David R Munson
写真のオタク
As I see it, if your work does not say anything about you, does not reflect you in some way, then you are simply not putting enough of yourself into your work. If one truly puts effort into his work, is willing to work at raising the level of his photography to something higher, and is genuinely pursuing images as an expressive form, it is inevitable that the work reflect the creator in some manner.
Every decision that a photographer makes along the creative path that ends in the creation of an image acts as a partial mirror of the photographer himself. Whether it be a technical or aesthetic decision, every choice made is based on something subjective, and that subjectivity is based in the nature of the photographer. The fingerprint of the photographer and an image is inevitable, at least if the images are the result of a genuine effort.
Of course, it is entirely possible to create images which are totally generic in the sense that they do not bear the mark of the maker, but in my opinion such images are largely limited to two groups of photographers.The first group are those who simply do not have the base of experience in terms of creating images that would allow them to put more of themselves into their images. It's something that comes in time and through practice. The second group of photographers are those who choose simply to pursue photography in a very casual manner, opting to keep things relaxed and not worry about it. Which is completely fine. In fact, one of the great things about photography is that you can pursue it in about a million different ways, each one of them completely valid.
I digress. I believe quite firmly that, past a certain point, a photographer cannot help but insert himself into his images in some way. I don't mean that literally, but rather in the sense that nothing that he creates can be without the mark of who he is, his experience, and the decisions he made that led up to the making of that image.
As an example of this, here is something from my own work. This link points to a body of work that I created over the span of about five years, and which I am presently working on self-publishing under the title, "A Temporary Home." It was made in the context of multiple moves between several states, a rather difficult relationship, a highly-varied string of jobs, while climbing out of a total creative burnout, and (perhaps most importantly) during a long struggle with severe depression.
The photography itself isn't *about* any of those things, but they are all reflected in the work because they were parts of my life when I was making these images, and the images are fundamentally a reflection of me. Most of the images were made while out on long walks by myself, often while listening to music, and always while looking for something beautiful or at very least stimulating. Making photographs was often an exercise in trying to find something beautiful despite the overwhelming sense that my life had gone to hell. I made these photographs by going out and searching for something.
On any number of occasions, people have viewed these images and have read into them the basic nature of the circumstances out of which these images grew, with zero preexisting knowledge of those circumstances specifically. They were able to clearly read something about the person who created these images and the circumstances in which he created them. I found that absolutely fascinating. These are things like pictures of shadows or leaves on the ground, or patterns in the snow, interesting clouds, ordinary things in beautiful lights, etc. etc. etc. There is nothing about the subject matter itself that would necessarily be predisposed to being interpreted in the way that it was interpreted. However, that meaning managed to come through no problem.
When I look at the work of other photographers, I often find myself contemplating the person who made the images, as well as the circumstances in which the images were made. If we are open to the meaning that can be contained in images beyond the literal content of the image (subject, composition, etc.), the medium becomes a far more rich and fascinating art form.
Every decision that a photographer makes along the creative path that ends in the creation of an image acts as a partial mirror of the photographer himself. Whether it be a technical or aesthetic decision, every choice made is based on something subjective, and that subjectivity is based in the nature of the photographer. The fingerprint of the photographer and an image is inevitable, at least if the images are the result of a genuine effort.
Of course, it is entirely possible to create images which are totally generic in the sense that they do not bear the mark of the maker, but in my opinion such images are largely limited to two groups of photographers.The first group are those who simply do not have the base of experience in terms of creating images that would allow them to put more of themselves into their images. It's something that comes in time and through practice. The second group of photographers are those who choose simply to pursue photography in a very casual manner, opting to keep things relaxed and not worry about it. Which is completely fine. In fact, one of the great things about photography is that you can pursue it in about a million different ways, each one of them completely valid.
I digress. I believe quite firmly that, past a certain point, a photographer cannot help but insert himself into his images in some way. I don't mean that literally, but rather in the sense that nothing that he creates can be without the mark of who he is, his experience, and the decisions he made that led up to the making of that image.
As an example of this, here is something from my own work. This link points to a body of work that I created over the span of about five years, and which I am presently working on self-publishing under the title, "A Temporary Home." It was made in the context of multiple moves between several states, a rather difficult relationship, a highly-varied string of jobs, while climbing out of a total creative burnout, and (perhaps most importantly) during a long struggle with severe depression.
The photography itself isn't *about* any of those things, but they are all reflected in the work because they were parts of my life when I was making these images, and the images are fundamentally a reflection of me. Most of the images were made while out on long walks by myself, often while listening to music, and always while looking for something beautiful or at very least stimulating. Making photographs was often an exercise in trying to find something beautiful despite the overwhelming sense that my life had gone to hell. I made these photographs by going out and searching for something.
On any number of occasions, people have viewed these images and have read into them the basic nature of the circumstances out of which these images grew, with zero preexisting knowledge of those circumstances specifically. They were able to clearly read something about the person who created these images and the circumstances in which he created them. I found that absolutely fascinating. These are things like pictures of shadows or leaves on the ground, or patterns in the snow, interesting clouds, ordinary things in beautiful lights, etc. etc. etc. There is nothing about the subject matter itself that would necessarily be predisposed to being interpreted in the way that it was interpreted. However, that meaning managed to come through no problem.
When I look at the work of other photographers, I often find myself contemplating the person who made the images, as well as the circumstances in which the images were made. If we are open to the meaning that can be contained in images beyond the literal content of the image (subject, composition, etc.), the medium becomes a far more rich and fascinating art form.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
My photo's tell me that I'm a fearless warrior. 
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
From the artistic side yes. But on the commercial side of things, you won't get assignments for long if your vanity takes over, unless you manage to turn your studio into a brand rather than into a service.
Sevo
David R Munson
写真のオタク
It has nothing to do with vanity. Absolutely zero. If you have a style, your photos reflect you. If they don't your style is a lie. I've worked for years in the commercial side of things and it remains true.
Carterofmars
Well-known
My photos tell me to get closer.
MartinL
MartinL
A good question.
I like photos that show some tension or something that doesn't quite fit or something where the context competes with the subject. I want to be made curious, but not baffled----invited but not led. I'd rather search than stare.
This is a slowly growing awareness (maybe call it a "theme") that influences my editing of my own shots. There are many other fine ways to select photos (that seashore, that pattern, that derelict in the subway, etc.) but these are not favorites.
When I am challenged to explain what I like, I can pursue my likings better.
I like photos that show some tension or something that doesn't quite fit or something where the context competes with the subject. I want to be made curious, but not baffled----invited but not led. I'd rather search than stare.
This is a slowly growing awareness (maybe call it a "theme") that influences my editing of my own shots. There are many other fine ways to select photos (that seashore, that pattern, that derelict in the subway, etc.) but these are not favorites.
When I am challenged to explain what I like, I can pursue my likings better.
peterm1
Veteran
I think it takes time for your personal style to evolve. When I started photography I struggled with the basics and with understanding what worked technically and compositionally and what did not. Then I started emulating the greats. I learned from that too. It was only later that I had the confidence and skills to develop my own style and apply it. When someone reaches this stage I think you can get an idea of their creativity certainly and the sense of their aesthetic values. For example I am not all that interested in straight representational photography, I like something a little abstract with interesting composition, colors, shades and lines.
I have to say many people do not get this far - they lose interest, give up or get stuck somewhere on the path.
I have to say many people do not get this far - they lose interest, give up or get stuck somewhere on the path.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Peter: wonderful!
(You have to allow that I'm a reasonably competent photographer but I'm a lot better at writing -- and that was a superb piece of analytical or descriptive writing).
Cheers,
R.
(You have to allow that I'm a reasonably competent photographer but I'm a lot better at writing -- and that was a superb piece of analytical or descriptive writing).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
paulfish4570
Veteran
my pictures say i have noticed and captured something no one else has, in exactly the same way. a claim of individuality, perhaps?
robert blu
quiet photographer
I fully agree with what Peter just wrote. I start now after more than 40 years taking photo to be satisfied of my photography, not yet because they are good or nice but because I'm going in the direction I always look for. A pictures which conveys a certain degree of emotion after many (too many) simple descriptive pictures. My only regret is that my actual pictures tell me I'm now in the beginning of this way, which will be long and not easy, and I'm already more than 60...
robert
robert
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
My most recent photos tell that I'm bored, I'm really really bored.
Arjay
Time Traveller
A camera is a piece of technology that (more or less) faithfully reproduces what it sees in the moment the shutter is pressed. This concept is deceptive:
It is impossible for an image to not show its creator's vision (unless it's a technical illustration) because every image begins with its author's decision to create it. When out on the street, I only press the shutter release if I see something that touches or interests me.
Naturally, I am striving to be more selective in my photography because I want to become a better observer. I am trying to teach myself composition, e.g. by visiting art exhibitions, and the pictures I saw sometimes will come up subconsciously, leading to pictures that bear a certain resemblance or allusion to what I had seen before. But even more than that - particularly when photographing people - a decision to take a picture can be triggered by an observation or understanding of the little things that reveal subconscious communication between people in everyday situations. To me, looking at such pictures by someone else is almost as much pleasure as watching and photographing.
All the same, such pictures always tell a story about the photographer that was watching: His interests, his reflections and associations. And if he's a good observer, he will be able to condense his thoughts into his images.
It is impossible for an image to not show its creator's vision (unless it's a technical illustration) because every image begins with its author's decision to create it. When out on the street, I only press the shutter release if I see something that touches or interests me.
Naturally, I am striving to be more selective in my photography because I want to become a better observer. I am trying to teach myself composition, e.g. by visiting art exhibitions, and the pictures I saw sometimes will come up subconsciously, leading to pictures that bear a certain resemblance or allusion to what I had seen before. But even more than that - particularly when photographing people - a decision to take a picture can be triggered by an observation or understanding of the little things that reveal subconscious communication between people in everyday situations. To me, looking at such pictures by someone else is almost as much pleasure as watching and photographing.
All the same, such pictures always tell a story about the photographer that was watching: His interests, his reflections and associations. And if he's a good observer, he will be able to condense his thoughts into his images.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I tried to explain or at least elicit something from my style or vision in a recent blog post:
What drives me
It probably makes no sense at all though. It is confusing; but it's the closest I have ever got to explaining what it is that inspires me to photograph some of the things I do!
Vicky
What drives me
It probably makes no sense at all though. It is confusing; but it's the closest I have ever got to explaining what it is that inspires me to photograph some of the things I do!
Vicky
MartinL
MartinL
I agree. And to parse your point, I'd say that the story is only partly told by the photo/photographer, and must be complemented with the thought and sensibility of the viewer.
So, as this applies to the thread's question, my photos say that I am a collector of moments that evoke larger narratives that range from the entirely personal (no one else is expected engage with the image) to something approaching universal (many others will take the grain of sand I offer and build around it a pearl.)
The best shots are not fully contained, never complete on their own. These engage the viewer who must supply--sometimes in a creative and generative way--the missing details drawn from the viewer's own experience.
Such shots (or the shots that please me the most) are metaphors (as I define them: a comparison, one-half of which remains unstated.)
Finder
Veteran
What do my photos say about me? Nothing negative. They expose my brilliance, opening an aperture to my soul. Like me, they are sharp and have real flash with RAW energy--zoom, zoom. Their focus wipes away circles of confusion bringing you to a full stop with their dynamic range--no 2-bit work here. They develop a contrast to my natural humility to color my profile.
You will not finder nicer guy.
You will not finder nicer guy.
MartinL
MartinL
I think this is an important point. I'd blend that observation with the original question: What do your past photos tell you about what you are looking for? (which is the way I originally read it)
I see an iterative or reflexive or synergistic process at play. I'd say it's something like a conversation and learning how to listen to multiple, if personal, voices.
My photos do "tell" me about myself. This information goes back into my decision making and affects, generally, my photography. The cycle continues. Today's photos are the result of what past photos have told me----not just about what's a good photo, but new and old notions of what I am looking for.
Some posters here have answered the OP's question, and others haven't. Try it. Tell something you have learned about yourself from looking at your photos.
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm...
Haven't the time to read this entire thread today as I must tend to business today. However, the original title of the thread caught my eye.
I don't know "what" or if the "what" makes a difference if there is indeed a "what". Personally, I feel that anyone can take a photo with any kind of easily affordable camera these days and those can be pretty good images, if only a snapshot. In fact, most photos are probably just snapshots, for fun or recording an event.
However, as a photographer, having taken my share of snapshots, any image I make these days, will hopefully be different. What I mean to say is that I have been giving my D40 and occasionally my F3/T to my 4 and 5 year old grandsons to see what they would do with them. The results are surprisingly good and reflects what their eyes see, not mine. I have even started a book on Children and Photography.
But, still, why should my images look like theirs from a perspective just a bit higher off the ground? Why should my images look like anyone's taken with a modern digital camera?
It is my quest in image-making to use skills, equipment, lighting, anything, to make those images look different and pleasing to my eye. If I were just to take the ubiquitous snapshots, I would sell my camera, or give it to my grandsons and let them do the photographer bit...YMMV but I find much pleasure in this approach, even at the expense of not even carrying a camera to "record" the family outing, or the event. Let Aunt Martha do it with her palm-sized digital whatzit... I would rather sample the desserts on the table!
Haven't the time to read this entire thread today as I must tend to business today. However, the original title of the thread caught my eye.
I don't know "what" or if the "what" makes a difference if there is indeed a "what". Personally, I feel that anyone can take a photo with any kind of easily affordable camera these days and those can be pretty good images, if only a snapshot. In fact, most photos are probably just snapshots, for fun or recording an event.
However, as a photographer, having taken my share of snapshots, any image I make these days, will hopefully be different. What I mean to say is that I have been giving my D40 and occasionally my F3/T to my 4 and 5 year old grandsons to see what they would do with them. The results are surprisingly good and reflects what their eyes see, not mine. I have even started a book on Children and Photography.
But, still, why should my images look like theirs from a perspective just a bit higher off the ground? Why should my images look like anyone's taken with a modern digital camera?
It is my quest in image-making to use skills, equipment, lighting, anything, to make those images look different and pleasing to my eye. If I were just to take the ubiquitous snapshots, I would sell my camera, or give it to my grandsons and let them do the photographer bit...YMMV but I find much pleasure in this approach, even at the expense of not even carrying a camera to "record" the family outing, or the event. Let Aunt Martha do it with her palm-sized digital whatzit... I would rather sample the desserts on the table!