The struggle for greatness (in photography)

[Ben Calwell]

I've often wondered: When the great masters of photography apply their craft, how much effort do you think they put forth?
Do they agonize over every square inch of the ground glass? Or do they finish in under, say, 20 minutes and say to themselves, "Yep, this scene will become a classic and be reprinted in photo textbooks."
Or do they take a "close enough for government work" approach, knowing that their superior eye for art and composition will make their photos rise above the rest?
I could sweat off 10 pounds under the dark cloth, giving myself a backache and knee pain in the process and still come away with a print destined for the dusty shelf in my closet.
I quess what I'm asking is, do the acknowledged masters sweat and agonize over a scene? Do they reach a point where they just say, "Ah, hell, I'm just going to trip the shutter and hope for the best."

[John_4185]

Speaking of earlier photographers, and disregarding fashion photographers, it is unlikely they did their work with any thoughts about "becoming great". They just did what they felt was the right thing, possibly reinforced by sharing with peers. Fame (if not fortune) came later. Many very good photographers are not well known. Yet.

Digressing slightly: I know at least two photographers who have been working for decades whos work is well regarded in their field, but not 'famous'. In each case, I am certain a very good study/book can be made of their life's work, but they have not chosen to campaign or politic to make it so. Such is probably the best way to work so that your work doesn't become persuaded to unfortunate directions by publishers, marketeers, until you are retired, or dead.

That said, I know a third photographer/artist who is famous and his fame brings him grants. He's been at it for over forty years, earned his way, worked hard every day without ever thinking of fame.

[tim atherton]

Ben

Of the photographers I've known or met (and those I've read of) whose work is widely recognised, I'd say for one thing the craft is secondary.

The craft and technique has been mastered and then it's out of the way - so to speak - so they can get on with making photogorahs. It might be they have spent time mastering some aspect so they can do what they want to do and not worry about the craft/technique side - Misrach working out how best to take long night exposures in the desert (and not come back with 50 sheets of screwed up film), Sugimoto figuring out his technique for his 2x infinity work, or hour+ exposures in cinemas of the film rolling and so on. Even just having a film/developing system they know works and that they know well - then they can forget about it.

Many (most - but perhaps not all) photograph a lot. A good/great classical musician still has to practice 8 hours a day so that the hour or two of performance works. It takes a lot of practice. Same with photographers. Most of the ones I have known shoot a lot of film. Think of the average book by some of them - 100, 150, 200 photographs. They probably shot at least ten times that much film -0 and that's just on that one project - whatever it might have been. (and Atget was mentioned - in the archives of his work, we have many of those hundreds and hundreds of prints and negatives - many aren't great - but many are the equivalent of the maestro doing his scales at 10am before an evening concert). And the more you photograph a subject, a topic, an idea the more you see. ( Incidentally, this is also one reason many such photographers have someone else do their printing - they know how to print and often how to print very well - but time in the darkroom is time wasted taking photogorahs...). Photography for them isn't a hobby - it's work, as is all art - often many many hours a day. I'm not saying it's drudgery, but it's not skipping gaily through the Sierra waiting for "the" picture to show itself. As well, as much time and effort is actually put into negotiating access to a particualr place or locatiuon as goes into actually takign the photograph

Then again, as has been mentioned in different ways - they know what you want. They may not know the exact picture, but they aren't wandering aimlessly just looking for a photograph to pop up (not usually anyway). Michael said it best: "When they would "hope for the best," they knew what it means to be awake to a place and to one's deeply personal interpretation of that place."

The simplest answer is they work(ed) hard.

[Steven Barall]

Things happen fast. There is a frugality of time and effort to making things for certain people. How long does it really take to have that vision in your head in the first place? Indecision is what kills you and when you loose that thread, things tend to get complicated and ultimately lost.

If you see something unfold before you and you start to think that this photo is going to be the big one, the one that makes you famous, the one what will make it possible for you to buy that extra extra large SUV, the one that will be your legacy, well then you are almost certainly going to start to think it to death which will surely kill it, suck the life out of it. Each photo is just one breath out of many breaths that happen in one life. A good excercise is to go to some extreme to set up the camera, something that will take a long time, and then instead of exposing film just enjoy the scene for what it is and pack up the camera and move on. Some would say that that is the true experience of photography. For them the print is just a souvenir which is pretty cool if you think about it.

If it's just a question of learning camera movements and focal lengths, well that just takes time and you have to stick with it. You have to realize that there are many reasons not to take a picture and that those reasons are just as important to photography than making a finished print is.

As a poet once said: Life is a highway...

[Bill_1856]

Two of the Masters with whom I've worked were both quite meticulous about examining every square inch of their ground glass (Paula Chamlee and Marie Cosindas). It's well-known that others (AA and Weston) directly visualized the subject matter as a final print, paying little attention to the ground glass image.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think you are starting with a false premise Ben. If I understand your post correctly you are assuming that any of these famous photographers made a master piece every time the pressed the shutter. Nothing can be further from the truth. It takes practice and a lot of hard work to develop a personal style and original composition.

I doubt any of the photographers became photographers in a quest for fame, I think they just wanted to create and their drive did not allow them to compromise on a 9 to 5 job and let photography take a second place.

With few exceptions most of us in this forum have an alternative primary source of income and did photography when we had the chance. Now that I am able to dedicate myself full time to photography I realize how important it is to practice, to be out there taking pictures and printing at least once or twice a week if not more. If I get lazy and stop making pictures for a couple of weeks I notice I become "rusty", I have a harder time making good compositions, visualizing what I want, choosing a proper subject.

This is what famous photographers do, they are out taking pictures most of the time, just by the law of averages if you are out taking pictures constantly you have a better chance to be in the right place at the right time than if you just do it once a month.

Personally, my goal is to share what I can create. If fame comes it is welcome, but not something I necessarily need or I am in search of.

[paulr]

"It's well-known that others (AA and Weston) directly visualized the subject matter as a final print, paying little attention to the ground glass image."

And perhaps less well known that both, later in life, admitted that they hardly ever actually worked this way. It was a fad among their contemporaries to believe they saw it all in advance, but in the moment things rarely worked out like that. Like many other great artists, they responded very spontaneously to what attracted them, and worked out the details later.

As to the original question, I think Tim and others agree with me that strength of vision is primarily what distinguishes any great artist. As far as actual working methods, you're likely to find all kinds. I think of the difference between Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart composed whole symphonies in his head. He'd have to go off alone for days at a time, working out the details. When he was done in his head, writing it all down was purely mechanical transcription. He could be in a noisy cafe for all he cared. The notes were already composed. Beethoven worked it out on paper, laboriously, going through draft after draft. The creation and the scribing were one and the same.

Which is better to emmulate? Depends on how your brain works. It you work hard enough at expressing your vision, one way or another you'll figure it out. You might end up with a way that's different from either ... and different from Weston's, and differnt from Winnogrands, or maybe just like one of them. It's all secondary to what you have to say, and to your willingness to work through what it takes to get it out.

[Scott Fleming]

Great thread. Being a lowly newb I find making the print (having the lab make the print) and having it hanging on the wall is the most important learning element for me. Then when I'm out there ... set up ... looking at, absorbing, pondering the scene and critically ... the light; it is my prints that inform me of what to do ... or not do. Every print is a combination of failure and success. One just has to weigh the percentages. I have about a dozen scenes I could spend the rest of my life trying to capture in their constantly varrying moods. Perfection is an impossibility.

As to what is success ... it is strictly personal. The market for photographic art is so miniscule one must not even think about it as far as I'm concerned. Today only marketing can get a photographers images out into the public and marketing is about the last thing I want to do in life. How someone else might react to my images means less than nothing to me. Can have no bearing on how or why I go about my photograhy in either method or technique or intent.

Besides, the public is blind. They absolutely can not see the forest for the trees. Even IF (huge if) perhaps something about an image (any image any medium) catches their eye ... they don't actually see it. It's just a another fleeting image amoungst a myriad per day they contact and they are unable to SEE and FEEL what the image has to say.

If success is important to you .... develop a good script for new and different sitcom.

I do enjoy it however when occaisionally I run into someone whose eyes are still open. Love hearing from them what they take away from one of my images. It's so rare however that I count it as seridipity. Never to be expected or even hoped for.

[Ellis Vener]

the hardest thing for most photographers is to both see things their way and to simultaneously get out of their own way. One constant among the really outstanding photographers that
I know is that it isn't so much effort that makes great photographs as it it is intense concentration on what they are looking at and looking for.

[domenico Foschi]

I agree with Ellis, in part, but I would not talk about concentration ( especially in picture taking stage), but of instinct and a corageous leap in creating an image that doesn't follow any parameter other than your own.

www.dfoschisite.com