10 photographers to ignore?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

But every great writer has read literary classics. Is this bad advice?

http://petapixel.com/2012/03/29/10-photographers-you-should-ignore/

 

[summicron1]

It strikes me as beyond stupid. Is the author implying that we cannot hope to imitate those folks or do what they did, so what's the use?

Stupid. Learn from the masters but take your own path. That's what they did. If what they did narrows the field (as he implies HCB did to street photography" then you are learning the wrong lessons.

 

[CropDusterMan]

Written purely for shock value. What a bunch of bull shit.

I can think of two peoples opinions to ignore...

Bryan Formhals and Dead Link Removed

 

[Gerald C Koch]

One of the marvelous things about photography is that you can talk about it endlessly. In some respects it is like Oscar Wilde describing smoking. "It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want?”

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Even if they declare it as the joke it is typical petapixel. Place for losers, run by losers. And you will become one if you reading it.

 

[MattKing]

Somewhere in APUG there is another thread talking about just that opinion piece.

I kind of like it. It certainly is more about what people tend to take from the listed photographers than those photographers themselves.

 

[summicron1]

Even if they declare it as the joke it is typical petapixel. Place for losers, run by losers. And you will become one if you reading it.

You do wonder if it is meant as satire.

 

[Rick A]

You do wonder if it is meant as satire.

Copied from the article:

Editor’s note: This is a piece by photographers Bryan Formhals and Dead Link Removed on how famous photographers’ styles are copied over and over again. Please do not read or comment if you take things too seriously.

 

[summicron1]

Copied from the article:

Editor’s note: This is a piece by photographers Bryan Formhals and Dead Link Removed on how famous photographers’ styles are copied over and over again. Please do not read or comment if you take things too seriously.

Hmmm. OK. This is, then, an excellent example of why writing funny should be left to professionals.

I used to write a column for a newspaper, so I know. If you have to explain to people that what you wrote wasn't meant to be taken seriously, you didn't write it properly.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Best photographic satire ever:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html?m=1

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...at-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html

 

[removed account4]

i can see why he said ignore them, why not?
it might let someone open their own eyes, and maybe they will see something different than
the folks on their greatest hits list.
i have to admit until just a few years ago i had no idea who a handful of the people mentioned
were. its kind of funny that people didn't read the preface and didn't see the disclaimer.

 

[StoneNYC]

I liked the writing, and the fresh perspective. After seeing my second AIPAD show, I can see why it could be good advice for some. I think the real point is simply that these photographers and their images were excellent in their time, but may not hold the same value in another time, as the cultural values and perspectives may have changed. Learn from others but find your own path.

 

[Doc W]

Deep down it is a very shallow article. We should all just move on.

 

[michr]

The article was mostly clickbait, but I have to agree with some of the choices. Ansel Adams was a master of the darkroom, and there's no denying his influence. His tripod holes are very deep, and his influence is so broad in black and white nature photography that to ignore his work takes either a kind of exceptional ignorance or masterful single-mindedness. It would be very difficult to work in black and white landscapes and have your work not be a reflection or response to Adams' photography.

However, he wasn't the last word. I've seen contemporary work that is the equal of his best work in the technical realm and better in the artistic, and in a similar style to Adams. I saw an exhibition of Adam's work earlier this year from a private collection, and frankly, it didn't live up to my expectations. What I expected was to be awestruck and dumbfounded, and so forth, and I just wasn't. Maybe these were all cheap prints that the collector had purchased at a discount. I suppose it's possible that age hadn't treated them well. But whatever reason, I didn't see the high-water mark of photography at that show, thus I can't understand the reverence his work is given. And I say this as someone who still respects his work and what he accomplished with it.

But mostly, it's just a matter of taste. What was popular becomes unpopular. Ignore Adams if you can, because nature is more than staid, stately, and dramatic.

 

[blockend]

Bryan Formhals and Blake Andrews are experienced critics and pretty good photographers. However they both spend inordinate amounts of time looking at photographic books and exhibitions, many of which are derivations of the names mentioned. Looking at also-rans too long can make the most open-minded of us cynical, and this article seems like an expression of those frustrations. Above all I expect it's frustration at their own oeuvre, and the sure knowledge someone else has done it first, and quite possibly better.

A new style will come along, and everyone will go "of course!" when they see it, and wonder why they didn't think of it, but those eureka moments are ever fewer because, in all honesty, photographic originality is running out of gaps. The answer is to be serious about what we do, do not rely on technical gimmicks or virtuosity alone, eschew the cool and transient, think long term and keep going. FWIW I thought the article was a neat summary of prevailing photographic mannerisms, but like the man said, don't get strung out about it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...If you have to explain to people that what you wrote wasn't meant to be taken seriously, you didn't write it properly...

Exactly!
Giftless dump of words this petapixel article is.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd start by ignoring that stupid article itself.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The point of the article, at least for me, is not to copy another's style. Postings by newbies that want to duplicate a particular look without any particular understanding involved. So for Adams value his darkroom technique but find your own path.

 

[pdeeh]

Photographers don’t need any help becoming grumpy and skeptical about photography.

Certainly applies at APUG in threads like this ...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

With any art or craft, I think we need to be a derivative of someone we admire when we first start. After a while, hopefully, we find a voice and walk on our own. The arts and pretty much any discipline can't grow and expand without it. Artists go the museum and galleries, chefs must eat in other restaurants, writers must read the works of other authors etc. With the arts, we stand on the shoulder of giants, but we have to offer something in return by being original.

 

[markbarendt]

With any art or craft, I think we need to be a derivative of someone we admire when we first start. After a while, hopefully, we find a voice and walk on our own. The arts and pretty much any discipline can't grow and expand without it. Artists go the museum and galleries, chefs must eat in other restaurants, writers must read the works of other authors etc. With the arts, we stand on the shoulder of giants, but we have to offer something in return by being original.

I don't think we need to follow anybody in Photography, nor do we need to know all the techie stuff. In fact IMO the learn the rules first mantra stifles creativity.

A Holga or Diana loaded with HP5 or Portra 400 and a decent eye is a great start. Heck a disposable can be used to great effect.

How many times have we heard people say that they got worse at photography as they got better at the craft? Been pretty darn regular IME.

 

[removed account4]

couldn't agree more with you mark.

 

[Doc W]

I don't think we need to follow anybody in Photography, nor do we need to know all the techie stuff. In fact IMO the learn the rules first mantra stifles creativity.

A Holga or Diana loaded with HP5 or Portra 400 and a decent eye is a great start. Heck a disposable can be used to great effect.

How many times have we heard people say that they got worse at photography as they got better at the craft? Been pretty darn regular IME.

At some point in your adventure, you may want to know how to get a specific result and not leave everything up to chance. That is simply learning the basics. Novices mistake a knowledge of materials and techniques for "rules" and reject them because they mistakenly feel that knowledge is limiting.

 

[markbarendt]

At some point in your adventure, you may want to know how to get a specific result and not leave everything up to chance. That is simply learning the basics.

Sure. Once you know where you want to go it's not tough to get there.

Novices mistake a knowledge of materials and techniques for "rules" and reject them because they mistakenly feel that knowledge is limiting.

I think novices (and experts) reject rules because they don't make sense or aren't helpful.

Example: I know exactly why and how to shoot to the shadows but I don't use that technique for my own work. I don't use it because it's a hassle and time consuming and distracting compared to my other options in the field.

 

[Doc W]

Sure. Once you know where you want to go it's not tough to get there.


I think novices (and experts) reject rules because they don't make sense or aren't helpful.

Example: I know exactly why and how to shoot to the shadows but I don't use that technique for my own work. I don't use it because it's a hassle and time consuming and distracting compared to my other options in the field.

It is not a rule. It is simply a technique among many. There is no rule that says you have to "shoot to the shadows." You have been misinformed.