What one sees and photographs as one gets older

[Jaf-Photo]

Hejsan, fellow Swede.

I will counter your question: Why would anybody share their work at all? What is the purpose of people uploading photographs and showing them online, or try to get into galleries, museums, and private collections? It is definitely to be seen. I would say that somebody who claims they don't care what others think, and then proceeds to show their work in front of anybody who cares to look, is definitely looking to get reactions from the public that results in feedback of some sort, or a sale. It would be hypocrisy to claim you are not looking for that when you show your work.

My aim is to share what I see and feel. Not because I want to become famous doing so, I have no such aspiration. I only want people to feel things, because they are beautiful experiences to me. What's wrong with that?

Hejsan

Nothing wrong at all.

But for me, the chase for photos that might interest others, brought me to a dead end. I departed from the type of photos that I enjoyed taking and looking at.

So, I stopped trying to please others and started photographing the way that pleases me.

I do use flickr, but that was originally a way to make my photos available to me everywhere. Now, I use the feedback as way to keep track of where I am in my photography. Some of my most favourite photos have almost no faves or comments.

That's my confirmation that I am still doing my own thing.

It doesn't make me think I am a sh#t photographer, either. Because I so often hear people who don't see anything in the masters of photography that I admire. For some reason, Meyerowitz is often said to be overrated, despite being the most sublime photographer that I know of.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hejsan

Nothing wrong at all.

But for me, the chase for photos that might interest others, brought me to a dead end. I departed from the type of photos that I enjoyed taking and looking at.

So, I stopped trying to please others and started photographing the way that pleases me.

I do use flickr, but that was originally a way to make my photos available to me everywhere. Now, I use the feedback as way to keep track of where I am in my photography. Some of my most favourite photos have almost no faves or comments.

That's my confirmation that I am still doing my own thing.

I don't aim with my photography to please others. I aim to express something with my photographs, and that comes 100% from within.

When I feel like I have created something worthwhile I want to share it, in hope that others might have a good reaction to it. I too believe art has to come from the heart and our own intellect. But what would art be today unless it was shared?

I don't disagree with you, especially with respect to creating art, but feel that it should be shared and enjoyed by as many as possible. The very best times I have is when I get together with my photography friends here in Minneapolis, and we sit down and talk about photography, look at books, cameras, and review each other's prints. It's very fruitful, and it inspires the mind to do better and try even harder.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As for me, I'm really bad at sharing photos. I shoot a lot of pics, process the film and print them. Rarely, I post them on the web. I do like to enter gallery shows, but sharing is not my main motivation for now. I find creating art very therapeutic. I think this lack of wanting to share came from me being a professional for over 8 years. I was burned out. As a pro I was driven to shoot for my portfolio, share it through promo pieces and my website. I find I wasn't being genuine to my self. I naive to think that folks would pay a lot of money photograph what I want. Back then, I was younger. I was trying to keep up with the trends and it was hollow when it came to producing satisfying art. I photographer I really admire, Frank Ockenfels Dead Link Removed said that there's work that one shoots for clients and for yourself. But Mr. Ockenfels is one of the very few highly talented photographers that can balance both worlds.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I can relate to Mainecoonmaniac's thoughts above.

As to Thomas' post, I have more or less lost interest in discussing photographs with other photographers. Most of them are stuck in their personal views on technique and style. They don't really see photos for what they are, either others' or their own.

There are some people that I enjoy discussing technique and equipment with. It's a great way to share learning experiences.

A while ago I saw an exhibition by a very renowned local portrait photographer (Hans Gedda) in the company of another accomplished portrait photographer. I enjoyed it greatly and had lots of insight and inspiration. My companion, however, verbally tore every photo to pieces. The conflict was plain to see. My companion held the traditional view that portraits should be flattering, while Gedda is all about the raw, naked or unexpected.

http://hansgedda.com/single-image?pid=106&tag=portraits
http://hansgedda.com/single-image?pid=167&tag=portraits
http://hansgedda.com/single-image?pid=432&tag=portraits
http://hansgedda.com/single-image?pid=432&tag=portraits
http://hansgedda.com/single-image?pid=283&tag=portraits

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can relate to Mainecoonmaniac's thoughts above.

As to Thomas' post, I have more or less lost interest in discussing photographs with other photographers. Most of them are stuck in their personal views on technique and style. They don't really see photos for what they are, either others' or their own.

There are some people that I enjoy discussing technique and equipment with. It's a great way to share learning experiences.

A while ago I saw an exhibition by a very renowned local portrait photographer in the company of another accomplished portrait photographer. I enjoyed it greatly and had lots of insight and inspiration. Mt companion, however, verbally tore every photo to pieces.

I understand about talking to other photographers. It helps to attempt to find other people who are open to discussing photography on a level that is beneficial. My father just joined a photography club, and many there were stuck in their ways of sharpness, color accuracy, and so on, and didn't think much about expression, concepts, emotion, gesture, and so on. By asking questions and being respectful, he has actually managed to get many of the other participants interested in what's beyond the surface of the photographs, and more interested in talking about photography in more abstract form. In return, these same people are now coming up with ideas that my father is learning from. Interesting, isn't it?
This has resulted in a lot more focus on themes, print reviews, and stepping away from talking about cameras, gear, resolution, and all that other flannel that you can train a monkey to do.

My point is that it helps to surround yourself with the right people if you want a fruitful discussion. I have found, by finding the right people to talk to, that my work continues to evolve and grow, and that the extra eyes and discussion with people I respect, I am able to dig deeper and come up with prints that are even more pleasing to me. To me that's how a lot of learning takes place; we listen to the opinions of others (as written in books, their spoken words, their online publications, discussion, etc), and then we weigh them against our own. If we feel that their opinion is something that will benefit us, we embrace it and make it our own. Some learning, of course, is by discovery alone, but unless we make our own film, paper and chemicals, and use cameras we designed ourselves, we are always bound by the discoveries of other people to some degree.

It is totally fine if you don't want to discuss with others, for whatever reason, and I do understand why. I'm just trying to help in case you do.

I admire how you say you want to make sure the photography you produce comes from within. That's very cool, and how it should be.

 

[railwayman3]

I've become much more selective in my outdoor picture-taking, with more attention to pleasing composition, lighting and details in my subjects. Maybe I've become more observant and willing to spend time looking at subjects.
I am also less likely to take a shot "just for the record" if I'm not 100% happy with the scene or subject....I can even put the camera away without taking a picture. (Unless it's a record which I need for other hobby interest, rather than as a picture for its own sake. And it that case a couple of digital snaps is probably sufficient for what I want.)
Overall, my pleasure and satisfaction in photography has certainly increased over the years.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

My father just joined a photography club, and many there were stuck in their ways of sharpness, color accuracy, and so on, and didn't think much about expression, concepts, emotion, gesture, and so on. By asking questions and being respectful, he has actually managed to get many of the other participants interested in what's beyond the surface of the photographs, and more interested in talking about photography in more abstract form. In return, these same people are now coming up with ideas that my father is learning from. Interesting, isn't it?

Yeah, it's a good point. I too did that for a while. But in the end it took time and patience that I didn't have.

The one thing that lights my fire though, is discussions on lenses. There are so many lenses and each of them is unique in some way. By sharing views and experiences on lenses, photographers have the opportunity to learn something that enables them to get closer to their vision.

Most of my photos that I like the most, and oddly which other people appreciate the most, are when I have been able to use a lens to create the vision I want.

I also enjoy discussing photography with new photographers with a limited grasp of technique and rules. It's very satisfying to discover and affirm their vision. Perhaps also discuss some technique, if they want.

 

[David Brown]

I understand about talking to other photographers. It helps to attempt to find other people who are open to discussing photography on a level that is beneficial.

My point is that it helps to surround yourself with the right people if you want a fruitful discussion ...

That's often easier said then done. I meet fairly often with local photographers, but the talk is all about gear and paper. I'm almost sick of talking about paper! (alt. printers)

I've been trying to get the group "focused" on the prints, and viewing the photograph, rather than talking about how it was made. At the last meeting, the only comment I got was "That must have been hard to print." Well, yes it was (to an extent), but that was hardly the point now, was it? :confused:

I'm not giving up, but this may take a while ...

 

[omaha]

There was a time when I would take photographs of things and places, but the older I get, the less interested I am in any of that. Today, I am exclusively interested in taking photographs of people, and mostly interested in faces. I really don't have any interest in anything else.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's often easier said then done. I meet fairly often with local photographers, but the talk is all about gear and paper. I'm almost sick of talking about paper! (alt. printers)

I've been trying to get the group "focused" on the prints, and viewing the photograph, rather than talking about how it was made. At the last meeting, the only comment I got was "That must have been hard to print." Well, yes it was (to an extent), but that was hardly the point now, was it? :confused:

I'm not giving up, but this may take a while ...

Yes, I agree it can be tough to find such people, or people with such potential. Often times photographers tend to slip into talking about their gear and materials, just because it can be bloody difficult to talk about the actual substance of the photographs. Way too much focus and attention to the processes by which the photographs were created, in my humble opinion.

I remember that for me it was incredibly painful and disappointing when I crossed the barrier of thinking about what my photographs actually were about, and I went beyond what's on the surface. I discovered that I needed to do some soul searching. It occurred to me that my photographs were highly uninteresting, uninspired, and content wise very flat. Pretty but meaningless prints.
It's easy to blame the paper, the lens, or the film developer when it in fact comes down to me not being very good at what I was doing. It's also easy to search for answers in the paper selection, film types and what not. So I think those are the most common topics to talk about, simply because they are easy, do not probe inward, and you can put your finger on those qualities with little to no trouble. It directs attention away from the source of everything good about a photograph - the intellect, skill, and emotions of the person operating the camera and the darkroom (or computer).

But, one can try to polish turds as much as one wants, while the turd remains what it always was.

I feel that I learn the most about my photography by exploring subject matter, emotions, light, and types of context that might be a bit on the subconscious side. And then try to make the prints as convincing as I can. I hope to always learn.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

One reason that it's easier to discuss technique is that it is forward-looking. If you improve your technique, you will be able to make better photos in the future.

Discussing a photo is backward-looking. It's after the fact and you will never take the same picture again. Even if you photograph the same thing again, the photo will be different.

And thoughts on style are so varying that you may never find common ground.

One point where my preferences differ from general tastes is that I like to photograph scenes with no people in them. To many people that is pointless, because nothing happens. But to me it opens endless questions and answers. Why are there no people here? What are they doing instead? Who comes here? When? Where do they come from. What do they do here? Where do they go?

As soon as you put people in the frame, you limit the number of stories to the people who are in it and what they are doing.

 

[cliveh]

One reason that it's easier to discuss technique is that it is forward-looking. If you improve your technique, you will be able to make better photos in the future.

Discussing a photo is backward-looking. It's after the fact and you will never take the same picture again. Even if you photograph the same thing again, the photo will be different.

And thoughts on style are so varying that you may never find common ground.

One point where my preferences differ from general tastes is that I like to photograph scenes with no people in them. To many people that is pointless, because nothing happens. But to me it opens endless questions and answers. Why are there no people here? What are they doing instead? Who comes here? When? Where do they come from. What do they do here? Where do they go?

As soon as you put people in the frame, you limit the number of stories to the people who are in it and what they are doing.

I would totally disagree with this post. With this philosophy you suggest that looking at the work of others serves no purpose (backward-looking). I find technique to be mostly about semantics, but looking at other photographs can provide ideas and inspiration. I have nothing against your preference for empty scenes, but when people appear in the frame they multiply the number of stories, not limit them.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I would totally disagree with this post. With this philosophy you suggest that looking at the work of others serves no purpose (backward-looking). I find technique to be mostly about semantics, but looking at other photographs can provide ideas and inspiration. I have nothing against your preference for empty scenes, but when people appear in the frame they multiply the number of stories, not limit them.

Um, alright. That kind of proves my point that photographers will rarely agree on style.

When critiquing photographs many photographers say things like "Great, but you could have done 'this' or 'that'." Sure, they would have and I could have, but I didn't. And as I'll never take the same photo again, it's pretty pointless.

And if you want people in the frame and I don't, what on Earth are we going to talk about? Except quipment and technique, maybe.

It can be a lonely preference, but I share it. In fact I only photograph places, scenes etc. without people in them. For me it is about the places, spaces, rooms, whatever, and once you have a human being in the photograph it inevitably becomes the focal point for most people, and a distraction from the subject matter for me.

It is certainly not the most popular aesthetic, but I don't give a crap. As long as your photographs are honest, that's all that matters. I think that is probably the kind of "growth" a lot of people do, regardless of what they photograph. It's partly about building the courage (for lack of a better term) to go with your eye. Put care into your compositions, but don't yield to the little voice in your head from composition 101 that says "don't center that" etc.

This is a great philosophy to my ear.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Um, alright. That kind of proves my point that photographers will rarely agree on style.

When critiquing photographs many photographers say things like "Great, but you could have done 'this' or 'that'." Sure, I could have, but I didn't. And as I'll never take the same photo again, it's pretty pointless.

But you don't have to agree to have a good discussion and learn from each other and be inspired by one another.

Of course we are all different, and you may not learn much from associating with some photographers where you talk about photographs in depth. That's cool.

For me it has been tremendously helpful. And the discussion is never really about tangible things, but more about how it affects the viewer, what kind of impact it has. When I show my work to others it is just as much about body language and people's reactions as it is about what they say.

Last summer a number of friends and I did a group show in one of the art district studios here in Minneapolis. When I watch visitors view my work, or other people's work, I observe from a distance. The biggest compliment I can possibly get is when somebody goes back to look a second time. Then I know that they saw something that caught their attention, and I love that. No words need to be exchanged.
It's also fun when somebody tells me what the picture makes them think about, or how they react to it. None of this is my goal, but it's a really fun result and something that is rewarding, to have touched another person's senses.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Thomas, this is a very good point and of course it's very rewarding and humbling whenever anyone takes an interest in your work.

Another factor is of course that as soon as you display something in an art gallery, it signals that it is important and should be taken seriously. It also allows people to concentrate on it, thereby increasing the probability of a connection and a reaction.

I think that many of the photos that catches people's eye on the internet, with bright colours and boosted contrast, would fall flat in a gallery setting, and vice vera.

I like you photos, by the way. They are the kind of images that I could only hope to capture one day.

So, clearly, your method is better than mine

 

[Jaf-Photo]

For what it's worth, in my experience, what you describe is less of problem when you are dealing with accomplished artists (at least the ones who aren't jerks). They can look beyond their own rules, preferences etc. and try to see what you saw and identify with how you reacted to what you photographed. At least I've found this to be the case for "straight photography".

I also find some of the more interesting discussions I've had about photographs, mine and others (although I don't talk about my stuff much), have been with non-photographers. Often painters or musicians (since music is my primary "hobby", followed by photography and painting/drawing), or people not involved in the arts at all. Sometimes their reactions are the most honest and devoid of pretense.

I guess this is getting a little off topic since the OP was talking about changes in how we see and make our photographs.

Yeah, this rings true.

Moreover, I have seen a lot of artistic envy in people who are active in the same discipline. Painters are the most vicious critics of other people's paintings. Writers can attack each other cruelly. Some musicians argue all the time.

I think it's easier for creative people to acknowledge art in other disciplines, beause it's no threat to them.

 

[eddie]

After 40+ years of photography, I find myself becoming more experimental in my work. (In fact, some have argued that my newest work- no lens, no camera- isn't really photography.) I think I'm getting more confident in my vision, though, and want to see where these experiments take me. The joy is in the creation, whether it's the new work, or made by more traditional methods. Still, I prefer that my work is seen by others. If I'm trying to convey something, and others don't get what I'm trying to say, I think I've failed. It's one thing to see what you want in your own work. It's another to have others see it, too.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been playing with Cyanotypes and Ziatype because all this inkjet prints I'm seeing leaves me a bit cold. I have to admit that I use my inkjet printer to make the negs. I really like the hand coating of emulsions and the slight variations from print to print. It also very hands on. This old dog is trying some new tricks. Lots of frustrations with my trial and error. I'm getting mostly errors. Quite humbling.

 

[greenbank]

When I got my first “proper” camera as a student (Pentax Spotmatic) I discovered the thrill of looking through the viewfinder and seeing “the” picture I wanted – that “ooh YES!” moment. That thrill has never left me.

Now, four decades on, what I’m finding is that I use the 50mm less and less. The 135mm has become the “standard” lens on my Olympus OM-1, with a wide (used to be a Sigma 24mm, now it’s a Zuiko 28mm) as second choice. That is: more often than not I’m looking for interesting detail, or sometimes the sweep of the environment, rather than what the eye sees unaided.

 

[jp80874]

At the age of 74 I have been very interested over ten years in local examples of entropy. By entropy I mean, the disintegration and disorder of aging, the result of corrosion, mismanagement, wear, neglect, erosion, structural damage, the return of man made things to nature.

I have worked on three general subjects within thirty miles of home, ranging from the OH & Erie Canal, which closed after the flood of 1913 and has deteriorated ever since. The Ohio Farm Museum, a private collection of farm equipment and buildings from the late 1800s. The rust belt, industrial section of Cleveland known as the Flats, where the Cuyahoga River meets Lake Erie.

My shooting partner in the last two areas has gone on to Cleveland’s largest cemetery where he is doing beautiful platinum work capturing the tone and texture of tombstone art. At my age I find that quite disturbing, in that it is way to close to the next step from entropy. I have continued working in the Flats taking with me a beautiful blond lady Labrador who announces with a loud threatening growl, anyone who choses to come near me when I am under the dark cloth.

John Powers

 

[irvd2x]

It can be a lonely preference, but I share it. In fact I only photograph places, scenes etc. without people in them. For me it is about the places, spaces, rooms, whatever, and once you have a human being in the photograph it inevitably becomes the focal point for most people, and a distraction from the subject matter for me.

It is certainly not the most popular aesthetic, but I don't give a crap. As long as your photographs are honest, that's all that matters. I think that is probably the kind of "growth" a lot of people do, regardless of what they photograph. It's partly about building the courage (for lack of a better term) to go with your eye. Put care into your compositions, but don't yield to the little voice in your head from composition 101 that says "don't center that" etc.

I am with you on that Michael...my philosophy as well.


Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 5020T using Tapatalk

 

[greenbank]

I think it's easier for creative people to acknowledge art in other disciplines, beause it's no threat to them.

An interesting point. I joined the forum deviantART a few years ago, and one of its virtues is that it allows - indeed, encourages - the posting of all art in the same "space." (Unfortunately it also encourages the posting of juvenile rubbish in enormous quantities, but that's another topic.)

One of the results for me has been to start exploring the creative cross-connections between disciplines (photography and poetry in my case): the extent to which notions of "art" and creativity transcend the boundaries of methods/materials. This boundary-crossing can be tricky, because of differences in terminology, but I think it's letting me talk to more people than otherwise - particularly about the common qualities of artistry.