What do we contribute to the picture?

[Bruce Wehman]

Someone years ago told me that photography was “show business.” It was hard for me to believe at the time, because you had guys like Eugene Smith to refute any notion that photography was anything but serious. But today, with the death of Photojournalism, Photoshop, and the trend towards staged news events, yes, I see your point: The photographer is being pushed to the rear. We’re not alone. Writers, Painters and Musicians are experiencing much the same thing.

Those who use their art to support themselves usually sell out. Those with deep pockets are able stand for something, and very few are willing to starve for their convictions… ….show business.

[John Kasaian]

Interesting issue to contemplate over the first cup of coffee!

It sounds like commercial photography(which I know nothing about) is driven entirely by the the finished product...hey wait a minute...thats what many claim regarding photography in general: "The print is the thing." It dosen't matter if the print comes out of an Epson or a tray. If say, the print calls for a cloud then we can photoshop in a cloud(or in ancient times add a nice looking cloud in the dark room from stock negatives.) It sounds like with anorexic models, designers, stylists, art directors and technicians all contributing to "the print" the photographer, at least in this scenario dosent contribute much. Perhaps what the Photographer brings to the party is a reputation that clients are willing to pay for. I know of a guy who shot food but he worked by himself with an occasional assistant. He did everything from building the sets to lighting to developing 8x10 color in trays---he made incredible shots and was in demand among the local food processors. I'm guessing he brought more to the party.

I'm thinking about how all this plays with my own LF experience---it dosen't. I approach my landscapes like a hunter stalking game, scouting the terrain of an area, laying in wait, and siezing the shot. What do I bring to the party? A trophy to share---like a moosehead you see in a saloon or a well chewed rodent left at your doorstep by the nieghborhood cat. Does anyone pay attention or appreciate it? I don't know. The guy who shot the moose and the cat who caught the rodent thought their trophys were worthy to share. When I see a moosehead I think about majestic, huge animals in a far away places. When I see a well chewed rodent on my door mat I think about hunter's spark that drives ol' tabby to pounce on rats just like tose saber tooth tigers at the tar pits who hunting giant sloths, elk and camels in the ice age. What do I bring to the party? I don't rightly know--but it sure is fun! Time for a refill on the coffee. Thanks for making me think!

[Guy Boily]

John, I totally agree with your way of thinking. Light to me is everything. In early March I gave a conference and presentation on the Power of Light in Montreal. During the 1st half I strongly emphasized the importance of light in an image which has character. Of course getting that image was sometimes a challenge in itself but if you want more than just a photo of a place you have to make the effort. Speaking about the events leading up to the image made people aware of this effort. A photo of the scene with ordinary light was shown as I described it and then at the precise moment that special image with the magical light was projected and it was at that moment that the audience understood the Power of Light. Yes, anyone could have taken the same image but they would have had to visit the area 4, 10 or 20 times before everything would have fallen into place. I am not Ansel Adams but I do know what the right light does to an image. My goal is to photographe an emotion, a feeling and this is what I try to contribute to an image.
http://www.montrealcameraclub.com/pages/documents/cameragram_dec%2004_id%20.pdf
www.guyboily.com
Guy

[David Karp]

Exclusion. In other words, what we exclude from the frame is as important, or perhaps more important than what we include.

[MIke Sherck]

I think that the simple answer to your question is "vision and skill" but that may be too brief, so In My Arrogant Opinion, let me expand.

My guess would be that there are in excess of 1000 fashion photographers active at this moment in time. Maybe more -- maybe many more -- and maybe less, but let's take 1000 as an example. Of that 1000, how many will be remembered 20 years from now? 50 years from now? At the turn of the next century? When the calendar rolls over to the year 2200 and people trying to make a buck are putting together their equivalent of a book on "great photographers of the 21st century", who will be included? That fashion photographer you mentioned, will he/she be in there? Will -any- of the 1000 be in that book?

Probably not. They may be photographers but that doesn't automatically mean that they are good ones. We remember writers because of what they write and we remember photographers by their photographs. Yet there are thousands of books published every year and, on average, none of them are all that memorable. There may be tens of thousands of photographs presented to the average person each year and they may remember one or two. Yet, Weston has been dead for almost half a century now (he died a few months after I was born,) and I went to a show of 150 of his photographs a week ago last Thursday and was absolutely stunned. Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, Eugene Atget, Robert Doiseneau (?), and on and on. Do we remember their photographs because they were "lucky" happy-snappers or skilled marketers, or do we remember their photographs because they have an emotional/intellectual impact that forbids us from forgetting?

Anyone can take a pretty picture. Lots of folks do. You yourself said that was your goal -- pretty pictures to hang on your living room wall. Somewhere down the line your grandkids or great grandkids or... will come across one or more of those pictures. What will they say? "Nice barn," or "My, the sky was blue that day,"? Why is that?

