How do you find your voice...give your images 'soul'?

[gandolfi]

Several times a year someone will come up to me and say, "I saw one of your pictures at such and such. I didn't have to look at the signature, I knew it was one of yours." That's about the nicest compliment I could be paid.

indeed.
and I get that a LOT...
I have - or so people say - developed a certain style in my images.
PWL. Liquid emulsions and so on..
mostly nudes.
reckognizable images, people say...

I think I am kind of blessed that I have never been successful. commercial wise.
so I have just been playing around, and developed this style..
people sometimes ask me: why don't you take images of other things?
"it could be so interesting to see whay you could do..."

I don't. I stick to what I am interested in. and the content of my images have changes a lot in the years gone by.

interesting enough; I lost my mother 18 months ago - and my photography went to a compleately full stop.
It was like it had to "mean" something - it had to be serious..
the trouble is, if I know I "have to" be serious, I can't do it.
I have to have fun, while doing the images. Even though the end result would be dark in mood or something similar...
otherwise the results will not be good.

So I have a "style". it isn't all good. It constantly asks you if it is the right one, or if it is time to change - or stop..
But that is also a good thing (?)

 

[jmdavis]

posted by Juan:

Tina Modotti, even that she was a very talented person, never consider herself a photographer, that's why her "photography" never matures, and not for her involvement in politics.

I don't know about this. Modotti left photography early. She had less than 10 years before politics became her obsession. I think that her photography never matured because she left it before it could. The Weston influence is pronounced in her Mexican work. I haven't seen much of the other work that she did. Also, it was my understanding that her return to Mexico was in part to revive her art. I guess that we will never know.

Mike

 

[MattKing]

Soul can be good in small doses too

Many people who don't do photography for a living, have the luxury of following their heart, or whatever, to lead them to take the pictures that enrich their soul.

As a pro, one has to attract, impress and satisfy clients, and at the same time try to grow as a photographer. Obviously, commercial work is a compromise and a collaboration, so the fact that it does not show your soul is understandable.

Michael

There is soul even in my commercial work - it is just less obvious.

Admittedly, when you are photographing weddings, or portraits, or events (which is most of my commercial work), you have a bit more leeway , but I think it is generally true that when photographing for others, there are an infinite number of choices available to you. It is the choices that you make that reveal the voice.

If I have photographed a wedding, and there is evidence in my photographs of the joy, and excitement, and stress, and community revealed there, it shows something about me as well. The things we capture on film, are the things we notice and attach value to and choose to record.

The "art" may not be earthshaking, or transcendent, but if it communicates in any meaningful way, then it is important and it does express itself in your voice.

Even the presence of good technique has a "soul" element to it. I use as an example a wedding I photographed three years ago for friends/relatives. I used MF colour negative film. There were dozens of people there taking pictures, and the bride and groom got to see lots of other people's pix (some digital, some from film) before they saw mine. When I went to see them with the 5x5 proofs, there were already a number of other people's photographs around - some were even framed. It didn't matter - the bride and groom were amazed at how different the results were from my work, as compared to the vast majority of the other's. They commented on the clarity and detail revealed in the proofs, and commented as well about the expressions I had captured, the relationships between foregrounds and backgrounds, the naturalness of the poses (when posed) and the lucky accidents of my candid choices - i.e. all the expected results of experience, good technique, reasonable judgment and a liking for and understanding of the work. I believe that they were moved by my photographs, but even if not, they at least enjoyed them, and I expect they will continue to be a source of enjoyment in years to come.

In my case, I had the satisfaction of performing work that I was proud of, and which I too enjoyed looking at, because I felt it captured the event, which was obviously an important one for these people, in a way that accurately reflected the happiness of that day. I also have the continuing satisfaction of knowing that my photographs have brought pleasure to others, which by itself does have value. I would suggest that even if my photographs of that wedding were not unusual, they did and do have "soul".

I would also suggest that, as a result of choices made by me, the photographs I took are clearly an expression of my view of the wedding day, as compared to someone elses, and as such they do reveal my voice in a meaningful way.

All of this may be a roundabout way of saying that your "voice" can be found in every photographic expression you might make - sometimes loud and clear, and sometimes subtle and maybe even subversive. Some of your images may have so much soul that they need to be labelled with a caution, while others will have a gentle and winning type of soul that lends itself to sitting on a corner of a desk, in a frame, to give you or someone else pleasure for years to come.

If you are at a crossroad, then you have choices to make. Don't worry about making the wrong choices, because by making choices you are just trying out your voice. If you choose something, and then later come to the realization that the choice made was not the best fit for you, then you can almost always make another choice.

Whatever choices are made, if you bring care and interest to your photographs, then your voice will reveal itself, and the images' "soul" will be evident.

 

[photomc]

Could not agree more Jim...that one issue has me going back to look at the works of different photographers, each one different, each with soul.
If you do a search about 'vision' in the threads you will also find that this something we all struggle with. I think it is good to do this once in a while, because it helps us evolve - are at least it does for me. Can't tell you how often I go out with film loaded in a camera/holders just to return home without ever taking the camera out....just nothing moved me to trip the shutter, and I fell that now my work has more to it than just a technical photograph. Seems like I 'see' more photos than I produce, if that makes sense. Now, I do not stop make the image and declare that it will be a great image....but now when I stop it is because I felt something and with a little skill and a lot of help from the gods of photography, I might just get the whole thing to come together and get close to what I was feeling on to film and from there (if the darkroom gods cut me some slack) the negative will actually come out the way I was hoping, then on to the print...you get the idea I hope. So, the tech part is important, but somewhere I have to get that part of 'me' that I am trying to share so that someone will understand why I bothered in the first place....does this make any sense?

I think thinking about this is counterproductive. Look through the current issue of Lenswork. The one with the Texas Tintypes. 3 photographers with very different visions but all three shout 'soul' to me. Several times a year someone will come up to me and say, "I saw one of your pictures at such and such. I didn't have to look at the signature, I knew it was one of yours." That's about the nicest compliment I could be paid.

 

[blansky]

There is soul even in my commercial work - it is just less obvious.

We are confusing each other on definitions.

In my experience "commercial work" is generally product photography.

What you are referring to is generally known as "portrait work", and I absolutely agree that is can, should, and in a lot of cases probably does exhibit "soul" and "style".

MIchael

 

[Gary892]

First, thank you for the question. I feel it is good to ask such questions.

This is not a direct answer to your question but an experience I had that changed the way I look at things. About 1 and 1/2 years ago I had a very close brush with death. After I regained my senses and was able to go out side I realized I felt differently. I could smell a fresh sent in the air, I sensed flowers and their fragrance. When I hold another persons hand I can feel their soul. I feel the soul of the earth.
To explain: if you have ever stood in the snow with no one near and felt the silence, then that is what I am describing. If you have ever been in the woods where all you hear is the breeze moving through the tree tops, that is what I am referring to.
I think that is how one gives soul or voice to one's work. Capture the feelings and senses of the moment and pass them on to the viewer of the image and then you have it.
That is not an easy task but there are those of the past and present that have done it.
The fact that you are asking this question demonstrates your desire to search out your answer.
My you have success on your journey.

Gary

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

To all:

This thread has made me think in ways that I haven't thought in years. I am *over* the critique I recieved. My thick skin has paid off. However the hundreds of critiques I've been through over the years of my career have been insignificant compared to the thought process this last one has put me through. Everyone's post has given me insight into how a photographer defines his voice, and I thank you for that.

One of the things I realized soon after the critique was that my images *do* have my voice and do have a bit of soul in them...it just wasn't the type of voice or soul the critic wants to see in photography. I am fine with that. I am not going to reinvent myself simply because one critic sees my work and doesn't respond to it on an emotional level.

But, what he did do, and which I am thankful for, is that he has caused me to stretch my brain and look inward at myself and my work in ways that I don't think I ever have before. It's 5:30 in the morning, and I've been awake for nearly an hour in a fitful semi-sleep, so I had to wake up and see where this thread has gone. I thank each of you for the comments you have made. This conversation took on legs that I didn't expect, and many more people responded than I would have thought.

I think that the question is one that every photographer, commercial or not, is one that they have struggled with. We have the search for the 'inner voice' in common.

I have searched for other threads in this vein, and the comments found within have a similiar feel to it, so I apologize if I am going over ground that has been trod before.

I think that what I am realizing is that I do have a voice in my photography, that my images do have soul.

I am also realizing that I do not need my photography to be the medium for the things which are the core of my own being, the things that matter most to me, and who make me who I am. I have other outlets for that, very few of which have anything to do with photography. I am realizing that many people don't have those outlets, and that their release for their own creativity is their photography.

I could go on more about the last few sentences, but it does not mean that photography is the *best* way to release your creativity, but it is a significant way, and sometimes the *only* way that some people can. I feel fortunate that I don't have to release my soul with my photography. Some of the things that make me who I am are too personal to share in that medium, and some of the things deep inside myself are too personal to share at all.

I think that I have been trying to find a way to share those things through my photography because I was tought that I was *supposed* to be able to show them visually simply because I *am* a photographer. I am realizing that I don't necessarily have to share those things visually simply because I work with a camera.

Maybe there will be a point in my life where I do feel comfortable presenting those things visually...maybe it won't even be photographically. Time will tell.

Thanks again to all who have responded, I do feel a sense of connection with each of you because of the comments you have shared.

I hope that this isn't the end of this thread, as I know that there is much more to speak on this subject and we have nowhere near exhausted it.

 

[nsurit]

'How do you find your voice, give your images soul?'

I don't know. I photograph what pleases me, that which makes an impression on me. I have no idea if I have a 'voice', one day someone will tell me, but for now I'll carry on as I am, trying to do my best, for me.

. . . and that someone will be you. I say it will come from your being engaged in the subtle conversation you have with yourself of "Who am I." It is, in my opinion, you rather than others who defines for the world who you are and that which is your voice or soul.

When photographing what pleases me, I, like you, am engaged in the conversation which defines me. Bill Barber

 

[roteague]

... no reflection on Michael or anyone else here. But, it seems to me that if your photography is only about "yourself", then you will always be looking for your "soul". Use some of your work for the benefit of others, then the true "soul" of your work will come out, in your outreach and caring for others.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

...it seems to me that if your photography is only about "yourself", then you will always be looking for your "soul".

One of the things I've come to a conclusion about is just that. I am not a narcisssist. Ok, maybe a bit of a narcicsssiist, but not *that* big.

I feel that there's enough of 'me' in my images, that when I do a job for a client I feel that I haven't created something so sterile that it has no personality. People may not know much about me from those images, other than the fact that I got a job, I shot it, and the client liked it enough to pay me for my work. In many cases I'm totally fine with that.

In other images I feel that I am doing well if the image I take reminds me of the experience, the feelings and the environment I was in at the time the photograph was taken. For me they are a visual and emotional journal of sorts. If I later look at an image and it fails to remind me of what I experienced then I failed. If I relive the experience time after time, then I am very happy with the image.

Occasionally the two worlds collide, and I have a commercial image that is worth remembering and attatch emotional value to.

How do you spell narsisscicst?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

How do you spell narsisscicst?

Hollywood

Murray

 

[mark]

I have three images on my wall at school. Each of them are originals. One of the folks I work with, who had no idea I photographed until the day she walked into my room and saw the images. She picked mine out right away. I asked how she knew it was mine and she said it lust looked like me, but could not say why. It made me feel good. I had accomplished putting something of myself in the image. Like I try to do in all my images but was never sure if I succeeded.

Maybe it is not up to us to identify if "ourselves" are in our images. Maybe it is up to someone else to see it for us, or at least validate it. We just keep doing what we do paying attention to why we are taking an image. Thinking beyond the nice and paying attention to the why.

JMO

 

[roteague]

One of the things I've come to a conclusion about is just that. I am not a narcisssist. Ok, maybe a bit of a narcicsssiist, but not *that* big.

Yeah, getting the "self" out of the way is always the hardest, isn't it?

BTW, how did you get a Jackaroo in Utah? Or did you go to Australia for the shot?

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Yeah, getting the "self" out of the way is always the hardest, isn't it?

BTW, how did you get a Jackaroo in Utah? Or did you go to Australia for the shot?

One of my clients is ARB (from Australia). They have all kinds of non-US spec vehicles here that we use from time to time.

They brought over a Jackaroo a few years ago for test fitting some products, and we ended up shooting it in Moab.

Still working on getting to Australia.

You are the first person to notice that.

 

[roteague]

One of my clients is ARB (from Australia). They have all kinds of non-US spec vehicles here that we use from time to time.

They brought over a Jackaroo a few years ago for test fitting some products, and we ended up shooting it in Moab.

Still working on getting to Australia.

You are the first person to notice that.

That's because I've been to Australia several times.

For those that don't know, the vehicle known in Australia as the Holden Jackaroo is manufactured by Izuzu - it was sold here in the US as the Trooper.

 

[Charles Webb]

Wow, What a read this thread has been! I believe it should be "hard bound"
and placed in the market place. It would most likely be a best seller!
-------------------------------------------------------------
My thanks to Michael and all who participated in the thread. The information shared is simply wonderful, and in my mind should be preserved for others who if not already may soon experience the confusion that can at times be found along our journey with photography.




Charlie

 

[vet173]

How can one have soul in their work if they don't look at their own soul. I don't think you can inject soul into an image. It can only reflect what you have in you. I say work on your own soul to whatever direction you have chosen, and let your work reflect it.
As a Vietnam combat vet I was really taken in by Garys post about his near death experience. Until you have one of those you never live life at 100%. You may think you do, but you just don't have the reference point. (lucky you) As we go through our lives we are usually preoccupied with other things that we don't pay that much attention to our surroundings. As he was describing his new found experiences with his surroundings, I was thinking he has made the transition from observer to participant. For me anyway, it was a whole new world when I thought of myself as a part of element I was in rather than just being an observer looking for a shot.
I've been at this for 35 yrs and have had a lot of people tell me I should turn pro. I am glad I never did. I use photography as a stress reducer, not inducer. (quit laughing, I know it's kinda like golf) I have never had a critique, although I think it would be interesting. I do have a mentor that graduateds from Brooks in the sixties who knows when to guide and when to let me use failure as the learning process. He is now trying to teach me how to find a photograph in the picture I took.
I like the feeling I get when you get one of those prints that just speaks to you. Usually in a shot that I was not expecting it in.
For me it's the journey 90%, the result 10%. When I'm up in the mountains with my Dorff, I look at the image on the ground glass, but I also see a reflection under the darkcloth and ponder" Who are you". This thread indicates I'm not the only one.

 

[Dan's45]

this is just me...but i try to look at an image and think what does this mean to me? if its just a nice picture or can i do something with it? i am really carefull when it comes to shooting with my 4x5 now. i also take my 35mm to take random shots of whatever i like. but things i feel that are really *cool*,i use my 4x5 with. when i find something that really grabs me and does not let go, i will take my time to figure it out and what is,and what is that grabs me so. i like technical shots, but i feel that a shot taken from the heart of the person has way more power than that of something that was used with photoshop. as far as what critics say, well there are more than one. take them with an ounce of salt and move on. life is too short to please critics. as long as you feel you did your best to get it and put your heart into it, then you did great in my book!

 

[bjorke]

Just to qualify the following statements, I don't really try to put soul into my photographs. I do, however, often use my photographs in attempt to put some soul into myself.


--

Michael S, I worry about that thick skin you describe. I think it is made of technique — made of learned, received forms and made of compositional and color strategies. In other words, the ability to deliver Product. To talk about it in abstract, slightly distant terms. Crop here, classic balance there. More than ever, over the years, I've become convinced that the best personally-driven art comes from the thin-skinned, the defensive, the people who have very few barriers between themselves and the work and the viewer. The work is them, for good or ill.

Instead of thinking about "photography that relaxes me" as being photography you would share and show, just recognize it for what it is -- your personal relaxation. If you are showing something to people, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SHOW? Not wander around and see something that moves you now and then, what would you actively seek, build, expose? And then the photography part comes second, though in such circumstances it's rarely relaxing.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

If you are showing something to people, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SHOW? Not wander around and see something that moves you now and then, what would you actively seek, build, expose? And then the photography part comes second, though in such circumstances it's rarely relaxing.

Thank you for your thoughts. As I had said before I've come to the conclusion that I really don't need my photography to express my inner voice. I don't need it to be the vehicle that says the things I want to say. I don't need it to be the way my inner soul is exposed.

BUT...it's nice when a bit of that comes out through my photography.

When I go out and photograph the things that relax me, there's not really much 'wandering around'. That implies that it's random, unplanned, and spontaneous. Those things are not bad to have in your photography, but when I go out to photograph things that relax me, it's usually to a location I'd like to learn more about, explore and is always done with some thought involved.

If that aspect of photography is not relaxing to you, then I would say I worry about your photography being a bit uptight. If you have a hard time relaxing when you go out photographing, and are constantly worrying about if it will convey what you want it to, then I would wonder what you do for relaxation.

That might sound like a bit of a personal attack, and I apologize if you are offended. Just as you might want me to look inside at my own photography, I would challenge you to do the same.

I think that the strategy one person might use to go out and photograph is as valid as the strategy as another. One might wander, one might go out with a preconcieved idea. One might shoot 12x20, one might carry a Leica. One with collodion wet-plates, the other with some Velvia.

Get my drift? Just as the one critic has a valid opinion, it's just an opinion. Your thoughts about my thick skin may or may not be correct, and this thread has probably caused you to think one way or another.

I'm flattered that you read through it this far, hope that you got some ideas and insight into your own shooting, and thank you for commenting.

Don't worry about my thick skin too much. It'll be just fine. Thanks for your concern.

 

[tim atherton]

What I think that he is asking to see is some type of political statement in my work. Some type of activist attitude or some kind of narrative that the viewer can infer meaning into.

I think he was looking for more, what in artspeak terms, could be called your concept.

What are the concepts, the ideas behind your work. What are you trying to say and why are you trying to say it.

 

[tim atherton]

I think successful photography can be about much smaller things. All we do when we take a photograph is let others borrow our eyes for an instant to see what we see and, hopefully, convey why it's worth seeing. Doing that with consistent honesty can't help but be revealing of ourselves.
QUOTE]

a photograph is really just a gesture - you are pointing something out to someone, indicating something and saying "look at this".

I think he wa asking you - why do you chose to indicate that thing and not this? What are the reasons? What makes it interesting enough for you to say to someone "hey, stop for a moment, look at this"

 

[bjorke]

If that aspect of photography is not relaxing to you, then I would say I worry about your photography being a bit uptight. If you have a hard time relaxing when you go out photographing, and are constantly worrying about if it will convey what you want it to, then I would wonder what you do for relaxation.

That might sound like a bit of a personal attack, and I apologize if you are offended. Just as you might want me to look inside at my own photography, I would challenge you to do the same.

Heh, I never consider such comments an attack. But that was Coleman's question -- what part of YOU, uniquely YOU, is there in these photographs? This is a question that has plagued artists at least since the days of Alberti. From your comments, apparently you don't think it's a big deal, and so it probably won't show up in your photographs because you don't seek it. It's pretty much that simple, imo. As for my own photographs, I do find shooting withoin my "comfort zone" to be relaxing -- I just don't often SHOW those photos to anyone because, like piano scales or jogging, they are just for me -- no need to waste anyone else's time and effort with the viewing.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Heh, I never consider such comments an attack. But that was Coleman's question -- what part of YOU, uniquely YOU, is there in these photographs?

This thread is awesome.

I have to think about this for a while. I have a whole list of items that makes them mine, but as I look at my images I see different parts of me in different images.

Lemme think about this...

 

[Claire Senft]

If you are a right wing conservative then I see nothing wrong and much that is good and true in having it show in your photos.

Why not pick out a theme and make a set of 5 or more photos on that theme? As an example "cliches".