2 types of photographers, IMO

I don't fit either category or possibly I fit both. I don't have any interest in telling a story and I don't look to create that's special image. My only interest is to evoke an emotion. Sometimes I use multiple images and sometimes just one. On a rare occasion I succeed in what I have attempted.
 
I've told many, many stories with my photography.
But as a former forensic crime scene investigator/photographer, the tales my photo's have told do not belong in the outside world. And I've shot in very demending conditions.
 
I take my own pictures then after try to find a connection and add them to a series. Probably a bad idea because I just got rejected by a major publication who told me to submit.


In my opinion when someone tries to do a series of photos with an idea already they never come out that well.
 
I believe that there are approximately 800,000,000 types of photographer in the world, that being my guess at the number of people who use a camera.

Putting people in boxes is silly, unless the box is labelled Kodak.

:D
 
Yes, of course there are as many different types of photographers as there are photographers because everyone is special and unique. Humans though, tend to categorize/group things to help make sense of an otherwise disorganized and chaotic world. I was merely presenting one way in which we could consider how some photographers some times work differently.
 
FrankS said:
This is just an Internet discussion forum and we come here for entertainment and food for thought, so I'm just throwing this out there in this spirit: One way of seeing how different photographers work is whether they present their images as a series to tell a story as a magazine editor would want, or whether they produce images that stand independently on their own. With the former type of photographer, it is the topic that provides a cohesiveness to their work, while with the latter, it is their photographic style that provides the cohesiveness (or not). Myself, I am the latter type where I want each image to stand alone. I know there are others who prefer to create a selection of images on specific projects. I don't think one method is superior to the other, just different. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

How about three types where the images stand alone and are also part of a documentary?:angel:

Steve McCurry comes to mind.
 
charjohncarter said:
I read a study once that came to the conclusion, and being an ex-employer, I agree with and that is: the most competent are the most critical of their work, and the most incompetent always think their work is wonderful.
Click to expand...

I think you're absolutely right! About the time you start thinking, "I'm really good!" - you've lost it & you're not.
 
Humans though, tend to categorize/group things to help make sense of an otherwise disorganized and chaotic world
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. On the other hand, I sort of prefer disorganised and chaotic. It increases the options and reduces the boredom.

:cool:
 
True. I like a balance in my life. Organization creates security/stability, chaos makes things interesting.
 
There are those that view a photograph as a one off " capture". There are those that view a photograph as part of a series but each photo could be considered as a capture. There are those that view a photograph as being part of a series in such a way that each photo is solely dependent on the other photos and is not intended to viewed independently outside the context of the series. A series could be a "story" or not: could be an idea; and index that creates or leads to the intention of the artist.

And so on.
 
I like photographers who are not afraid to write, even writing pieces of thoughts from their journal.

Often I heard, "Oh, I just take pictures, I can't write" but really, if you set your mind to it, everyone can write about something that they care deeply about. And often time it makes far more interesting reading than pieces written by professional writers, about photos that they didn't take themselves.
 
shadowfox said:
I like photographers who are not afraid to write, even writing pieces of thoughts from their journal.

Often I heard, "Oh, I just take pictures, I can't write" but really, if you set your mind to it, everyone can write about something that they care deeply about. And often time it makes far more interesting reading than pieces written by professional writers, about photos that they didn't take themselves.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. As good photography is good seeing, good writing is good thinking. They are both hard, but with effort anyone can become better at either. The mechanics are relatively easy. But some people are just more interested in, or more natural at, one or the other.

John
 
Im with Gary on this one.

a picture can't tell a story, it's just a picture.

put me in group two. any description of my photographs will be detailing of my methodology.
 
Great, I have read these posts, and now I don't know what I am anymore.

The closest thing to me might actually be the Sunday photographer from that chart!
 
I often imagine myself as a Brandt or a Hardy, working a photo story for Lilliput or Picture Post. But I know I'm not. Hardly anyone will ever see any sequence of my images. And so thye have to stand alone.

It is two different ways of working, rather than different types of photographers. And we can go in either direction. Indeed, I can think of a few occasions where a stand alone image came up in the middle of a sequence, and completely apart from the rest of the shoot.

I agree with what's been said about adding words. I have a book of great photos - In Flagrante by Chris Killip. Odd title, as it's nothing to do with the content, which is the North East in the 80s. But it's a bit unsatisfying, as there's no text, and I want to know more about the image and the people in it, and how it all came together...

Not that I necessarily want to read great long essays, either. I've read Sontag and Berger etc, but I don't feel that urge any more. I think I'll just take pictures instead.
 
Heres a great interview with Winogrand and I totally agree when talking about a single photograph. From about 1:28 in but I say watch the entire piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

Most of the greats worked in bodies of work. I always think that one good photograph no more makes a great photographer as on great at bat makes an MVP. When you tend to work in bodies of work you tend to develop a style in a more deliberate way than if you are chasing the one good photo.
 
FrankS said:
28mm, I agree that I should have written the title as "2 ways of working" rather than "2 types of photographers".
Click to expand...

To me neither classification is correct.

There is an phtojournalism, which brings you the information, may it be immediate news, or long story/research. For that photography is probably a medium that's slowly fading away (in favor of video, etc.). Anyway, it's easier to convey the information with series of photographs. I dont even think you can have story or news described with one photo, unless it's a small fact or event, that does not require any follow up.

There is also an art photography, using a camera and film, digital, polaroid, collage, what have you, to convey ideas and thoughts. Has nothing to do with image standoing on the own or in series, as there are no rules. Heck, it mostly have nothing to do with images by inself at all. Image is just a structural block for the expression. So the question is meaningless there.

P.S.
And, of course, there is camera, film, flash, gear collecting, it has nothing to do with either of the above. Jsut something to do, much like collecting swiss army knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom