His work almost seems "haunted"... And he was from your neck-of-the-woods...)
There is a LOT right under our noses!!!!!!!!!! And we should "allow" things to happen, too...
Steve K
So true. Some things have to be photographed to be seen. I did some photography in the same neighborhood as a well accomplished documentary photographer, showed him one picture done only a block from his photos and he could not recognize it at all even though the structure was unique and of monumental size. It had to be framed just so to raise interest. (I don't think he liked the photo, but that's okay.)
With me it evolved with new tech and new knowledge. It always centered around people as my landscape, but as I look back on it all fits pretty well.
You see and decide.
nsfw
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/...-goes-into-it/
A photograph need not say something significant or fit into some niche. Nor does it have to say anything about the photographer: some subjects are more significant than most photographers if strongly presented. I mostly agree with Bruce.
I'll go one step further and say that if you set out to make significant pictures, you won't. If I think the picture I'm about to make is really good, I usually walk away, because it won't be. Ego interferes too much.
So, instead, I just try to do it with as little conscious thought as I can control. I make a lot of pictures. Back home, looking aat proofs, I "discover" the ones that seem to work.
Bruce Barlow
author of "Finely Focused" and "Exercises in Photographic Composition"
www.brucewbarlow.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks