Does the old addage hold true?

[aureliaaurita]

'Stick to what you know', 'write of what you know', could this also extend to simply, 'photograph what you know'?

Whilst I am pleased with the photos I take of people I have a raport with, my family and friends, I can't seem to photograph anyone I don't hold closely or even perhaps friends I secretly dislike or simply 'don't get' (we all have them) that have asked me to photograph them. Something about the images never rings true and I admire people that can draw a stunning portrait from a stranger that has just waltzed into the room, or from those whose character they are at odds with.

I know it's rediculous in a way because it's a technical art but everything I have ever attempted enforces the fact. Perhaps it is merely because I don't feel as comfortable manouevering about them?

In another sense I have also recently tried to attempt 'modelesque' work, but failed. I can't get interested enough. I feel like I am constantly imitating whatever takes my fancy in the latest fashion magazine, and imitating it extremely poorly.

And architectural photos. How on earth do people get witty and original shots of buildings? I had a wander round the maritime museum and royal observatory in london the other day, and to anyone that has been there or seen the golden compass they will know what magnificent buildings they are composed of, the light was perfect, the shadows were perfect, every single one of my photos was boring.

Practise makes perfect, but do you have to have natural inclination to begin with?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

ALL forms of art are technical. Don't devalue the importance of photography by saying that it is a technical art. Most people who say things like that have never painted, made ceramics, made an etching or a lithograph, or done sculpture. I've done all of those in addition to photography. All form of art have technical knowledge needed to make the art. I invite anyone who doesn't think that to try making an oil painting on a piece of paper (oil paints rot paper unless you put down a protective coating on the paper before painting), or try painting a fast drying pigment layer on top of a slow drying pigment (the painting will crack as it ages). Lithography, etching, and ceramics are so rigorously technical that you cannot even produce a crappy print or teacup without a deep level of technical practice and knowledge.

As to making art with photography: No great artist has made great photos of something that didn't mean something to him or her. Ansel Adams loved nature and photographed it. Alfred Stieglitz photographed his wife, Georgia O'Keefe. Cindy Sherman photographs her kids. William Eggelston grew up in the south and wanted to document southern life and culture. See what I'm saying? Amatuer photographers fall in to the trap of trying to go make pretty pictures, so they produce a bunch of boring photos that don't mean anything and don't fit together as a mature body of work.

 

[Nh3]

First you must find a "reason" to photograph a subject. So, stop wasting your time thinking why you don't feel inspired or why you can't photograph certain subjects.

Find the reason first and photos will automatically follow.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Gary,
You're splitting hairs. All of the people I cited have photographed other things, but what I mentioned are the things they are best known for. Also, Stieglitz was very interested in clouds. He photographed them as symbols for feelings he was trying to express. Let's not make it harder than it has to be for our apprentice here 🙂~

 

[aureliaaurita]

indeed, and to say something is a technical art does not devalue or debase it in the slightest.

Photography does require a prior understanding of certain things, as well as a natural 'feel'- but this, as in the case of gns (sorry to hold you up as an example but allowing for the claim made in your earlier post that you 'chipped away at it') is perhaps something that can be devloped? and it is a combination of the two that leads to better photographs in many an instance.

Fashion photographers, other individuals paid to get striking and wonderful images out of something that they may not really be terribly interested in still manage it- is this through following forumlea?

 

[bmattock]

'Stick to what you know', 'write of what you know', could this also extend to simply, 'photograph what you know'?

How do you get to 'know' anything - or anyone - if you have never ventured outside of your comfort zone?

Whilst I am pleased with the photos I take of people I have a raport with, my family and friends, I can't seem to photograph anyone I don't hold closely or even perhaps friends I secretly dislike or simply 'don't get' (we all have them) that have asked me to photograph them. Something about the images never rings true and I admire people that can draw a stunning portrait from a stranger that has just waltzed into the room, or from those whose character they are at odds with.

Do you wish to learn to photograph people you do not know, or do you wish to complain about a shortcoming in your abilities?

I know it's rediculous in a way because it's a technical art but everything I have ever attempted enforces the fact. Perhaps it is merely because I don't feel as comfortable manouevering about them?

Maybe it is because you capitulate to your fears. I know I do, in other ways. So I say this not as an indictment.

In another sense I have also recently tried to attempt 'modelesque' work, but failed. I can't get interested enough. I feel like I am constantly imitating whatever takes my fancy in the latest fashion magazine, and imitating it extremely poorly.

Then don't do that.

And architectural photos. How on earth do people get witty and original shots of buildings? I had a wander round the maritime museum and royal observatory in london the other day, and to anyone that has been there or seen the golden compass they will know what magnificent buildings they are composed of, the light was perfect, the shadows were perfect, every single one of my photos was boring.

According to whom?

Practise makes perfect, but do you have to have natural inclination to begin with?

According to the author of a recent book on people who become famous at their chosen professions, the one thing they all seem to have in common is lots and lots of practice. It is good to have natural talent. It is not necessarily required. Look up Monty Towe. Five feet, seven inches tall. He played professional basketball for the Denver Nuggets.

 

[aureliaaurita]

That's a difficult question to answer. The basis of photography is derived from illustration and painting and the same techniques can be applied to photography: principle of shadows, reflections, perspective, value.

Depending on who/ what you're taking pictures with, having a connection is important because it'll ALLOW people to open up and BE themselves. Working with others isn't so much about you as it is them. Am I right?

If you want to become even better at photography I suggest you try illustration/ painting for the foundational aspects of photography. That is key. If you have a strong foundation, you can shoot any kind of work you want. Forget about f/stops, shutter speed, ISO and whatever else there is because you can learn that in less than 5 minutes. No joke.

I do a lot of sketching, it got me through university and am in the process of illustrating a children's book....i think my photos look like my drawings and often have the same problem with them. I feel I know what I can and what I can't draw, despite the fact I might have a desire to put in this or that in an illustration or draw this scene or another...despite the fact I can picture it it simply won't arrive.

 

[aureliaaurita]

How do you get to 'know' anything - or anyone - if you have never ventured outside of your comfort zone?

I have often ventured 'outside my comfort zone', and oddly enough in places like kathmandu it was the very unfamiliarity of the place that led me to take some photos I am quite proud of...paradoxically to everything I have said above. I suppose it was because I felt just from looking at the place that it was perfectly arranged for photography.


Do you wish to learn to photograph people you do not know, or do you wish to complain about a shortcoming in your abilities?

I do wish to learn to photograph people I don't know. I'd like to do editorial work. There are people I admire that I don't know all that well, or that I know 'from afar, whom I would like to photograph.

 

[Migracer]

Some times I take pictures that make no sence

Some times I take pictures that make no sence

I was born with a camera, both parents were photographers, uncle was a cinematographer, I don't remember not having a camera. That said I have yet to figure out what to do with my Photography. Although I am primarily a motor sports journalist I do very few action pictures, I concentrate more on the people angle. So in essence I am a portrait artist. But I love doing landscapes and cityscapes. My best niche according to my family is candid people. So I do a lot of things while at 57 trying to figure out what will I do when I grow up. My advice is do what you like, and deal with what you must as long as at the end of the day you are happy nothing else is really as important.

 

[bohdan]

About 10 years ago, I got out of the animation profession. I was a classically trained artist for some time, then I was trained as an animator for the rest. One thing I found that was consistent with my animation and now with my photography was something I called vocabulary.

Some animators would pose their characters very similarly. At the same time, they only had a vocabulary of 12 different poses. You see the same with some photographers...they may have 5 or 6 different compositions. Some animators never really tried to break out of that 12 different poses. The untrained eye would never catch it, but an animator would say that this artist was borderline cliche.

They did however get really good at those 12 poses. In the same respect, I see some photographers do three or four types of photos REALLY well.

I am different, I go crazy if I see the same thing over and over. So, I get good at my twelve poses...then sometimes, I break out a different camera with different film/digital and try to expand my vocabulary. I force myself to photograph things I don't care about. It's torture sometimes...why do I care about it. On the other hand, when you push hard enough you can raise the bar and at times add to your vocabulary.

 

[aureliaaurita]

About 10 years ago, I got out of the animation profession. I was a classically trained artist for some time, then I was trained as an animator for the rest. One thing I found that was consistent with my animation and now with my photography was something I called vocabulary.

Some animators would pose their characters very similarly. At the same time, they only had a vocabulary of 12 different poses. You see the same with some photographers...they may have 5 or 6 different compositions. Some animators never really tried to break out of that 12 different poses. The untrained eye would never catch it, but an animator would say that this artist was borderline cliche.

They did however get really good at those 12 poses. In the same respect, I see some photographers do three or four types of photos REALLY well.

I am different, I go crazy if I see the same thing over and over. So, I get good at my twelve poses...then sometimes, I break out a different camera with different film/digital and try to expand my vocabulary. I force myself to photograph things I don't care about. It's torture sometimes...why do I care about it. On the other hand, when you push hard enough you can raise the bar and at times add to your vocabulary.

thank you, an interesting response

 

[Al Kaplan]

I'm not sure that there's any surefire way to guarantee pizazz in a shot of a building other than dramatic angles and light. People though, that's all depenant on you! Unless you'll be satisfied with sneaking shots at a distance with a long lens you have to feel comfortable being with the people. They in turn have to feel at ease with you also. At this point you're so uptight about not being able to get the photographs you want that you project your nervousness onto your subjects. You're uptight, they're uptight. Recipe for disaster. But you know that already.

This is a situation that would best be handled with a film camera, at least until you become cofortable around the people you photogaph. First reason: "chimping" the camera's LCD screen after each shot destroys the mood of the occasion. Second reason: Good old fashioned contact sheets, 36 little pictures on 8X10 paper, each big enough to see what each picture is, and when viewed through a magnifier you can really see some detail.

You get the contact sheets hours or days after the shoot. The excitement of the shoot itself has faded into the past. You can sit down with decent light, perhaps a coffee or a drink, maybe even a smoke, and with magnifier and a red marker handy start looking over the session's images. It's easy to compare one with another. You can see how the progression went.

Looking at the images you can see when the shoot was going smoothly and where tension raised it's ugly head. Not only wiLl it show in the faces and expressions of your subjects, but also in your attention to the composition, the lighting, the timing of the shots, which seem to miss the magic moment.

Start by making a camera part of your everyday outfit. Don't use a little point and shoot. Use a camera that you'd normally use. Engage people in conversation. Compliment their hair or their outfit, talk about sports, the recent election, kids, anything. It really doesn't matter as long as you can get them involved. Casually pick up the camera and start shooting like it's a normal thing to do, something you do all the time, and keep the conversation on track while you're shooting. If they ask why say "I'm a photographer! This is what I do." and get right back into the previous discussion as if they never assked. You might also try "What camera? I don't see a camera! Do you see a camera?", and you have to say it with a straight face!

Eventually you get to the point where you can suggest moving a bit "because the light is better over there" or risk a "Could you turn your head a little more to the left?" without destroying the rapport. The important thing is to feel relaxed and at ease with yourself.

 

[wlewisiii]

There are a number of good ideas here already. All I can add is that you have not read it, I'd suggest going over to www.lenswork.com and getting "On Being a Photographer" by David Hurn and Bill Jay. I found my path through much of what you're describing by consideration of what they had to say.

Other than that, always have your camera with you. Everywhere. And use it - burn film by the case. It is, afterall, what we do.

William

 

[Ducky]

I have always had a desire to draw or paint or design or otherwise create but I cannot. If I want a picture of a straight line I have to use a camera. Same thing with a vase of flowers or a bowl of fruit. So, I use a camera. The problem I have, which sounds like the OP's dilemma, is I keep trying to expand the scope of my photography to things I am not really interested in and would not paint or draw assuming I could do either.
My humble advice then, is to just enjoy shooting, step outside the box from time-to-time but always enjoy what you are doing.

 

[Nh3]

About 10 years ago, I got out of the animation profession. I was a classically trained artist for some time, then I was trained as an animator for the rest. One thing I found that was consistent with my animation and now with my photography was something I called vocabulary.

Some animators would pose their characters very similarly. At the same time, they only had a vocabulary of 12 different poses. You see the same with some photographers...they may have 5 or 6 different compositions. Some animators never really tried to break out of that 12 different poses. The untrained eye would never catch it, but an animator would say that this artist was borderline cliche.

They did however get really good at those 12 poses. In the same respect, I see some photographers do three or four types of photos REALLY well.

I am different, I go crazy if I see the same thing over and over. So, I get good at my twelve poses...then sometimes, I break out a different camera with different film/digital and try to expand my vocabulary. I force myself to photograph things I don't care about. It's torture sometimes...why do I care about it. On the other hand, when you push hard enough you can raise the bar and at times add to your vocabulary.

You're comparing animation, a synthetic media (i'm not calling it an art form) with photography, which is purely factual.

Then you confuse what photographers call structure with vocabulary. And finally you muddle together framing and composition.

Its not your fault, most 'classically trained' painters have this sort of condescending attitude towards photography. It seems they can never comprehend the difference between purely artificial and synthetic world of paintings and factual world of photography. A painter has all the time to sit there and 'imagine' what he/she is going to paint while a good photographer snatches a slice of time and in a fraction of second not only frames it but composes the image so it has structure.

A photograph could be structured on - composition - HCB - on subject - Walker Evans - on color - Eggleston - on social themes - Salgado... And in case of a genius like Atget on visual poetry.

All those masters framed their pictures and composed it based on the structure they were working on. So, please, you need to reevaluate your perception of photography and treat it with a lot more respect if you wish to make 'decent' pictures, let alone good ones.

 

[oftheherd]

...

I have often ventured 'outside my comfort zone', and oddly enough in places like kathmandu it was the very unfamiliarity of the place that led me to take some photos I am quite proud of...paradoxically to everything I have said above. I suppose it was because I felt just from looking at the place that it was perfectly arranged for photography.

...

I am not so sure that is outside your comfort zone. I often find I cannot "see" photos in places I am around every day. If I go somewhere I am not used to, I "see" a lot. Especially in an exotic place. I see all the things I would like to talk to people about. I photograph them sort of as props for my upcoming speech. But those same people also see what I see all the time. How interesting is that? On the other hand, imagine trying to describe what you are photographing as if they didn't know about it. You will have to photograph so you can explain what you saw that was so different from their and your "ordinary."

Try that on for size. And if you get good at it, come back and explain how you did so I can get better at it.

 

[oftheherd]

You're comparing animation, a synthetic media (i'm not calling it an art form) with photography, which is purely factual.

Then you confuse what photographers call structure with vocabulary. And finally you muddle together framing and composition.

Its not your fault, most 'classically trained' painters have this sort of condescending attitude towards photography. It seems they can never comprehend the difference between purely artificial and synthetic world of paintings and factual world of photography. A painter has all the time to sit there and 'imagine' what he/she is going to paint while a good photographer snatches a slice of time and in a fraction of second not only frames it but composes the image so it has structure.

A photograph could be structured on - composition - HCB - on subject - Walker Evans - on color - Eggleston - on social themes - Salgado... And in case of a genius like Atget on visual poetry.

All those masters framed their pictures and composed it based on the structure they were working on. So, please, you need to reevaluate your perception of photography and treat it with a lot more respect if you wish to make 'decent' pictures, let alone good ones.

Your kidding, right? While I grant you there are times when I need to study long times for what I want and where to be to get the composition I want, that isn't always so. I don't photograph as much now as I used to. But when I did a lot more, I could usually get what I wanted quickly. It was not a desparate grab.

I am not a painter, but I doubt they are constantly in a quandary about what they want. Surely they see something and then sit down and paint it. Some of you who are painters also, can you elaborate? Am I wrong?

And as to "vocabulary", that is a term to describe a style if I understand how it was being used. How many threads have I seen here asking how to develop a style? If I am wrong, I stand ready to be corrected (it won't be the first time 😀 )

 

[Nh3]

For HCB's sake!

When I say factual, it means factual reality or a factual depiction of phenomenon world. Not a factual event.

A fashion photo is not about a factual event but the appearance of what the lens saw is factual. Where as in paintings that factual phenomenon world is a creation of the painter.

 

[icebear]

'Stick to what you know', 'write of what you know', could this also extend to simply, 'photograph what you know'?
....
I know it's rediculous in a way because it's a technical art but everything I have ever attempted enforces the fact. Perhaps it is merely because I don't feel as comfortable manouevering about them?

And architectural photos. How on earth do people get witty and original shots of buildings? .....Practise makes perfect, but do you have to have natural inclination to begin with?

Hi Alice,

I assume you are not a pro photographer (although your portraits could earn you money, great stuff !), i.e. you shoot for fun.

If you shoot for fun then you naturally pick subjects you are interested in. That's a whole different point to start from then being a pro who shoots to make a living and mostly doesn't care too much what subject is infront of the lens. Technical skill is the most important part to deliver a standard commercial portrait. Into this I also count basic conversation skills to make the subject relax: music, coffee, professional appearance of the location etc. The pro starts from neutral, not negative preconception, it's a job - mostly.

If you don't want to shoot a certain person, a certain building, so just don't. If for whatever reason the challenge is the motivation to do it despite of that fact then you have to get over it. Try the less emotional/naturally interested approach and just be more technical. At some point you might realize e.g. that this boring building has some aspects that can be interesting enough to raise your shoot above boring. Try a wide angle lens and go close up. Don't try to get the whole picture of the building, a scene that has been photographed a gazillion of times by everyone being able to press the shutter. Pick details that are not obvious, crop wildly, tilt as you please. Might get interesting.

 

[bcostin]

I am not so sure that is outside your comfort zone. I often find I cannot "see" photos in places I am around every day. If I go somewhere I am not used to, I "see" a lot. Especially in an exotic place. I see all the things I would like to talk to people about. I photograph them sort of as props for my upcoming speech. But those same people also see what I see all the time. How interesting is that?

That's exactly it, I think. Sometimes with familiar subjects, like that song says, you can't help seeing all the way through. I find I can sometimes counteract that by going to one of two extremes. Either being especially observant, like you describe, or being entirely abstract, concentrating on things like patterns, shadows, and perspective.

I'm not sure that it's essential to have any particular passion or attachment to the subjects we photograph, though it probably makes it more fun to do. A lot of the iconic photos we all recognize were workaday assignments by commercial photographers and photojournalists looking to make a living, but that doesn't mean they have no artistic merit. Insisting that it must just takes us to the same "artist" vs. "illustrator" false-dichotomy that the art world likes to obsess over, where Roy Lichtenstein is a genius but Steve Ditko is nobody. The art is in the result, not the intent.