why don't you buy other peoples photographs?

back alley said:
can't say that i think my stuff is BETTER, but it is mine.

i read a story once about a drapery maker who came into a photographers home to measure for new drapes. he asked the photographer what he did for a living and the photograher told him. the man looked puzzled and asked him where his photos were? the photographer said he never hung his own work on the walls. the drapery maker thought this was foolish and said his home was filled with his drapes, they were beautiful and also were built in advertisements...
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that you shouldn't think your stuff is better than some other people's. I think some of my photos are better than a lot stuff I see, namely that which I consider to be crap. What I meant was that I either like or dislike other people's work. I would obviously only consider hanging the stuff I like. But if I like it then it is not in contest with my own work. My own work, on the other hand, is always in contest with what it could've been, i.e. what I think I did wrong.

As for your story about the drapery maker, that's the difference between art and artisanry, innit?
 
There are many amazing photos here at RFF Gallery that I would buy.

I spent several thousand dollars on "professional" slide film for about 20 years. I would take 30-50 rolls per short photo trip. The quality of film is very important to me. I used Velvia 50 professional from B&H and before that, I used Fujichrome 50 and 100 Professional.
 
Jamie123 said:
Funnily I always buy expensive film (Portra 400) and have it processed at the best pro-lab in town but often the film is shot in cheap P&S cameras (i.e. whenever it's 35mm film).
Click to expand...
From the 'Saving Money' module on my site, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps save.html

don't skimp on materials

All right. We have made the point that inexpensive second-hand equipment can produce excellent results -- but we have to say at this point that it will only do so if you use decent materials.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Baffles me too.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger Hicks said:
From the 'Saving Money' module on my site, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps save.html

don't skimp on materials

All right. We have made the point that inexpensive second-hand equipment can produce excellent results -- but we have to say at this point that it will only do so if you use decent materials.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

For me using my favourite emulsions (in date no less, I don't like to use expired film) is a given but when I use cheap 35mm P&S cameras the reasoning behind using expesive film like Kodak Portra is that I need the film to make up for the camera's shortcomings. The exposure is likely to not be spot on every time so I need a film that handles that very well.
 
Turtle said:
I'm assuming this extends to photo books etc?

I'm curious about this, because most of the biggest photographers from history can name their influences and are intimately knowledgeable when it comes to other people's work. It does not seem to cause them any problems in terms of the individuality of their work.

I wonder whether being familiar with a broad range of work out there actually helps prevent you unwittingly producing work that is 'coincidentally derivative.'
Click to expand...

I think, I overlooked your post - Yes, I have a few photo books, but these have mainly been picked up as inexpensive buys, like I would buy an occasional magazine before a long train ride, …
Some of them, I barely touched - not out of disrespect to the photographer or not admiring their work, but in fact out of being so busy with developing myself in the little time, I have next to a full-time job, that I have barely time, to calm down and enjoy studying these books.

Another interesting point of yours is knowing other photographers work, to prevent similar work from being created by oneself.
This is entirely out of the question for me. Why would I want, to prevent, to produce something, because another person has already done this without me knowing?

It is not like every photograph, one produces is created, to be shown to an audience or sold in an auction, where critics might discuss the similarities or real core of the picture …

I am absolutely for a totally free development of my photographic ways - without bounds, brought by myself or others.
This is the true reason, why I try to limit outer influences - I can't (ant do not want!) prevent them, but I can limit them to a dose, I think, not intrusive. Some people might call this BS - I don't care. For me it absolutely works.

I know a good friend of mine, who is well educated in visual arts, knowing about almost all important, famous photographs, drawings and paintings and artists from the last 200 years.
He recently has developed a strong interest in creating photographs himself, having bought a 35mm rangefinder camera and started shooting.

He struggles of course with handling and technical terms of picture taking, as we all were, when fresh, but you won't believe the mental struggle, he goes through, when seeing his pictures showing an unbelievable disconnection from what he imagined the image, to be, when shooting!
He also barely presses the shutter, as his constant preselection of pictorial substance in the real world is constantly scanned and compared the vast library of great artist's works i the back of his head!

This indeed might be the absolute extreme of the negative influence, other's work can have on a photographer, but it shows in a nutshell, why I refuse, to enjoy the works of others extensively (I know, I would love to, but I indeed just try, to protect what I have).
 
Jamie123 said:
Most famous photographers can name their influences but their influences are not always photographic. Also, depending on what period in history you're talking about you have to consider that at a certain time exposure to other people's photographic work was very limited. I probably see more photographs before noon than an early 20th century photographer did in a month.

I remember once reading an interview with a photographer (Chris Buck if I remember correctly) where he said (I paraphrase) "There are two types of photographers. Those who look at other people's work and those that don't". He counted himself amongst the latter. I don't think there's any right or wrong here, it just comes down to preference. I couldn't live without looking at other photographers' work as I love photgraphy. Does it get in the way of my own work? Sometimes it can as it''s hard to find one's own voice amongst the visual vocabulary one has gained through all the exposure to imagery. But it's something I'm willing to deal with.

I don't think not looking at other photographers' work carries the risk of producing 'coincidentally derivative' work. It can only be derivative if it was derived from something and you cannot derive your work from something you do not know. Coincidentally similar work? Maybe. But if we're talking single images then every image is similar to some other in some regards. If we're talking a whole body of work then that would have to be a big coincidence.
Click to expand...

Jamie, thanks for this post - although, for me it might seem normal, but I wasn't aware, that I am not a weird nut job, doing the way, I do :D
 
Menos,

I completely understand what you are saying, but I am not sure that it works this way.... but maybe it does! This is just my perspective.

I suspect that your friend, if he has real ability, will overcome his connection to his mental database and that it will become an asset rather than a hindrance. However, if he has not natural talent and is relying merely upon imitation then he probably will not (but will likely produce far better images than someone with no natural talent and no image database in his head)!

Personally, I think if a person has an ability and really immerses himself in what he/she does then the intensity of what is being done will take that person beyond the books and reading into a very personal realm.... but that realm will have been influenced, for the better, by the knowledge he has acquired. That knowledge comes in the form of understanding, of techniques and ways of seeing, that can be applied in whatever way the photographer wishes, and on top of which the person can add their own completely novel methods.

Just as your friend is struggling to get past some of the technical issues of making images, surely any photographer needs to become very comfortable with a broad array of artistic and creative basics (attained by reading, looking, learning) if he is to have the widest options open to him. I suppose the other possibility is that to do something completely unexpected and new, knowing nothing about anything might be very useful, but you would not know if it was new and unexpected or be able to anchor it within the wider 'art/photography' world.

menos said:
I know a good friend of mine, who is well educated in visual arts, knowing about almost all important, famous photographs, drawings and paintings and artists from the last 200 years....
He also barely presses the shutter, as his constant preselection of pictorial substance in the real world is constantly scanned and compared the vast library of great artist's works i the back of his head!

This indeed might be the absolute extreme of the negative influence, other's work can have on a photographer, but it shows in a nutshell, why I refuse, to enjoy the works of others extensively (I know, I would love to, but I indeed just try, to protect what I have).
Click to expand...
 
I haven't had a paying job in over two years or my own residence for the last year (give or take.)

You know when I think about it though I'd definitely rather have a print by a virtually unknown photographer or someone who isn't rapidly upcoming. Photos that I love and can find in book form I am happy with in book form. If it does not, and likely will not, appear in a book it would be pretty special to have and enjoy (even if there were a few hundred of them floating around.)

Also, I'm ok with trying to straight rip off things I see. There's no way I'll be able to copy someone's style in 1 try let alone 1,000 tries. I have a short attention span too so I'll end up moving on to trying something else after a month or two but will keep all the knowledge I gained from trying to do things someone else's way :)
 
ferider said:
I do though, Joe, sometimes when I really like something. Lots of books, too.

Interesting in this thread that some posters with thousands of dollars in vintage camera equipment feel they cann't afford another persons print.

A question of emotional value I guess.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Roland,

Then there's that difference between "afford" and "justify" if you know what I mean.
 
In our living room there are about 20 prints hanging,matted and framed. Two are my own ( color no less -K25 on Cibachrome) - the rest I have either bought or been given. In the rest of our place there are more prints hanging, again, mostly other peoples.
The problem with prints is that they take up an inordinate amount of space - and I hate changing them - with time they become "friends". Have two more to frame and hang.
 
As for not skimping on materials, I think Foma 100 is infinitely more beautiful than FP4+ and that Arista Premium 400 is every bit as good as TriX ;)
 
back alley said:
i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.
Click to expand...

I buy or trade prints with other photographers frequently and enjoy looking at my little collection of other folks work quite a lot.

I can't speak to the general case, I can only tell you about my habits. Very little of my own work is on the walls... Currently, there are six of my photos hung in my entire condominium, the rest of the art on the walls is from other people. It was a big event when I hung the sixth print (first thing on the wall in the living room) last week.

Why? Because I feel that when you hang work on the walls it disappears: you get used to it and don't see it anymore after a very very short time. I much prefer to look at prints in an album, a folio, or a book.
 
Godfrey said:
I buy or trade prints with other photographers frequently and enjoy looking at my little collection of other folks work quite a lot.

I can't speak to the general case, I can only tell you about my habits. Very little of my own work is on the walls... Currently, there are six of my photos hung in my entire condominium, the rest of the art on the walls is from other people. It was a big event when I hung the sixth print (first thing on the wall in the living room) last week.

Why? Because I feel that when you hang work on the walls it disappears: you get used to it and don't see it anymore after a very very short time. I much prefer to look at prints in an album, a folio, or a book.
Click to expand...

interesting pov...i have some native art on my walls and this is very true...i never notice it anymore.
 
Godfrey said:
...

Why? Because I feel that when you hang work on the walls it disappears: you get used to it and don't see it anymore after a very very short time. I much prefer to look at prints in an album, a folio, or a book.
Click to expand...

This is not my experience. I guess it depends on what you hang on your walls!
 
Back in the late 90's I purchased a giclee print. An unsigned Jeanloup Sieff photograph, the one with Hitchcock standing behind the model, with the 'Psycho' house in the background.
I notice it often and smile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom