I Wish I had Such Great Subjects to Photograph

[agentlossing]

If you want to make great photographs, start by having something you want to say to the world, something you want people to see, to notice, to remember. Once you have that in mind, you'll start seeing good subject matter.

I can't actually agree with this. I've seen multiple places where newbies are encouraged to find something "worth saying" and shoot that, but a newcomer to photography doesn't know what's worth saying. They will inevitably end up parroting someone else, since most of us learn photography by observing the work and process of others, and taking in lots of advice and instruction from established photographers.

I think the truth of the matter boils down to this: you won't know what YOU want to say for quite some time. So shoot anything and everything, and embrace the tough truth that you can't shortcut your way to being a meaningful or important photographer. Be an enthusiast, take snapshots, go with what moves you, and EVENTUALLY you will want to settle down to something that gives YOU a sense of meaning. That's your focus. That will be different for everyone but it's the only way to make sure that you start using your own voice, instead of someone else's.

 

[JohnWolf]

I agree with you, agentlossing.

One other thing that occurs to me: photography is really not a very good language for "saying something." Put ten of your photos through which you wish to say something up on a wall, and the odds of someone interpreting them the same way you do is pretty slim. They might love them, be moved by them, but photographs are too subjective to assure any common understanding. Unlike words, we have little shared understanding of most images. I'm sure there are exceptions, like the atrocities of war or poverty, but that's not what most of us shoot. And even there, we can't be sure of the photographer's intention.

In my opinion, if you really have something to communicate to the world, you're better off taking up prose writing, where you can clearly communicate what you mean. Or, supplement your photographs with words. Otherwise, why not let your photographs speak to others like poetry, in whatever way is meaningful to them.

John

 

[Bob Michaels]

.........................
I think the truth of the matter boils down to this: you won't know what YOU want to say for quite some time. So shoot anything and everything, and embrace the tough truth that you can't shortcut your way to being a meaningful or important photographer. Be an enthusiast, take snapshots, go with what moves you, and EVENTUALLY you will want to settle down to something that gives YOU a sense of meaning. That's your focus. That will be different for everyone but it's the only way to make sure that you start using your own voice, instead of someone else's.

I see it very differently than you do. Granted some just want to make nice photos. But others photograph because they have something they want to say and photography is the best medium for them. I would say Chris Crawford and I are clearly in that second group.

Personally, I once photographed for around 10 years with no more goal than making good photos. Finally, I stepped back, looked at everything I had accomplished, said Meh!, and totally stopped photographing. About 12 years later, I found I had something I wanted to say and begin photographing again as a way of accomplishing that goal. Still enthused 20 years later. I interpret Chris' work as his way of communicating and documenting his local community.

Can I assume you have a basic knowledge of Ansel Adams? Do you think his objective was to make great photos and the Sierras were just a handy location? Or, did he have something to say about the need to preserve wilderness and the camera was his tool? Read: https://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/ to find out which came first for him.

Nothing wrong with photographing without a goal or objective, i.e. saying something. But that hasn't lasted for very long for many of us.

 

[Bob Michaels]

..... One other thing that occurs to me: photography is really not a very good language for "saying something." .....

Are you familiar with James Nachtwey? One one who said "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

Now, find someone who will say his photos are not the best language for delivering his message.

 

[JohnWolf]

Are you familiar with James Nachtwey? One one who said "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

Now, find someone who will say his photos are not the best language for delivering his message.

Hey Bob. When I said above that there are probably exceptions, such as the atrocities of war, I actually had Nachtwey in mind. For most of us, though, our subjects and themes aren't so glaring.

John

 

[Deleted member 65559]

the premise

the premise

Can I assume you have a basic knowledge of Ansel Adams? Do you think his objective was to make great photos and the Sierras were just a handy location? Or, did he have something to say about the need to preserve wilderness and the camera was his tool? Read: https://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/ to find out which came first for him.
.

Bob, I tend to disagree with your premise, especially w regard to Ansel Adams. History regards him as a photographer, not primarily as an environmentalist. There is no doubt that later in his life his photographs were associated with the environmental movement. But Ansel Adams was a creative type, first as a skilled musician and later as a photographer. Hiking and climbing in the wilderness were also his early passions (before photography), so i think it's a stretch to imply that the desire to preserve nature was the driving force of his work. The National Parks photographs were no doubt a lucrative contract, but Ansel Adams also did a lot of commercial work. There are lots of fine environmentalists that take amateur photos. I'd be more inclined to accept the premise that Ansel Adams creativity was his language, as was music and that the environmental angle was an intersection of personal interests and creative impetus, rather than a driving force of his photography.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Bob, I tend to disagree with your premise, especially w regard to Ansel Adams. .....

Great thing about personal opinions that differ from viewing something from a different angle. Those differences can cause us to rethink / expand our own views. Plus they are a great reminder of our own unimportantance to the world because so few care what we think.

 

[RichC]

If you want to make great photographs, start by having something you want to say to the world, something you want people to see, to notice, to remember. Once you have that in mind, you'll start seeing good subject matter.

I can't actually agree with this. I've seen multiple places where newbies are encouraged to find something "worth saying" and shoot that, but a newcomer to photography doesn't know what's worth saying. They will inevitably end up parroting someone else, since most of us learn photography by observing the work and process of others.

? This doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Chris is simply saying rather than thoughtlessly snapping away at anything that happens to catch your eye, instead take photos of topics (not objects) that interest you.

In Chris's case, that's the living history of his town.

I'm interested in science and its effect on society - so I've done projects on how fast technology changes, insect collecting, and the impact of fast food, for example. I may find myself thinking about something - perhaps found on the web are said to me - and then wonder, "Can I photograph that topic?"

If you're fascinated by, say, trees, village ponds, fashion, global warming, stuff people throw away, then just photograph that interest. Simple. Job done...

Deciding what to photograph doesn't involve learning anything, and there would be zero point in studying the work of other photographers. Learning how to photograph, in contrast, does involve study - but that's irrelevant to what Chris is saying.

 

[agentlossing]

Most of the time when I'm walking with the camera, I don't feel as though I have Vision. I'd like to have some grand plan--some artistic idea would make a good preface for a photo book--but that hasn't happened yet. In the mean time, I just go out anyway and press the button.

And you know what? I think you're in the right place. Your perceived failing may be a lot more the fault of expectations in our unrealistic photography climate, where everyone is looking to carve out their own little space. Let your shooting evolve organically, shed all the preconceptions about what makes "good" photography and just shoot what makes you happy. Let posterity decide whether you have a theme or originality or a voice. More than likely you will eventually grow comfortable enough to notice something in your work, which you can then develop.

 

[agentlossing]

I see it very differently than you do. Granted some just want to make nice photos. But others photograph because they have something they want to say and photography is the best medium for them. I would say Chris Crawford and I are clearly in that second group.

Personally, I once photographed for around 10 years with no more goal than making good photos. Finally, I stepped back, looked at everything I had accomplished, said Meh!, and totally stopped photographing. About 12 years later, I found I had something I wanted to say and begin photographing again as a way of accomplishing that goal. Still enthused 20 years later. I interpret Chris' work as his way of communicating and documenting his local community.

Can I assume you have a basic knowledge of Ansel Adams? Do you think his objective was to make great photos and the Sierras were just a handy location? Or, did he have something to say about the need to preserve wilderness and the camera was his tool? Read: https://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/ to find out which came first for him.

Nothing wrong with photographing without a goal or objective, i.e. saying something. But that hasn't lasted for very long for many of us.

But what does "making good photos" mean? For a lot of us nowadays I know it means making photographs according to conventions that are amply on display all over the internet. But are these "good?" Says who?

You found YOUR good photos, eventually. Which is the same path I think I am on. Most of us only get led astray by the conventional tenets of what makes "good" photography. Plus, I think Ansel Adams was more "competent" than "visionary." He was the period equivalent of someone who was really good at PP. But if you look at more characteristically visionary photographers, for one you need to go earlier, and for another thing they shot all kinds of photos, far beyond the style of photography that they were known for.

We need freeing from all of this pressure to make good, conforming photos.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Great thing about personal opinions that differ from viewing something from a different angle. Those differences can cause us to rethink / expand our own views. Plus they are a great reminder of our own unimportantance to the world because so few care what we think.

.....well Bob it's a discussion isn't it? People have different views...
& in retrospect says a lot about your opinions......

 

[chipgreenberg]

Great thing about personal opinions that differ from viewing something from a different angle. Those differences can cause us to rethink / expand our own views.

We've had a lot of that in this thread. Too bad the world at large doesn't seem to work this way

 

[Ricoh]

[...] If you want to make great photographs, start by having something you want to say to the world, something you want people to see, to notice, to remember. Once you have that in mind, you'll start seeing good subject matter. "Good" means things that fit into the story you want to tell. Just walking around with a camera hoping to see something interesting is not a good strategy (though carrying a camera all the time once you know what you want to say with your work IS a good idea!).

It might be instructional if photos are submitted here accompanied by a description of what motivated the image taker, ie what he or she wanted to “say” by way of the photograph.
I have “L plates“ and I’m here to learn.

 

[Bob Michaels]

It might be instructional if photos are submitted here accompanied by a description of what motivated the image taker, ie what he or she wanted to “say” by way of the photograph. ......

Consider if the photographer has to explain to you what they wanted to say that they have failed in their objective.

We are surrounded constantly by great photography. Advertisements, magazines, newspapers, etc., etc. Don't spend much time looking at Flicker or RFF photos, concentrate on the really good stuff you are surrounded by on a constant basis. Ask yourself what message the photographer wanted to convey. It may be as simple as "contribute now and help stop world hunger" or "wouldn't you love to go to Bermuda on vacation" Or "vote for me" but there is some message there. I interpret Chris's message as showing people there are unique things about his background and culture that he is proud of and wants to show to others. l

Again, there are some photographers who only want to make pretty pictures. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just figure out which camp you want to fall into.

I will say one of the best photo lessons I was ever exposed to was to always ask yourself why you made / did not edit out each photo, what were you trying to accomplish with the photo, and how did you do at meeting your goal. Hard to do but essential.