In my arrogant opinion, it's because some photographers are better than other photographers. The better ones might get published, gallery exhibitions, etc. (I think there is an element of luck involved, as well as planning,) and maybe some of the not-so-better ones, too. But only the very best will live into the next century. One can market well, but in general people are neither stupid nor easily fooled for very long. Excellence lives; mediocrity dies. An unpopular notion, but Darwin had the right idea, I think. Crap disappears and the good stuff hangs around. Your rich happy-snapper may have bought herself a gallery show but I'll bet that's the last you hear about it. There was a story told by Bill Jay some years back, published in Lenswork magazine, wherein a newspaper in Great Britain had a staffer paint a picture and then took it around to several major art museums with the offer of a large cash donation if they would accept the painting. As I recall, one of the five places they took the still-wet painting rejected it, saying it was crap, while the other four gushed praise over it. They'd taken it to independent experts beforehand, just to make sure that it wasn't accidental genius, you understand, so the moral of the story was that "money talks" and that the art world is not deaf to its entreaties.

On another level of disengagement, I believe that one of the elements which makes a "great" artist (photographer, writer, painter, etc.) is that the great ones pour their passion -- their souls, if you will -- into their work in such a way that the audience can sense it. Perhaps this is a little too mystical in our modern age of measurement and skepticism, but nevertheless I think there's something to it. Someone else (I forget who,) said that the most effective communicators are the best listeners; maybe that has something to do with it.

For ruminations on the "why" of photography (and by extension, art,) I like to read Lenswork magazine. I don't agree with everything I read (that's the skepticism thing, rearing its ugly head,) but even the parts with which I disagree are interesting and make for wearying thought. If you haven't seen it, perhaps you should pick up a copy (check your local Borders or Barnes & Noble.)

[Ralph Barker]

What do we contribute, as photographers, to the picture? I'd say something between nothing and everything. While there are certainly good examples of the photographer being completely passive in the creation of the image(s), there are also good examples of him/her only seeming to be such to the casual observer.

For example, in the arena of commercial shoots, have you ever met an art director (the boss of the shoot) who could accurately describe what he or she wanted in the image without resorting to vague, flowery adjectives? In that sense, the (good) commercial photographer becomes the interpretor, or translator, creating an image that says what the AD couldn't quite describe. Mastery of lighting technique certainly plays a major role in the commercial photographer's ability to do that. The landscape person does essentially the same thing, although more passively, by selecting just the right time of year (season), weather, and time of day to press the shutter release, not to mention all of the elements that go into the selection of the ideal composition.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Well, this is a tough one as it comes to motivation in my opinion.

As a photographer who enjoys the landscape I bring nothing to the image that is not already there. In fact, I could care less about the light - it is what it is and Iwill work with what I am given.

But then my motivation is not commerical, it is personal.

I photograph as much for the experience as anything else, the means is as important as the end. As I don't make my living from photography, I can walk away from an image and be as happy as if I took it becuase the experience of being there is the same. Creating a beautiful print is just a way for me to remember the experience and hopefully allow others to enjoy it as well.

In the examples you mention, the motivation is different than mine so each of those people bring a different set of priorities to play.

The documentarian may actually have a desire to help, she may not be as skilled a photographer as you but she may not care as her motivation is to commuicate a certain understanding of the world we live in.

The fashion and commecial photographers are of course faced with the delima of pleasing clients, so often their desire to create unique art is placed second to paying the bills. All the assistants, props, methods, etc. are there to get the product out the door fast and invoice the client, so their motivation is different than mine.

What a person brings ( or doesn't bring) to an activity is based on what motivates them in the first place. Adams was motivated to communicate to the larger world community the beauty of the environment we live in and to protect it ; while Minor White was motivated to use photography as a means of self exploration and self discovery. Both were master photographers, but their motivation was different.

So, what you and I and the rest on this forum brings to a photograph will be differnt from one another as we each of a different set of goals. The skills will be similar, we will use much of the same equipment, we will use darkrooms or computers - but we will all bring something different.

[Alan Davenport]

Dude, it sounds like you spent too much time indoors this winter.

[David Beal]

Guys, I'm never going to compete with the greats, but what I contribute is summed up in the catchphrase we use in marketing: "making tomorrow's memories by capturing today's happiness."

None of my shots are prize winners. A few are "Kodak moments." But for my clients, they're all memories.

That said, I'm going to go out Monday and capture some unhappiness. Some of our local Civil War re-enactors will have ceremonies around the area, and I want to be there.

Maybe that's part of what we contribute, too.

/s/ David

[Mark Sawyer]

When I photograph a landscape, I bring the intimacies of my artistic soul, which splays itself across the surface of the final print in manifestations nature might have dreamed of, but could not achieve on her own. Only my own creative vision can lovingly sprinkle the skies with dust spots and streaks of uneven development. My muddy highlights echo the muddied state of the human spirit, even as the loss of shadow detail speaks of the loss of the natural environment. And that vignetting in the corner because I screwed up the front tilt? That represents the dark influence of man encroaching...