nothing new under the sun

[removed account4]

i've heard for years every photograph has already been taken.
there is nothing new under the sun
and no matter what you think is new and refreshing, well, its
old, worn out and boring.
not sure how much stock i put into those words since
every sun rise/set is different, no expression is ever the same no 2 people are the same,
no situation is really the repeat of another ...
moments really don't repeat themselves, so nothing can really be the same, can it ?

i have been getting bored for a few years now .. and while i realize things are not exactly the same
i've come to the realization that there really isn't much new under the sun. most photography
is the same old same old, puppies, sunsets pretty girls old run down buildings, streetscapes ...
and part of me is OK with that but part of me tries a little bit not to get my wheels caught on the tracks.

some say their photography shows their soul and the soul of whatever it is they are making a picutre of.
what is it that you do that you try to bring a bit of yourself into your photography?

 

[MattKrull]

...Most photographyis the same old same old, puppies, sunsets pretty girls old run down buildings, streetscapes ...and part of me is OK with that but part of me tries a little bit not to get my wheels caught on the tracks.some say their photography shows their soul and the soul of whatever it is they are making a picutre of.what is it that you do that you try to bring a bit of yourself into your photography?

In the generic, yes, everything and everyone has been photographed before. In the specific, as you suggested, every moment is different and has never been photographed yet.
How do I keep it fresh? I photograph a lot of people who have not been photographed well before. They've only seen themselves in school photos or snap shots.
I've been told I have a talent for making men look more handsome than they really are (both by the men themselves and by their wives/girl-friends). I don't believe that, I believe I'm just the first photographer to put the effort in.
So while there many be millions of photos of handsome men and pretty girls out there, and my photos are no more special than any of those to anyone but my subjects and their family; to my subjects, my photos are a first, and are truely unique.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is only nothing new if you are giftless.

 

[David Brown]

Maybe it's not that everything has been photographed so much as photographers just going back to dip in the same well ...

 

[Nodda Duma]

I have one local spot that I keep trying to photograph and I'm still not happy with it. Even though I've photographed it many times.

I would give up but I'm stubborn. I stubbornly rehash old ground lol

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I've been feeling very fatalistic lately, like "why do I bother?" I spend all this money and time trying to make great photographs, and for what? In a world where 50 bazillion photos are posted to Facetagram every three minutes it's hard to imagine whatever I'm doing having any impact.

Might just hang it all up and raise free-range chickens!

 

[wy2l]

Time to close the patent office... there are no more new ideas.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I guess the way I feel at this point about the arts, is that breaking new ground is not as much of a requirement as some suppose it to be. It is possible everything has been done, but so what? That is only really a problem and/or limitation if what has been done before is simply copied or imitated. This doesn't have to be the case. Creativity, and perhaps more importantly, honesty, can circumvent it. Old things become new again. I like to use Brahms as an example of this. He wasn't an innovator. He just wrote great music.

I think this is good analysis. As long as what you produce comes from within, by some desire or idea, inspired by others or not, it's worth pursuing.

Sure it can be argued that everything has been photographed before, but not by every person. A vital ingredient to every successful photograph is the person creating it, and there are no two persons completely alike. An example: My partner and I recently went to Sweden and Iceland for a vacation trip. We hiked and walked and photographed a lot, she used her beloved Zeiss Ikoflex, and I used my dear Hasselblad. Both are square format cameras, and we photographed a lot of the same things. There are none of the photographs that we both made, of the same subject, at any point during the trip, that are the same. Why? Because two different persons took the pictures.

Either you want to make a photograph of something you're looking at, or you don't want to. If you're not inspired, then don't do it. But if you feel inspired, do your thing! Nobody has made the picture exactly like you made it before.

 

[gone]

Chickens make good people. Much smarter and nicer than the ones I usually run into, and you get eggs too! Just say NO to the roosters though.

It would be nice to see a photograph of you photographing the photographers David.

 

[frank]

This reinforces my view/argument that (for us hobbyists) photography is not just about the final image; much pleasure is derived from the process as well.

 

[MattKing]

Photography can also be about the performance.

Would you refuse to listen to Winton Marsalis because you knew he had performed the song before?

The revolutionary is sometimes nice, but the recent realization is often extremely satisfying.

 

[bsdunek]

Sometimes I have no real drive or ideas, so I try different cameras or processes. Some of these things in the last few years are Holgas, Minox, 110, working with various filters, chemigrams, photograms, lumen prints on both paper and film, Chromoskadasic chemicals, painting and/or crayon or artist pencil coloring on prints, multiple exposures and many more. I know this can be gimmicky, but the idea is to make something really good with these cameras/processes. Not saying I'm great, but I have fun. Look at my web site to see some examples.

 

[Truzi]

Even this thread isn't new, lol. Just two examples:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sometimes I have no real drive or ideas, so I try different cameras or processes. Some of these things in the last few years are Holgas, Minox, 110, working with various filters, chemigrams, photograms, lumen prints on both paper and film, Chromoskadasic chemicals, painting and/or crayon or artist pencil coloring on prints, multiple exposures and many more. I know this can be gimmicky, but the idea is to make something really good with these cameras/processes. Not saying I'm great, but I have fun. Look at my web site to see some examples.

That's wonderful! I don't find that gimmicky at all. In the end, if we don't enjoy it, what good does it do?

 

[David Brown]

It would be nice to see a photograph of you photographing the photographers David.

Sorry. Not my photograph. It's borrowed (stolen) from Facebook ...

Let's face it, we're all hobbyists no matter how seriously we take it, so if dipping in the same well floats someone's boat, why not.

I agree. I am as guilty as anyone about searching for existing tripod holes.

However, in the last couple of years, I've had two epiphanies:

I actually considered a project to mimic well-known photographers' styles as a series of homage. You know, an E. Weston vegetable, a B. Weston abstract, a Siskind peeling paint, an Avedon portrait against a white background; you get the idea. When I mentioned this to a photographer and photography teacher that I respect, she said: "Why?" Other than that it was possible, I didn't really have a good answer.

In close to the same timeframe, I looked back at 40+ years go my output, and decided that although there was much good work (if I may say so myself) I do not have to take any of those same photographs ever again. Fortunately, the past year or so has been dominated by a documentary project that while satisifying on many levels, has not been challenging artistically. But, I have been able to make photographs while working through "images" that have been gestating in my mind for years and trying to figure out how to get them into a camera! Nothing ready for prime time yet, and may not ever be, but it's been fun trying to do something new.

 

[Roger Cole]

It doesn't matter if it's new. It doesn't matter if sunsets have been photographed forever. The one I may be photographing is the one *I* see *right now* as *I* see it. There has been and never will be another quite like it, not to mention my own vision, framing, filtering and exposing of it. Billions of people have seen hundreds of billions of sunsets and still that element, me, makes this one unique. That's reason enough for me to photograph it. (Same with any subject, of course, that's just an example.)

 

[pdeeh]

On November 25th 2011 I took a rather nice photograph of the steps at the Chapter House in Wells Cathedral.

I'd post it here except that it was done with a (rather good) digital camera, and no doubt the Yahoos would be baying for my blood if I did so.

Of course it didn't take me very long to discover something that I had not known at the time of pressing the shutter release, which was that some bloke called Frederick H. Evans had done the same thing from pretty much the same spot, just 108 years before ... and that countless others had done so since.

Still, it's a nice snap ... unoriginal? unwittingly unoriginal? original but cliched?

Dunno.


An image of Evans' platinum print can be seen here, btw: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ls_Cathedral_LACMA_M.2008.40.736_(3_of_3).jpg

 

[DREW WILEY]

The hunt is as important as the kill. It's all about the life-experience. That's why I pity the Fauxtoshop crowd. They've never learned how to slow down, look, and actually see. There will always be another shot. Of course, when I do get in the darkroom, I want the print itself to
be as precise as possible to my own intended form of communication. I also truly enjoy making fine prints. That's part of the experience too.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Go Nodda

I have one local spot that I keep trying to photograph and I'm still not happy with it. Even though I've photographed it many times.

I would give up but I'm stubborn. I stubbornly rehash old ground lol

I think there's something important about making a project out of getting the image you want. Numerous masters talk about going back to the same place, same model, same scene - to get exactly what they envision. I think your perspective here will stand you well. I also hope you have lots of conversations w/ folks that fertilize your imagination in a good way.
I have numerous 'project shots' I expect to reshoot. There will be good shots along the way. When I get them the way I envision them, it will make me very happy - to the point I won't care if anyone else likes it. May your imagination burn white hot.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I always admired Man Ray and of course Ed Buffalo for their work in Solarization.

For the first 10 years of my personal work I did print Solarizations rather than negative Solarizations that was Man Rays expertise.
As well I kept away from nature - which was an area that Ed Buffalo specialized in.

After 10 years and thousands of exposures and prints I finally felt that I could make negative Solarizations the way my hero did.
To this date I have stayed away from Nude ( as Man Ray basically covered that subject perfectly). There is nothing I could add, but have concentrated
on Consumables which I think when seen as a collection tells a nice story.


I feel that if you walk the road and are very committed , after time you can join the club.

The above photograph of the 10 people at the same scene, or the creepy old men hiring a model to photograph is something I never want
into my life as a photographer.

 

[Vonder]

Still, it's a nice snap ... unoriginal? unwittingly unoriginal? original but cliched?

Dunno.


An image of Evans' platinum print can be seen here, btw: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...ls_Cathedral_LACMA_M.2008.40.736_(3_of_3).jpg

That shot/location screams for the addition of a nude. Bet that's not been done!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sorry, Michael, but I didn't say Photoshop, but Fauxtoshop. There's a difference. One is an imaging tool, and yes, just as valid as any other;
the other is a mindset for people either too lazy or incompetent to pick up a real paintbrush. All the really good digital printers I happen to
know (which includes some of the very best) also happened to be superb darkroom printers previously. They already know less is more.

 

[blansky]

Given that we are in a hobby or a profession that has evolved/devolved to the point where almost everyone on the planet has a camera and uses it daily, I think we need a new paradigm of what satisfies us as photographers. There are now probably multi trillions of pictures available for viewing. In 1975 say, you could be exposed to maybe a few thousand.

So we have to recognize that yes, it's probably been done already.

At one time it was probably originality. YAY, I WAS FIRST.

Then came, "I really love that guy, I'm gonna copy him".

But now the chances of first is pretty small and everyone is copying that guy.

I grew up in a rather small city in Canada and lived there for 34 years. If you found a cute or nice girl that you were attracted to you hung onto her and usually tried marriage. Some worked some didn't.

When I moved to LA in the middle 80s, there were hundreds or thousands of beautiful women and dozens you could encounter in a day. You dated, a lot, but rarely committed, because there were so many, you didn't feel comfortable being attached because a better one may be just around the corner.

You could never be really satisfied because of the numbers available. You were essentially, overwhelmed.

It's sort of the same thing with the US, where people have never been real high on the happiness quotient when polled. The reason, massive consumerism, the need for new stuff, never satisfied with your house, need a bigger house, bigger/better car. Never slowing down to be satisfied. Bombarded with advertising and stuff you are supposed to need or want.

I think this has hit photography. We are so overexposed to images, and some great ones, that we feel inadequate, unfulfilled, uninspired and it all seems sort of pointless. What's one more picture that I create mean in a world with trillions.

So in the same way as we need to dial down the consumerism, dial down the exposure to pictures, dial down the comparisons to others, we need perhaps to celebrate what we are doing.

Celebrate our unique perspective, our tools, our ideas and just take pictures and forget about the competition. Because the big picture of photography now, is too big to comprehend or take in. It's overwhelming.

Perhaps we need to simplify and celebrate and tune out the external noise.

Don't want to sound preachy, but this is something that I've dealt with and thought about a lot in the last few years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think "gotta have" gadgety consumerism is far worse in emerging Asian economies and even Russia than it is in the US. They haven't developed many antibodies to our materialistic disease yet.

 

[removed account4]

The above photograph of the 10 people at the same scene, or the creepy old men hiring a model to photograph is something I never want
into my life as a photographer.

couldn't agree more with this !