The same old dog, just a different collar.

[DannL.]

Have you ever had any trouble being "original" using photography? In other words . . . Not repeating what has already be done by so any others. It seems that no matter what photograph I am looking at, I've seen this before. It's just another version of the same old theme. There's that old tree again. There's that rock and ocean scene I have seen a thousand times before.

Without creating a completely abstract image, and by pointing your lens at something "tangible and identifiable", do you have any advice for creating photographs that are "completely original" both in subject and form? ie; Not another version of Pepper No. 30.

I can carry a camera for months without ever finding something that I consider original. So, I just shoot to be shooting something. And sadly, the few times a potential "original image" has presented itself . . . I wasn't carrying the camera.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Sometimes the very act of carrying a camera can have an inhibiting effect. Try going out a few times with just a small notebook. If you see something interesting then note the location in the book. Then go back later with a camera.

You can also try shaking things up a bit. Go to different or unusual locations. Also go at different times of the day from your usual habit. Try a new technique, say cyranotypes Don't concentrate on negative thoughts.

 

[jeffreyg]

Danni.

Don't despair. Find a subject that interests you and experiment with presenting it in a variety of ways don't worry that others have photographed it before because someone probably has. There is "looking" and "seeing" try to be the one "seeing". I think most of us run into the same feeling. I know I have but I quit letting it bother me. You never know when a new idea will hit. For example, several years ago my wife was cleaning out our pantry and was going to throw out an old wok. I noticed it had a great patina and the light bulb went off that it would make a beautiful background for photographing things that would fit in it. I went to a number of markets looking for fruits and vegetables that would work as a still life with that background. I also use it as a background for various objects. I'm sure if you look through some of your old images you can also try some of your favorite subject matter in a different way. Good luck keep shooting.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[removed account4]

dannL
it might be an old tired dog in a new collar,
but its YOUR old tired dog in a new collar.
i wouldn't worry about it.

it is true, there is nothing new under the sun
( even written in the bible ) ..
photography is just about having fun ...

 

[dawid]

It is almost sure everything has been already photographed. Photography, I think, is about interpreting what we see in our own, unique way. Your interpretation of e.g. the Eiffel Tower may be interesting and original, despie the towers has been photographed million times before.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd quit giving yourself existential crises over originality - It's been said by other, smarter, better people than us that there is no such thing as an original photo anymore. What you should worry about and try for is making photographs that reflect how YOU see what you're looking at. That IS unique - only you see what you're looking at the way you see it. Forget that Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and Imogen Cunningham and Dorothea Lange and Vivian Maier ever existed, and just make the pictures that YOU want to make, that look the way YOU want them to look.

 

[frank]

What you're looking for, what we're all looking for, is called vision.

It's what artists have.

It is not available from anyone else but you.

Photography is only a medium for its expression.

That's why gear doesn't matter (beyond being functional.)

 

[DannL.]

I'm really not fretting. Just putting a new twist on an old subject. ;-) Or maybe not. See what I mean. I'm sure this is a question that others face regularly.

I would love to see more photographs where I can say . . . "Wow, that was refreshing. I could see that again." This has only happened to me once . . . when visiting the Brett Weston "Out of the Shadow" exhibition. Sadly, when the Ansel exhibition came around, after the third print I just couldn't take another landscape. By the time I finally got to Moonrise some one hundred and thirty prints later, I really wondered if I should have stayed home that day. I probably set myself up for disappointment. Having already seen many of his prints in books over the decades. But that wasn't the case with Weston's work. What I specifically noticed about Brett's work was that each time I saw the same print, and I went back several times, it felt like it was the first time viewing. Maybe this could be a question of style. Constantly keeping one's work fresh. Steering clear of ruts.

 

[gone]

I think that if you're after something very different, you'll have to do something very different. Probably time for a big change in the way you work, and you're the one that will have to figure it out. In a sense, its the nature of the beast, as any way you look at it its all been done in one way or another. It's probably why people pick a genre....portraits, street shots, etc. People always open up the possibilities.

Still lifes and landscapes are a little different, as a great shot is just that. One is more about getting the lighting right, the other about the subject. Have they all been done too? Sure, times infinity. But the only thing left is to do it as good as it can be done. That's why Weston's work is so important. OK, it's just a pepper, or perhaps just a face. But he brought the whole thing up to such a high level, and had such a good eye, that it became a Weston photograph. I'm sure he was extremely uncompromising in his method, and would never stop until he had it as good as he wanted it to be.

So I see at least two avenues of approach. Shooting traditional subjects in a traditional manner, and making yours the best of the best. Or going for an experimental, different look, which would of course entail experimental and different materials and techniques.

For myself, looking at just the questions you mentioned brought me back to my graphic work and away from photography. I still take pics, but the focus is working in light and real time, seeing the piece develop in front of my eyes w/o all the right brain technical stuff. Can't say its any easier, just different. Bit more challenging on one hand, yet there's more freedom when I can simply pick up a rag or crumple the thing up, right now, and start over, or even completely change the piece w/o having to set up a shot all over again. It often happens that something starts out one way and spontaneously goes off on in a direction all its own. I find photography more methodical.

 

[Rick A]

When you see the same old stuff, try to see it from a new angle/perspective. look really close, from above, below, nearer, further away, bits and pieces, broader vision. Carry a pocket size camera and shoot just what you see, then, if you like, return with your favorite camera to explore further. Different times of the day, or year, or weather conditions. Challenge yourself, pick one place/scene/subject, and photograph it once a week or month, same time every time, I guarantee it will look different each time. Take a scene, start photographing it once an hour from predawn to past sunset, what do you see?

 

[NedL]

... from a different POV, every photograph is unique and original. each moment in time has never happened before and will never happen again. The clouds in the sky, the particular slant of light, where all the things that move are, what they are doing, how they are growing, what they are feeling, what you are feeling, are all unique in each and every moment ...

 

[Pioneer]

Same old dog, different collar...

"I wonder what would happen if I laid 4 strobes in the grass underneath her and fired the shutter???"

"Maybe lying on the porch sleeping at night under the blue light of the bug zapper? And where's that old filter I used to have with the wavy lines in the glass? Can I make it look like she is sleeping underwater?"

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't worry about things like this because everything has already been done thousands of times... and with time... only the audience changes... so things are new to 'them'.

 

[RobC]

Stop looking at other peoples work then you won't notice. And soon, instead of subconciously copying/doing what other people are doing, you'll pick your own subjects because they are what you're drawn to.

I don't pay much if any attention to what others do these days and follow my own nose and not someone elses.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Change the planet.
It might be easier instead of trying to take extraordinary pictures in ordinary situations.

 

[Doc W]

A guy orders a meal in his regular restaurant. He says to the waiter, "I'd like something different tonight." The waiter replies "Ok, you order something. I will bring you something different."

Originality as an end in itself is almost contradictory. It is empty of meaning. The source of meaning is not in the object itself, not in the thing being photographed, but the way in which the artist understands that object from a particular aesthetic perspective. For example, Adams' landscapes are not just landscapes but came from his powerful and passionate love for the wilderness and his desire to convey that to others, partly in order to protect it. Take another example. Imagine going out for a day to shoot with Diane Arbus. She would definitely see things most of us never considered. Another example. Most people saw green peppers. Edward Weston saw form, shape, sensuality, the nude form, and if the stories are true, he was for a brief time obsessed by that vision. To find objects to photograph, all he had to do was go to the grocery store.

If you don't know what you want, then you won't likely get it. If you are not driven or at the very least, led, by an aesthetic or philosophical point of view, then you are just photographing things, and most things have already been photographed. As others have said, if you have vision, then you are far more likely to produce work that is unique.

 

[DannL.]

A. . . As others have said, if you have vision, then you are far more likely to produce work that is unique.

So, let's run with this. Point me to someone who has vision. I'm chomping at the bit to be impressed. ;-)

Stipulation . . . New and current work only.

Sorry to put anyone on the spot. It's not intentional.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

So, let's run with this. Point me to someone who has vision. I'm chomping at the bit to be impressed. ;-)

Stipulation . . . New and current work only.

Sorry to put anyone on the spot. It's not intentional.

Its not so much vision, as having something to SAY. Most photographers simply don't have anything to tell the world, so they constantly hunt for 'great shots' and obsess over things like originality. If you have something to say to the viewer, your work will be original, even if its a photo of something others have photographed.

 

[grahamp]

But something that impresses me, might bore you to tears. There are no absolutes. Just as you may not have photographed something before, even if another has, the viewer of your work may not have see the subject as you portray it before either. Originality for the viewer is just as important (if not more so) than it is for the creator.

 

[frank]

If YOU feel like you've seen everything, YOU won't be able see anything new. It's a form of constipation. It's an attitude.

 

[RobC]

So, let's run with this. Point me to someone who has vision. I'm chomping at the bit to be impressed. ;-)

Stipulation . . . New and current work only.

Sorry to put anyone on the spot. It's not intentional.

Why do you want to see someones work who has vision? All the great photographers had/have "vision" but it's there's and not yours. So tell us what is your vision and how would describe yourself as a photographer? A landscape photographer, a portrait photographer or what? And tell us why your photography is different or are you trying to be like someone else and realising you can't be them and don't know who and what you're about?

You might think I'm being harsh but in reality I'm trying to make you think about what YOUR photography is about. I don't know how far you've got into photography but once you've learnt the basic technique and how to print the next really big plateau to climb to is developing your own style and and vision of what you're trying to do. That ain't easy and a lot of people get stuck on the lower plateaus and never reach the higher ones becasue they don't think enough about it and why they are doing it. They just repeat parrot fashion what those who have gone before have done.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, not really. Besides when my girlfriend is with me while I am photographing, she comes up with things that I would never see. She has been a docent for LACMA for decades and she has a wonderful eye for compositions.

 

[Wallendo]

Remember that the photographers whose work you have seen before didn't actually find anything new. Many of Ansel Adams' most famous works were of geologic entities that had been present for millennia. How many Native American's walked past those same locations and admired the view (but didn't have cameras)?

In this age, most of the planet (other than the deepest areas of the oceans) have been extensively photographed. Portrait photography has been present for 150 years and there really isn't anything new. Sunrises, sunsets, parades, festivals, sporting events, and wars have all been amply documented with photographs.

But, there are new opportunities everyday. Newborn photography has been present for a long time, but each new baby is a unique opportunity for a photograph. The original photograph may be of no interest to 99.99% of the world's population, but is of intense interest and value to the baby's family.

Most of my attempts to create a "new" image have been failures. In fact, the harder I try to create "unique" imagery, the poorer the quality of my results. On the other hand, many of my favorite photographs are of frequently photographed subjects, but reflect an image that mattered to me - a person, a pet, a place, or an event to which I have some emotionally attachment. Often these photos occur when something happens spontaneously, and I get the sense of "this would make a great photo".

 

[DannL.]

Why do you want to see someones work who has vision? All the great photographers had/have "vision" but it's there's and not yours. So tell us what is your vision and how would describe yourself as a photographer? A landscape photographer, a portrait photographer or what? And tell us why your photography is different or are you trying to be like someone else and realizing you can't be them and don't know who and what you're about?

Excellent question. But, I don't want to see this discussion being just about me. It's an open topic.;-)

If this group of photographers knows of someone that has vision, and who's works are original and truly impressive, please do share. I think it would be interesting, if not educational.

As for myself, I'm just an enthusiast. Landscape, some portraits, still life, astro-photography, macro-photography, micro-photography are probably areas of photography that I find most interesting. Back in the 60's, I was introduced to the darkroom by a family member. He was a photographer who did some nice landscape work. His "winning card" was living in Crescent City, CA and working in the redwood forest. Having access makes a difference. But, even that subject "California Landscapes" has probably run it's course.

"Pick a theme and work it to exhaustion... the subject must be something you truly love or truly hate."
Dorothea Lange

If I truly loved, or truly hated something, it might make things easier. I'm almost tempted to send a mission to Pluto to find something interesting and new to photograph.

 

[frank]

Like me and many others, it sounds like you need to find inspiration.