What do photographs tell us about the photographer?

This is a tough one.
In my opinion the answer is really depends how you are looking to photography; It is going from choosing subject of your photograph to artistic quality of the final image.

If you (me) are looking on the photograph as the form of visual art we should apply common art criteria, if we are looking on the photograph as a visual diary - it will be another criteria. In both cases what I think makes photographs worth to remember is emotional impact on the viewer, so it is totally subjective for the viewer.
The critics who has a common visual art background , let's say European, usually choosing the same or similar authors to endorse .
I really think that something which we call style and what is very hard to define is making that emotional impact. So for me the picture without style can raise some interest because of the subject or captured event, but will bot be qualified as an art.
More of the author in the final work more chances to get close to an art.

All of this is my oppinion and could be very very wrong
 
beethamd said:
Something I've been thinking about after someone commented on my style - or lack of.
Click to expand...

Let me turn it around and ask you - what do you think photographs tell us about the photographer? Or, what do you think they *should* tell us?

Photographs, like any other media that can be used to tell a story, can be slanted to present that story in a particular way. The recent photographs taken by Jill Greenberg of John McCain tell me that she doesn't like him very much.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html

But that is a rather blatant and easy-to-decipher series of photographs.

Other times, it is the setting of certain photographs that tell us about the inclinations, political leanings, or sympathies of the photographer.

But a great majority of photographs don't say much at all about the photographer, and certainly nothing terribly complex; at least, not to me. What should they say?
 
If the photographer is good, they can tell us everything -- or nothing. He can bare his heart, or disguise his feelings, depending on the effect he wants to achieve.

If the photographer is mediocre, or has no strong feelings about anything, his pictures probably reveal the fact.

Cheers,

R.
 
My photos tell me how little I know about photography. (-:
There's some excellent work posted here, though.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If the photographer is good, they can tell us everything -- or nothing. He can bare his heart, or disguise his feelings, depending on the effect he wants to achieve.
Click to expand...

If that is their intent, or if their subject matter and/or method of portrayal gives that away, then I agree.

But I do not think that a Winogrand photoraph tells me anything at all about Winogrand. If you are suggesting that means that Winogrand intended to disguise his feelings, perhaps you are right, but I have no evidence of that.

If the photographer is mediocre, or has no strong feelings about anything, his pictures probably reveal the fact.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think chasing after an amorphous concept like revealing one's inner-most emotions in a photograph of a cat, for example, is an exercise in cat-annoying, not to mention time-wasting.

I say this with regard to the original premise of the post, which was in response to apparent criticism of the O/P's 'style'. I have no idea what my 'style' is, and if I haven't got any, that's fine too.
 
When I look at some of my recent work and compare it to my photograph from the 1960's or 1980's there seems to be a constant thread running through it. The compositions, choice of subject matter, use of extreme wide-angle lenses, lighting, facial expressions, etc., seems pretty consistant over the decades.
 
beethamd said:
Something I've been thinking about after someone commented on my style - or lack of.
Click to expand...

Just tell them your style is to be free of any style whatsoever. :)

And regarding your question, usually you can tell if someone either likes or dislikes their subject, which may tell a lot about a person.
 
This is something I've been struggling with. Over the past two years I've been working a lot on figuring out all the technical aspects of photography. And I think I've pretty well figured out HOW to take a photograph... congratulations I can do something millions of other people can do with a point and shoot. It's about choosing what goes into my frame, and creating a style and a vision. When you look through the portfolio of a great photographer... there's no mistaking their style. If not in a single photograph.... their work as a whole says something about themselves and the world as a whole. I'd really like to get where my work looks and feels cohesive. Not just random photos on a wall. I think this is the most difficult part of photography... finding your vision.
 
Shoot 10,000 photos. You will without effort develop a style. I've talked to too many young photographers (and I'm not saying anything about the OP, I don't know him) who want to know how to develop a style. Shooting a lot of photos seems to be too much trouble, though.
 
I usually resist the inclination to figure out what a piece of art or literature reveals about the creator because I find it more rewarding to focus on the work itself. That said, a lot of photography (mine included) is meant to be autobiographical: I went here and saw this and met these folks. Conundrum!
 
If you're doing it for a living you'll get work because of your "style", but if clients start thinking of you as somebody who always works in that style you'll likely be losing as many potential jobs as you gain. Versatility is a style too, I suppose.

We've reached a point where not many photographers still know how to light in the old "Hollywood glamour" manner, using multiple spotlights, barn doors, and to add interest to the backgroud, perhaps a gobo. Very few are capable of working with a 4X5 (or larger) view camera with a 250mm f/4.5 lens used wide open, adjusting the swings and tilts to keep the pupils of both eyes and the center of the upper lip in sharp focus while the subject is posed with her head turned down and to the side. P-shop can't shift a plane of focus. A view camera can.

There are so many aspects of photography that were considered common knowlege not all that long ago, both with a camera and in the darkroom. Gone!
 
One thing I've come to realise is to let my mood dictate how I photograph. When I'm feeling stressed or generally pi**ed off I'm much more creative and ideas seem to flow more easily. This situation is less than ideal at times because it means I can't produce quality on demand which would make it hard for me to be successful commercially which doesn't bother me too much luckily. Whatever style I have comes directly from an emotional base and quite often that base is a little unstable ... but it invariably gives me my most interesting results.
 
Bnack said:
I think this is the most difficult part of photography... finding your vision.
Click to expand...

I think finding a vision is overrated. I've gotten along fine without one for quite some time. The worst times I've ever had were when I succumbed temporarily to the feeling that I needed to specialize in something, or emphasize something, or develop a style, whatever the hell that is.

I do what I want. That's my style - just whatever I like, whatever I think would look good, and if there is a hidden rhyme or reason to it, it comes from within me, I surely don't spend any time thinking about it or fretting about it.

I move from one thing to the next, and if I suck at something in particular, I either try harder, learn more, or give it up as something I suck at and move on to something I find more enjoyable.

Specialization is for insects. I'm a generalist, and if you wish, a jack of all trades and master of none. So what? I'm not taking photos to play to an audience's tastes. I like it if someone likes my photographs, that's why I put them on Flickr, but I don't take photographs for them, or for anyone.

Style? Feh. There is no message - that's the message.

Now, learning correct exposure - that's both a lifelong challenge and a pursuit worthy of the endeavor. Composition, that I agree with. If you do have something to say, best be able to say it, then. Personally, I just like to take photographs.
 
"Style" is not something like a varnish you choose to apply over a peice of furnature, it IS the bloody furnature all the way through. If you take the style out of Picasso or Monet, you dont have anything left, not even a subject.

All that critic told you, was that he didnt like your photo's, nothing else.


If you are making good pictures, and if they are communicating, then style is irrelevant, a meaningless word, as far as you striving for successful pictures.

You cannot put a veil of style inbetween your photo and the veiwer, so that what you want to show the viewer is done a certain way or not, with a certain "style"...

Your pictures either work or do not, and if you have something you want to show in a picture, then clarity is more important, - even if that means shooting through a foggy window with a piece of gauze over the lens...

(I like Fred's answer very much, too.)
 
There's also the point that often, your 'style' is something that others spot before you do. Agonizing over acquiring one is generally fruiltess.

Bill: fair point about cats, etc. All I meant was if you look at (say) 100 of a photographer's pictures, you may, according to his wishes (if he is good) be persuaded of one or more things he is trying to tell you, whether or not he reveals anything about 'himself', e.g. propaganda for one cause does not necessarily reveal a whole world-picture or personality. Equally, if the pictures are diffuse snapshots, with no detectable themes, then probably (far from certainly) he's a mediocre photographer.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Nice discussion but I took the OP's question diferently. What do a person's pictures say about the person, not his/her vision. For example, does he spend a lot of time in pubs shooting in available light because he's a party guy? Does he shoot flowers and cats because he is shy or afraid of people? Does he attend and photograph kinky parties and public events because he's kinky or a voyeur? Does he use very expensive gear and shoot crap or shoot good stuff on a p&s, and why or how?
Lots of directions to go with this question.
 
Ducky said:
Nice discussion but I took the OP's question diferently. What do a person's pictures say about the person, not his/her vision. For example, does he spend a lot of time in pubs shooting in available light because he's a party guy? Does he shoot flowers and cats because he is shy or afraid of people? Does he attend and photograph kinky parties and public events because he's kinky or a voyeur? Does he use very expensive gear and shoot crap or shoot good stuff on a p&s, and why or how?
Lots of directions to go with this question.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom