[emf]

@ Bill, I think no. 1 is the full frame too. I’m no way a pixel peeper, or very techy, but the colours seem a little crisper. but I don’t think it’s a fair competition anyway as imo the composition in the first one is better than the second; nice clear b/g, use of three, strong diagonal, echoing shapes etc. So I will instantly prefer the first image anyway, which I guess goes back to the point of this thread.

[emf]

Thanks very much guys, I will investigate both options.

[emf]

…….just WOW!!

I had to tear myself away from her fb page!

[emf]

People like that drive you crazy don’t they! My friend is the same, he’s not into gear at all, and doesn’t really pay any attention to the whole exposure triangle, I’m not sure he even knows about it. He never ever changes his lens, no matter what the subject – someone told him it was bad for his camera to change the lens, I guess it can let some dust in but isn’t that one of the main points of an slr? I think he shoots in auto actually….but he has an amazing eye and I love his photos; his compositions are perfect and he captures great moments. I think it’s just intuitive with some people.

[emf]

I always think of this quote:
“A photographer went to a socialite party in New York.  As he entered the front door, the host said ‘I love your pictures – they’re wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.’ He said nothing until dinner was finished, then:
That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific Stove.’” 

– Sam Haskins

[emf]

What a great word, so maybe I have vemodalenitus! I’m so pleased there’s a word for it 🙂

It is hard to create something new. Some people are of the opinion you can’t shoot flowers or sunsets etc. as they have been done to death already. I completely disagree with this, I think it just makes it more of a challenge to make it your own.

I don’t really have any issue with photographing common subjects, all subjects are common anyway, faces, landscapes, cityscapes, nudes etc. ; If we didn’t shoot such things there wouldn’t be anything to photograph!

My issue is not shooting the same subject matter, but shooting the same ideas, ideas that have already been done a million times.

 

[emf]

Cliche:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cliche?s=t

Genre:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genre?s=t

So “cliche” means it has been done enough already, and “genre” is a class or category?  So, wedding photography is a genre, and “bride walking up aisle with father”, “first kiss”, “couple leaving church”, and “bridal party all in a row” would all be cliches?  Actually everything on a wedding shot list has been done a lot.  Does that make the whole thing cliche?

Dudley may have a point.  It’s how well executed and tasteful the shot is.  If everyone viewing it gasps and exclaims “Wow!  It’s gorgeous!”, almost everyone will miss that it is cliche.  If it’s not executed so well, it leaves room for people to think about French words they can apply.

I think weddings for example are slightly different as yes there are the set shots as you’ve mentioned that you have to get. I guess you’re telling a story of the couples day and those set shots help tell that story. No though, I don’t agree they need to be especially cliched images. If you are a good photographer you know how to look for true moments in which you capture the essence of your subjects. So maybe what starts of as a cliche is developed by a skilled photographer as something of merit.

The kind of cliches I’m talking about it holding baby boots on pregnant bellies or selective colour, or building blocks spelling out the name of the unborn child etc. Honestly, I don’t know how that kind of idea can become anything decent.

 

[emf]

Which is PRECISELY my point.  Do you honestly believe that if you haven’t the skills yet to do a so-called ‘cliche’ well that you can create something worthy of being called art by anyone other than yourself?  You can study and read about brain surgery for years, and unless you can handle the carving knife at Thanksgiving without creating turkey hash you will fail in the OR.

As for your comment re: Avedon?  Different genre?  I have news dor you oh student of fine art, Avedon used a camera, artier-Bresson used a camera, Adams used a camera….and every single one of them had mastered its use before producing ‘art’. And I can assure you that if you were truly a student of ‘fine art’ you would find that even they made pictures of cliches.  Only because of their skilld and talents those cliches were truly art.  Now quit rationalizing, self aggrandizing, and get back to practicing with your camera…..or by a paint by numbers set, change all the numbers so it won’t be a cliche, and then offer it to MOMA.

You seem to be of the viewpoint that I must go through such cliches to learn how to use my camera. But why? I’m not trying to be some hotshot, I just like very simple photography, and cliched things like the whole family wearing the same colour or even much or any use of props isn’t the kind of photography that interests me. So if people ask me to do that I will question it, hence the reason I posted. Do I want to go down that route or not.

I’m not rationalising or self aggrandising at all. Far from it. But when you come at me and tell me I don’t even have a right to make a statement I will respond. Notice that this thread was kinda done and dusted until you rocked up. I had had good advice, which I was grateful for and if you had read properly both posters had advised I do the shoot, I absolutely saw their point, and was grateful for their advice.

Then you came in with your conscending ‘he spaketh” crap. And said I can’t even make a statement. I’m simply stating a fact that I am an artist, no horn blowing as you suggest. But I’m saying I can make such a statement.

I don’t agree with you that you first master your camera then concentrate on the art side. I believe the both sides of this medium to be equally important and both need to be nutured and developed from the get go. I taught art and while the skill side was imperative, it was never taught in isolation. Never, learn the skills first, then think of your own ideas. Creativity was always taught in equal measures.

I practise with my camera a lot. There are gaps but improving the skill side of this is hugely important to me. And I will take any opportunity to improve. But why do you think that means I need to turn to a type of photography that doesn’t interest me?

[emf]

My whole point is I’m not a great photographer. Not to charge at least and am fully acceptant of that fact. That is precisely why I am not charging. At the same time, while I’m in this position I want to take the chance to exercise artistic control. I may not be great at photography but for me it’s just another fine art medium and I’ve studied and practised fine art my whole adult life. I have ideas about the kind of photography I want to do and am trying hard to avoid cliches. I don’t want to take photos of whole families wearing the same colours, looking more like they work for Gap than a family. I don’t want to take photos of kids stuck in pumpkins on wrapped in Christmas lights or whatever.

One of the main premises of this site is to deride ‘fauxtographers’ who churn out the same cliched rubbish. Yet you seem to think I can’t even make such a statement without going through the same process?  I have to cut my teeth on that kind of stuff before I can make a statement?

You’re talking about Avedon but you’re confusing a cliche with a genre. They are not the same.

 

 

 

 

[emf]

I like your salt lake pictures, i like pictures where there isn’t much going on and think salt lakes are amazing for that.

I like 8 seconds very much, I think the comp is good and I like the muted colours created by the dust? I like the way his arm and the rope mirror one another almost in their form and line.  The other cowboy shots in b+w don’t do it for me, and after looking at 8 seconds I wonder if they would all look better in colour?

The portraits are very interesting and I like the titles, which are quite emotive and also seem to focus on a simplistic definition or a perception of the subject. I hope that makes sense. Can you elaborate a little on the idea behind these images?

I think the sepia is a little over done though, and the soldier one seems a little greenish.

I find the criminal a beautiful mono image but for me the background is busy and competes with the subject. I don’t think all portraits require a OOF background but for me it’s neither here nor there as it’s too OOF to work as an environmental portrait and too busy to simply be a thrown b/g, allowing us to focus soley on the subject.

The carts with the big skies are beautiful images, in composition, detail and tonal range, but I must admit I have seen this many times before. I would keep shooting such scenes but strive to make them your own in some way. I hope that makes sense.

Keep it up!

[emf]

Her work is quite cliched and there are errors but I don’t think she’s a faux. The bubble gum boy or girl one was quite original though, at least I haven’t seen it before.

 

[emf]

IHF thank you for posting those links – they were really helpful, I printed them up to keep in my sketchbook 🙂

OP, I’m only an amateur but a couple of things about your portfolio that stood out to me are:

Some of the faces seem a bit over exposed. I think you cross the line between going for bright and punchy into being somewhat washed out and detail  and definition begin to get lost.

The black and white images all seem rather flat, imo. Different lighting is required to make a black and white work, light which provides more contrast and/or a wider tonal range. I think it would help you to study photographers who excelled at b+w portraiture for inspiration and to understand what makes a strong b+w, Yousef Karsh did amazing b+w portraits.

Good luck.

 

 

[emf]

I haven’t seen the film, just the picture 🙂 That’s why I put the question mark next to his name. Doesn’t really negate my point… but thanks for the heads up 😉

[emf]

One last thing, the first thing I thought of when I saw the portrait of the woman half submerged in water was the iconic image of charlie sheen (?) in the water in apocalypse now. Albeit with a prettier face 🙂

Everything thing comes from something, it’s hard for it not to.

[emf]

my bad. it’s “good artists copy; great artists steal” 🙂

[Author]

Posts