Read an interesting, informative, and articulate article on Chase Jarvis' blog today. Chase's update was penned by Scott, Chase's #1 on his post-production team. For the most part, the update chronicles why Scott, the blog update's author, is decidedly luke-warm these days when it comes to stock photography.But that's not what grabbed my interest. (I don't shoot no steenkeeng stock.)
Apparently, at Chez Jarvis, technical perfection now takes a back burner to raw visual impact. In other words, technically imperfect images have become, at times, Jarvis' snaps du jour.
Don't get me wrong. I'm confident Scott isn't advocating completely blind eyes when it comes to an image's technical elements. And
This relatively new, Chase Jarvis & Co., way of making photographs kind of plays into the art v. crap debate. Jarvis' picture-making-machine doesn't churn out much crap if any at all. Leastwise, imagery that would be labeled as crap by most of us. But, according to Scott, art buyers are now looking at an image's visual impact first and its technical merits second. So now, I'm thinking, if an image seems closer to crap, at least from a technical POV, but has incredible visual impact, it is art. Maybe good art. Maybe even great art. Certainly, marketable and salable art.
Since I can't argue with Chase Jarvis' continuing success as a world-class photographer, I'm gonna learn from his post-guy's article and, perhaps, try to be a bit less technically-anal while shooting and become, if I can, more focused on visual impact. Of course, I don't have the post-prod skills to be technically-anal in post anyway. And my lack of PS skills also means that post won't contribute much to my images' visual impact--so nothing changes there--but perhaps my eye should be (way) more on the lookout for ways to enhance my work with visual power versus technical pursuit?
I hope my clients agree.
The pretty girl at the top is Kat, from a few years ago, snapped right after she whipped me at arm wrestling.
6 comments:
Jimmy,
I think art has always been more about the emotional impact than the technical skills. It's better when both can go together but emotional impact will always trump tech skills.
In any number of "professional" photography magazines (Rangefinder, Studio Photography and Design, etc.), it's not at all uncommon for an interviewed photographer to say that the technical issues--whether lighting, posing, or other tech areas--aren't important. This is almost always accompanied by images which demonstrate a high level of expertise in the areas they're saying aren't important.
To me, it simply shows how much they've internalized those issues to the point that they can no longer see it: it's "air". Just like air, however, you still need it, even if you're not aware of it.
The technical issues are, frankly, only there to support the artistic and/or commercial aspects, and it's certainly best not to let them interfere when there's a conflict, but disregarding them generally backfires...unless you're doing them automatically even though you are "ignoring" them.
I really think it isn't so much that they have internalized it, just that they think the technical aspects are a given.
I mean you wouldn't have someone build you a house if all the nails were only half driven in and then bent over. This doesn't even begin to touch on the architecture of the house.
Photography is one of the only "businesses" where people who are just learning how to hold a camera think they can go into business as a pro and charge people for their work.
Conversely, it is also one of the only businesses where great talents give their stuff away just so they can keep shooting.
@Kevin, A lot of the technical stuff becomes automatic. In fact, that's what a lot of shooters should be striving for, i.e., to get to that point where so much of the technical aspects of shooting become automatic so that they can focus on the visual elements or interacting with models or whatever.
I would like to point to the other side of the coin, have you heard Stephen Eastwood interview at studio lighting dot net? in the podcast Stephen points out something really interesting there is art to be in a wall and there is commercial art, and while art is always required they are different one is marketable, the other is harder to sell , it is an interesting take I would recommend you to hear it.
My clients want artsy but commercial stuff, photos that helps get cash for their services or products but that have a "wooooow" in them to tell them apart from the competition, they get anal about eyes in focus, composition, sharpness, etc... that's mostly because I'm in a market much, much, much more different from what Chase and Scott are, they manage a smaller porcentage of commercial photography: High End(you may say: way they are up in the food chain lol) something Scott or the people at range finder, studio photography and design magazine aren't taking into account, when they talk about this.
My real question to everyone would be: do visual impact and technical perfection have to live separately? I would think not, my problem with this is the Jurgen Teller case: was in the mouth of many, got many gigs, but when the fad washed out... buff!... gone, and you have other photographers with both visual impact and technical perfection having a non stop stream of clients...
I think that when the technical aspect becomes a sort of second nature in your brain you get to spend more time getting to polish and work in the visual impact of your images, both hand to hand to create kickass stuff, of course is IMHO.
My best wishes Jimmy!
Eduar :)
@Eduar, You hit the nail on the head. The technical stuff needs to become second nature so the shooter can focus on the visual elements and, if they're dealing with models, interacting with them rather than staying fixated on the tech stuff.
Big-time shooters have a crew, i.e., assistants, who are paid to do much of the worrying about the tech stuff.
Post a Comment