How do you communicate emotion in photos?

airfrogusmc said:
but every great photographer I know their vision/style comes through,
Click to expand...

First you confuse voice with style and now you confuse voice with vision -- these are three different things.

My original statement was simply to state that there are two camps:

1) Using his own words, OP's intent is: "I took this photo on purpose, it was made with intent to convey this meaning."

2) My response: "I took this photo. Discuss its meaning as it relates to you."

Neither one is better or worse, just different. Since you shoot commercial/advertising, I can see why you would believe in the former, since you are trying to sell a product. You should.

However, I do not believe the OP was about product placement, but rather about photography in general.
 
Roger Hicks said:
We are, I fear, at cross purposes here. 'Message' and 'voice' are not the same thing, at least to me.
R.
Click to expand...

I do think we agree - message and voice are NOT the same thing; however, unless I misunderstood, the OP's intent is to send a message.

I would love to hear the photographer's voice, but I am tired of having messages pounded into my senses.
 
Jamie123 said:
Having a voice and having a style is not the same thing at all. Most photographers develop a style and stick to it thoughout their whole career but some great photographers adopt different styles at different times to say different things yet you can still 'hear' (i.e. see) their voice ring through all of them.

Having a signature style often makes for great commercial success (in the commercial/editorial world) as prospective clients know what they're getting but I don't think it's the mark of a great photographer.

Personally I'm not a big fan of photographers who are too heavily commited to their style. They bore me and I can't understand how they don't bore themselves. I prefer to be surprised. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

I am talking about personal work here not professional.

A style is a look that runs through the work no matter what the technique. If a photographer is honest with his/her work and has gotten beyond struggling with technique then how can their work not reflect them and who they are? That is their style. You might be confusing technique with style. Style transcends technique. Using a wide angle lens is a technique. Printing with a certain look is a technique. Now those elements can be used to help create a style but those are techniques. THats what Minor White was referring to when he said "...all photographs are selfportraits. - Minor White

and Decarava "You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me." - Roy DeCarava

and what Adams meant when he said "A great photograph is a full expression of what one feels about what is being photographed in the deepest sense, and is, a true expression of what one feels about life in its entirety." - Ansel Adams
so if you are indeed photographing true to yourself then eventually you will develop a style because you are working from a place thats real so no matter what the technique and that would encompass equipment, processing technique or any other technique the style will come through as does Weston and yes Shore (you don't see the visual thread in his work?) Uelsmann, Arbus, Robert Frank etc

A style starts to develop when you start photographing the world in an honest way, the way that you perceive it.
 
kxl said:
First you confuse voice with style and now you confuse voice with vision -- these are three different things.

My original statement was simply to state that there are two camps:

1) Using his own words, OP's intent is: "I took this photo on purpose, it was made with intent to convey this meaning."

2) My response: "I took this photo. Discuss its meaning as it relates to you."

Neither one is better or worse, just different. Since you shoot commercial/advertising, I can see why you would believe in the former, since you are trying to sell a product. You should.

However, I do not believe the OP was about product placement, but rather about photography in general.
Click to expand...

But I also have my personal work and I am not confusing it. Sorry.
 
I've had thousands of photos published in newspapers over the last 40 years. While I have a clearly consistent technique, I don't think there is recognizable style in my photos. I've always worked to stay out of the way of the photos. I just think that with the flood of images today, staying out of the way is guaranteeing anything I have to say with my photos going forward will not be heard. I think a strong sense of authorship is going to be necessary to be heard over the noise. Thus this topic.
 
Sounds like what you are talking about is professional work. If thats the case then you can;t really discuss that as yours. You usually have a client to satisfy when talking about doing it for a living. Whether its a newspaper or art director its not like your personal work. THough I sometimes get the freedom to shoot what i would because the client came to me for that look or I was able to sell them on the idea for a particular project but its rare. Most on the art side that did personal work also had to take commercial assignments to eat. Weston sums it up pretty well when he said this:
"When money enters in, - then, for a price, I become a liar, - and a good one I can be whether with pencil or subtle lighting or viewpoint. I hate it all, but so do I support not only my family, but my own work." - Edward Weston

I agree with it all except I don't hate what I do professionally but its still for the most part something I shoot for someone else and thus I tell the lie. My personal work is a different story.
 
Pickett,

I feel I understand your previous posts on photography needing to be personal to survive better now.

At first I was reading this as personal in content, but you (also?) mean personal in style. I can see that after so many years of not producing photographs with your own style this is the way to go when the number of 'style-less' photographs has risen so hugely.

The necessity of finding a voice and developing a style has recently set in with me as well, I'm giving this much thought and am reading this thread with great interest.

Thanks for starting it!
 
One thing we haven't discussed is how important editing (and I mean editing bodies of work; what you show and what you decide not to show) is also important in developing a style. When I shoot I usually let me vision take me where i need to go but I might have an image that doesn't exactly fit with a body of work I'm working on. It can be a killer image but it just doesn't fit. Sometimes what you leave out can be as important as what you include. Ralph Gibson referred to these as points of departure and that may be the starting point of new project.
 
airfrogusmc said:
One thing we haven't discussed is how important editing (and I mean editing bodies of work; what you show and what you decide not to show) is also important in developing a style. When I shoot I usually let me vision take me where i need to go but I might have an image that doesn't exactly fit with a body of work I'm working on. It can be a killer image but it just doesn't fit. Sometimes what you leave out can be as important as what you include. Ralph Gibson referred to these as points of departure and that may be the starting point of new project.
Click to expand...

Good point. I've started with removing nearly everything online. I need some time to think this through and want to detach myself from the images posted online so that I can edit them and later on decide which to put up again.

I got a lot of thinking to do this winter... :D
 
airfrogusmc said:
Heres my thoughts. I think great photographs communicate ideas and great artists all use visual language to achieve that. Learning how to use this language frees you from rules. A great photographer once told me in grat photographs either everything in the frame is helping the visual statement or if it not helping the statement then its hurting it. Nothing should just be there.

To many new photographer think in terms of one great image. One great image no more makes a great photographer or a great body of work as would one great at bat make a hall-of-famer. All the greats work in bodies of work.

I think another big mistake new photographers make is trying to create images that give immediate gratification. Heres a great quote by Ralph Gibson.
"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there." - Ralph Gibson

Using the tools like line, implied line, shape, color, repeating shapes, etc are all things that need to help support the statement which would include composition and any one of those elements are all of those elements in great photographers are all helping the visual statement.

Bresson was so good at it. A great quote by him.
"You are asking me what makes a good picture. For me, it is the harmony between subject and form that leads each one of those elements to its maximum of expression and vigor." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

I would say emotion can be enforced by using some of these elements or in some cases all of these elements by using them to enforce what you, the photographer is trying to say.

Also think about what you are saying with your photographs. Are you merely shooting the noun or are you saying something more? are you telling us what that object means to you. Are you showing it to us in a way that you see it instead of the way it actually is? Anyone can shoot it as a noun but how and what does the subject actually mean or what it might actually be; the verb.

Building these element into the work along with seeing and working in terms of bodies of work also help develop a personal way of seeing and a style. All the great artist have a style. I think the best compliment that a photographer can get is that photograph looks like a photograph that that photographer made. Heres a few quotes by a few of the greats about seeing you in your work.

"You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me." - Roy DeCarava

"The decision as to when to photograph, the actual click of the shutter, is partly controlled from the outside, by the flow of life, but it also comes from the mind and the heart of the artist. The photograph is his vision of the world and expresses, however subtly, his values and convictions." - Paul Strand

"This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock." - Edward Weston

I say worry more about getting yourself into your images and less about emotion. Emotion is subjective and as Winogrand and the OP brought up what might have you emotional might not have any effect on someone else so instead build your photographs on something solid and work on getting you into tyour work Thats what will make it truly special and unique because if it looks like everyone elses work then its not special its what everything elses looks like.
Click to expand...

This is great advice.

A positive approach to photography without too much negativity is always productive. I e-mailed this post to my students.
 
buzzardkid said:
Good point. I've started with removing nearly everything online. I need some time to think this through and want to detach myself from the images posted online so that I can edit them and later on decide which to put up again.

I got a lot of thinking to do this winter... :D
Click to expand...

I heard ya bro...Editing is the toughest part me. Also if its being shown in a gallery getting a flow to the work is so important. The way one images leads to the next. Also scale (the size of the pieces) is very important and how that scale works visually in the space. Then throw in how they are presented. Last show I was in (couple of years ago) was a large group show and I had a very large diptych made up of two 36 X 54 inch horizontal prints mounted on 1/4 inch masonite and one was hung over the other with about 8 inches between the two images making one large 80 inch tall by 54 inch wide piece. The image needed the size especially in the gallery and it sold.....:D
 
Reply to post #50
Jamie,
I am not talking about commercial work. Having a style is very important as an artist. Sorry you don't get it and close your mind before exploring maybe new possibilities. A great photographers style runs through all his work. Its there if you look. Shores work still looks like Shores work no matter what he used to create it and again it seems you are confusing technique with style.

Now back to say Witkins work whether you like his work or not he still has a style and I gotta tell ya I would rather have a style and have not everyone liking my work than to not have a style and everyone loving my work. If you are truly working honestly you are probably not going to have everyone like your work anyway. Usually someone like Witkin also had influence over other creatives.

I mean take most great art movements like just say abstract expressionism for one. The painters like Rothko, Pollack and Franz Kline were influencing the photographers like Aaron Siskind and the writers Jack Kerouak and Sam Shepard and they were all being influenced by the music of Coltrane and Davis. Something all the greats have is a style thats all theirs and that comes from working in a honest way. Being honest to themselves and their vision. Also they all had something to say and the medium they decide to work in is just the vehicle for their voice.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Reply to post #50
Jamie,
I am not talking about commercial work. Having a style is very important as an artist. Sorry you don't get it and close your mind before exploring maybe new possibilities. A great photographers style runs through all his work. Its there if you look. Shores work still looks like Shores work no matter what he used to create it and again it seems you are confusing technique with style.

Now back to say Witkins work whether you like his work or not he still has a style and I gotta tell ya I would rather have a style and have not everyone liking my work than to not have a style and everyone loving my work. If you are truly working honestly you are probably not going to have everyone like your work anyway. Usually someone like Witkin also had influence over other creatives.

I mean take most great art movements like just say abstract expressionism for one. The painters like Rothko, Pollack and Franz Kline were influencing the photographers like Aaron Siskind and the writers Jack Kerouak and Sam Shepard and they were all being influenced by the music of Coltrane and Davis. Something all the greats have is a style thats all theirs and that comes from working in a honest way. Being honest to themselves and their vision. Also they all had something to say and the medium they decide to work in is just the vehicle for their voice.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me make this short because I actually have things to do and I don't have the patience for inane arguments.
You equated style and voice whereas I made a case for distinguishing the two, i.e. referring to the technique and the look as 'style' and 'voice' for something like having a point of view. If you want to insist on putting everything that indicates the authorship of an artist into the 'style' category I'm fine with that. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just think we should be clear about what we're discussing.

But that's really the last post I'll make in response to you. No offense meant but I really disagree with most of your points so far and you seem to think you have some authority on the subject which I just don't recognize. Sorry. There's no point in carrying on the argument as it won't get anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree.
 
A great photographers style runs through all his work.
Click to expand...

This was an interesting thread but I find myself agreeing with Jamie's last post, although perhaps for a different reason.

As soon as someone talks about "great photographers", my immediate reaction is "according to who's opinion"? The older I get, the more I realise that the word "great" in this or any similar context, is a totally subjective opinion masquerading as objectivity. As such, in my opinion, it devalues any further discussion because someone is playing power games instead of addressing the issue.

The early postings threw up a number of views with which I found myself agreeing or disagreeing. However, they made no claims to authority and so added considerably to the discussion. There now seems to be a closing down of the discussion on the basis of claimed authority, which Jamie has quite rightly indicated as spurious and destructive to the conversation (apologies if I am maligning Jamie's intent here).

I believe that, by its very nature, emotion is subjective and therefor the photographer may propose but only the viewer can dispose.
 
"As soon as someone talks about "great photographers", my immediate reaction is "according to who's opinion"?"

I agree with you on this. Opinions of "greatness" depend too much on what criteria we are using to make that observation. I always use the phrase "famous photographers" (a bit of an inside joke, since even famous photographers rarely achieve the celebrity status most connect with "famous" these days) to denote those who have achieved recognition.

As for my personal search, it's clearly a head game that I have to work through. This thread has been very helpful as I'm thinking about this. Photography, like life, is a process.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
(apologies if I am maligning Jamie's intent here).
Click to expand...

No, no, you're spot on. That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

The OP raised an interesting question at the beginning of the thread, i.e. how emotion can be communicated through photography. I'm sure we all have our own ideas regarding the possibilities of the medium and a discussion about these ideas is surely interesting. But there's a fine line between saying how something could be done and how something should be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom