I've mentioned this more than a few times: I spend an inordinate amount of time surfing the web for all things related to photography. Yeah, sometimes I have too much time on my hands. And, I guess I'm either obsessed or obsessive with this stuff. (Is there a difference?)
My frequent web journeys aren't limited to glamour, tease, and all-around pretty girl shooting. In fact, I probably spend more time reading about (and perusing images related to) editorial photography and photo-journalism than all else. As a result of all this informal cyber-research, I've come to a few, personal, conclusions about this thing we do. This thing called picture taking.
The many types of photographers can be lumped, IMO, into two, broad categories: A) Those whose work requires photographic skill, craft if you will and B) those whose work, for the most part, requires vision, i.e., story-telling, if that makes more sense.
In my view of the world of photography and photographers, heavily influenced by all the stuff I've read and viewed as well as what I've learned through my experiences, people like editorial shooters, photo-journalists, and environmental portrait photographers fall, for the most part, into the latter category while most everyone else, from glam shooters to fashion shooters to beauty and wedding photographers to commercial photographers and beyond, mostly fall into that first category.
I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of overlap between type "A" and type "B" photographers, there is! Truly talented photographers have unique vision as well as tip-top skills. But if you have to draw a line somewhere, a line that segregates many shooters by some sort of observational criteria, well, that's where I'd draw the line.
Some might say that the perfect photographer finds a balance between these two benchmarks and excels at both. I would agree with that. But are there any perfect photographers?
Uh-oh. Here comes the stream of consciousness photo-babble. (I know, I know, lay off the funny green stuff, Jimmy.) Apologies in advance.
Anyway...
We've all seen photographs that we might label as perfect. But that doesn't mean that a perfect image's auteur is a perfect photographer who always produces consistently perfect images. (National Geographic's shooters routinely capture tens of thousands of images for those dozen or so selected for publication by NatGeo's editors.) Instead, it simply means that a given photographer managed, by luck or skill or guile or many thousands of captures or what-ev-er, to capture a perfect photo. Supposedly, we're all traveling the road to photo Nirvana. Leastwise, we should be. But perfection is an elusive and subjective thing. What is perfect to one person is flawed or imperfect to another. That's how the laws of subjectivity work. So, from that perspective, photo Nirvana may be as elusive as perfection itself. (Wow! This is getting way too philosophically complicated. I'm giving myself a headache.)
I've viewed many images captured by editorial photographers or photojournalists which are decidedly imperfect from a technical POV. In fact, a few of them seemed seriously lacking much technical expertise at all. Yet, the images were powerful in terms of vision and storytelling! (Powerful point-n-shoot images anyone?)
Conversely, I've viewed many images captured by renowned fashion shooters or commercial photographers which are technically perfect yet boring as hell. The point is, assuming there is a point to this update, if you're determining where you want to go as a photographer, you'd probably do well to take an honest skill and talent inventory of yourself and figure out where you excel, photographically excel that is, and where your mojo needs work.
Again, this is not to say an overlap factor doesn't come into play. It does. Often, in big ways. Have I mentioned it might be a good idea to determine your overall strengths and weaknesses and to apply those strengths and do something about those weaknesses? I guess I did. But I don't think it hurts to say it again.
Can photographers be taught vision? Hmmmm... I dunno but my gut says no. If you're lucky enough to have strong vision and story-telling skills, editorial or photo-journalism might be the photographic row to hoe for you. That's not to say, of course, that vision isn't a major ally for photographers of all genres. But I've seen enough powerful editorial and news photographs where vision carried it all.
What if you're strong with the technical skills but your story-telling abilities are less than hoped for? It ain't the end of the world. An abundance of photo-genres are still waiting for you to make your mark. Quality always trumps mediocrity when it comes to the craft stuff.
Of course, if you're really, REALLY good with technical skills AND you possess a unique and extraordinary vision, well... BINGO! EUREKA! CONGRATULATIONS! You might have the stuff of which perfection is made.
Okay. Now I'm convinced the point of this post is as elusive as perfection itself. I suppose what I'm writing is akin to a stand-up comedian's improvisational riffing. When this post is all said and done, I guess I'm just saying. (And filling space on the blog.)
Fortunately, the image at the top does have a point-- Point being, Sofia is way easy on the eyes!
Diptych images of Sofia captured with Canon 5D, 28-135 IS USM, ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 125, color temp set to flash default. Three lights employed: 5' Octodome for the main, two strips, either side, slightly behind the model. Shot in front of a neutral wall at a location in Las Vegas.
2 comments:
Great post. Interesting how our opinions differ though. I’d say there is more vision (aka combination of story, emotion, technical skill and "mood") in art/studio/glamour/fashion photography than the genre of photojournalism.
In fact I’d say editorial and photo journalism have less vision because they are capturing what is already there. It’s a recording exercise, way more than fashion shooters, glamour photographers and fine art nude photographers, who have to think on their feet and devise their own vision (or stories) in their head and then recreate that vision in the camera. IMHO this requires a much higher level of vision and creativity than photo-journalism.
I guess it all depends on the viewer’s subjective tastes, and what you (as a photographer) aspire to, and your emotional reaction to any given image. Your Nirvana is not my Nirvana.
And there’s also the point that no artist/photographer/whatever will ever be content with his work. He will always strive for more, which is the very essence of the nature of an artist, of course. Yeah, I know you’re too modest to consider yourself an “artist” per se, but you are.
Lastly, it is widely argued that a master photographer, during the span of a fifty year career, will produce between ten and fifteen perfect photographs in his entire lifetime. The rest of the time is spent endlessly looking for that all-elusive perfection.
...it is widely argued that a master photographer, during the span of a fifty year career, will produce between ten and fifteen perfect photographs in his entire lifetime. The rest of the time is spent endlessly looking for that all-elusive perfection.
Actually, Lin, some artists spend the rest of the time endlessly looking for ways to make a decent living as a photographer.
Post a Comment