What happened to originality? or at least trying to stay separate from the crowd? What happened to the soul of your images? Where has the art of seeing actually gone? It seems so prevalent these days to overly light something and make it work later in post. Honestly, does ESPN the mag pay that well? Your use of levels and curves and layers and tools is great but while you were tweaking that image in post you actually erased the soul from your shot.
Great photography does not come from being good on a computer – it can help, but unless you know how to see your computer is only a trick. Nor does great photography come from riding the same wave as every other photographer in that market.
You can argue with me until you are blue in the face but the simple fact remains: Great photography comes from seeing. Interpret how you will.
And right now I feel there are a whole lot of shooters out there who are wearing the same dark sunglasses.
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
I feel the same way, you couldn’t have said it any better.
Though I agree to some of the spirit of your post, ESPN is a poor choice of target, as one of the more innovative and interesting editorial clients over the last decade (and yet I proudly work for them). They hire some of your over-lighters but also a lot of photojournalists, and more than a few Larry Fink, Stefan Ruiz, Nadav Kander, and other top end unique see-ers.
Closer to your own world (advertising), there have been any number of teenage wunderkind’s over the past few years who grew up in computers and treat the photography part of their work as little more than just data collecting to be pimped out in post.
And on the far other end we still have a lot of Yale, self-portrait, large-fomatted ego-centric dogshit to wade through… so maybe there is balance.
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for that.
I stand by my call for espn. As a subscriber myself for the past three years I can recall some essays of note (like your examples – though I think Nadav’s cover of Kimbo fell short) but for the most part each issue will have the same look page in and page out. Not saying it doesn’t work for their audience – because it does work for their audience so no complaints there. But I know for the portraits that run throughout I will put my money where my mouth is and say that if it is a profile shot of an athlete more often than not the final result could have been taken by one of hundreds of shooters who all have the same look. And that is what I mean by ubiquitousness! Could be said of many many pubs, in fact the majority. And yes, I blame so much of this on advertising and the death of ideas. (or rather the rise of the client)
You are very right!!!
Great photography is the real soul…
I recently saw a blog with a photographers work, before and after. He showed how he took a terrible image and made it look great with his great computer skills.
IF the photograph would have been good in the beginning, he would not have had to do this. The original images were so bad there weren’t even worth the edit time.
I see so many images out there that people worship, unfortunately not because they are great photographs.
We have a whole new generation of mediocre work that is manipulated to impress?
I’ve had this conversation twice in the past week or so, strange. I definitely agree with you 100% but it seems to me that there is just something about ‘over-lighters’ that many clients seem to love.
I don’t know if it’s the clean shiny-ness or just that they know exactly what they’re going to get (which can be quite understandable) or maybe they just want to look the same as ______.
I’ve always just kind of written it off as something that wasn’t really my taste so I’m glad to see there are others that don’t get it.
And I do understand your point… but that metric shows us that every paid magazine is guilty of the same problem, ie. the problem of how magazines began to assign work given shrinking timetables (budgets). Time was/is expensive so therefore the rise of portraiture (esp. lit), which galvanized the surrounding advertising and could be carried out no matter locational factors, allowing ad rates to stay bouyant (until circulation tanked as content was almost non-existent), and simultaneously stabilizing costs for shoots because you didn’t have to wait for something interesting to happen for a more documentary type photographer to capture. That balance is in peril on this end of the cycle now that almost everyone makes more money on production, rental, digital than on actual day rates/creative fees…
So yes, things are the same, even when they aren’t. You could have just as easily pointed at the awkward naivety sort of ouvre you see in current ad trends (Levis=Wrangler?)… the bulk of business photography anytime in the last 25 years… and on and on and on.
FWIW — I loved the Kimbo cover Nadav shot, even if the Obama’s people type technique is falling flat for me.
*note about my previous post… “yet” should have been “yes”
Albert, good to hear from you. I agree, this is what separates the pack. Great shooters take great images period. Take John’s example of Nadav Kander. He sees first then manipulates after (whether with light or in post) and though his images can be viewed as trendy he certainly does not reply on “schtick” to get by.
John, I think there may be something more to the ads of Levis vs. Wrangler and that may be something along the lines of brand confusion. If you can’t beat them, join them. Confuse your customers enough to make your product synonymous with that of your largest competitor. Even done well, you look cool. If done poorly (Hello, Aldo) you look like a cheap imitation. Just my thoughts on that, Not even sure if the words brand confusion exist in advertising lingo!
I’m in the “like-photos-to-look-like -photos” camp for sure. One thing brought up here was bad photos “saved” by post production. I have also seen what I consider good images which are wrecked (for me) by over-postproduction. I think that painters, who have been dealing with how-much-should-work-this-surface issues for a lot longer that photographers, know that one of the prerequisites to being good is to know when to leave well enough alone.
And, by the way, when I blogged about this a while back, I was inundated by attack comments, and not only from the kids, if you know what I mean. It seems to be a touchy subject. All the more reason to discuss, if you ask me.
I’d like to briefly chime in and say that I both agree and disagree.
I completely agree that there is a look out there that is becoming ubiquitous. It’s very client driven, very easy to reproduce and is not doing anyone’s careers any favours in the long run, once the “next hot look” comes along. Which it will. And, it’s a pretty well-known fact among my colleagues and clients that I hate over-Photoshopped work. Seriously. There is only so much lipstick and rouge you can throw on a nasty piece of business before it’s sadder than when you started. I love Tony’s painting reference (above).
I disagree however with the inclusion of the “computer” as co-culprit. (I won’t wade into any arguments about advertising shooting vs. assignment photography vs. photojournalism vs. fine-art photography, etc., ad nauseum, because I’m clearly making a living creating commercial imagery. Period.) But the poor computer? It’s not at fault, is it? If so, then how about 1600 ISO film grain? Dodging and burning? Black and white film (a creative choice)? CROSS-PROCESSING…
My point is that the computer’s a tool, just like anything else. It can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Use the wrong lighting on the wrong subject = bad. Ask your mom to style your shoot = bad (OK, not all moms, maybe). Shoot everything dutched and mostly out of focus, then turn around and call it the “mood” you were going for, usually = bad.
Leave my computer alone, dammit. She’s sensitive.
Great timing on this. I’m just putting together images for a portfolio and trying hard to stick to my vision. I’m finding more and more that I’m leaning towards my original passion of natural light, great subject and nice moment. I can’t remember the last time I opened Photoshop proper to do anything more than adjust the colours from a scan of film, and I couldn’t be happier.
Ohhh this is such a great topic Myles, I completely agree that it is ultimately about the raw image and good composition, but you know its funny how we have come full circle in almost exactly 100 years. In the 1920′s Ansel Adams and his rogue buddies killed what was pictorialism; crazy filters, soft focus, scratching prints and heavy darkroom manipulation, which in a sense was a prehistoric version of Photoshop. I’m sure people argued over pints when this happened back then as well.
I’m an “Illustrative photographer” (for the most part) and not a purist, so photoshop is here to stay for me, its a great tool, but I also know that the fundamentals of photoshop and digital cameras are all based (and I think that everyone should understand this) on the traditional zone system.
Long live Ansel Adams and Thomas Knoll!! They would make beautiful babies together, if they weren’t both men…
Great post. I’ve just completed my new essay (simulacra) that has a lot to do with personal vision and, to some extent, originality. The great problem is continuing to produce photographs that are interesting for the photographer but ALSO for the public. A complex balance btw ART and EGO.
Massimo
Heather – I thought that I just had to serve up a good lunch and all else would be forgiven?
I couldn’t agree more. It’s hard to be original and find a voice, especially when it appears one sort of style is what sells. Copying what’s hip might be a short term gain, but as soon as the next trend comes along, you lose all relevance because people will think of you as they guy/girl that shot a certain way and that way is dated.
It’s important to be true to yourself, no matter how many lights you use or how much time you spend in Photoshop. As long as you can look yourself in the eye and say this is me and I am proud of this, you’ll do fine.
Hi Chris – don’t get me wrong. I too love the machine and it is not her fault! and to all you who think I am dead against the digital world I am here to say I am not but…it is at the point when the tool replaces the medium it is meant to support that I start to froth and twitch.
That and when so many have a look that is seamless from one another.
We’re in total agreement, Myles.
(If I don’t stick up for her once in a while she’ll act up and chuck an HDR effect on everything in sight…)
Trends come and go and there will always be a back lash against certain styles as they reach critical mass.
Over lite, over processed, hdr etc. seems to serve as one end of the critique though I agree with John re. Lee/Wrangler as I am certainly equally bored with seeing portraits of hipsters in window light.
I’m in complete agreement with your article Myles. There is just a lack of vision and the current trend is much more prevalent with tools (software) that offer a quick fix. It seems to me that the software available is so easy to use that people tend to over apply effects.
A raw file must be digitally processed and given characteristics that promote the subject but it is only as good as what has been contributed through good lighting and composition.
hi myles,
i think i understand where you are coming from here, [except i don't know what you mean by the dark sunglasses]. i agree that photography has gotten much too ‘affected’ over the last 8 years or so with the over photoshopped and digital movement. some of my favorite photography was done by Guy Bourdin for the main reason of his amazing lighting, art direction and very much for his lack of post. lets get back to basics and see what we can do.
maybe a challenge should be put forth to ask photographer’s to submit images with absolutely no post production. just raw images, whether from the film or digital captured raw file. i;m game if anyone else is. any takers?
sincerely,
matthew stylianou
Hey Matthew,
For me it is not as much about the use of digital cameras or photoshop or tools or lights for that matter, it is that there is an overwhelming large amount of shooters whose looks are exactly the same. As Chris mentioned it was also prevalent in the mid to late 90′s with Cross-processing and before that ‘dutching’ it (which sounds a lot more erotic then it really is). It was also pointed out that many shooters strive for the so called “Yale school” look which has little to none of the effects involved.
The point of my post was two fold:
A lot, and I mean a lot, of books look like they could be shot by one of many shooters – which to me seems ludicrous. It baffles me that in a field that is supposedly so creative, so many people want to look so similar to one another. I understand this gets work – hey, if the ad’s are biting (which they are) then go for it but there is a soul that is lacking to the work if you are just doing it to get jobs. Default two heads as rim lighting, one as key up front and a hair light alone do not make for a unique image. Ditto for that of the vacant stare. Ditto to that of the awkward guy ‘funny’ moment. (variations on this set up are not excluded from my rant)
Let’s call it trend photography – whether it be copy cat work of the snapshots by Vice boys, multi head over sharpened work mimicking Olaf Blecker et al or semi awkwardly posed portraits in grass like that from the so called Yale school – in order to stand out from the crowd you must elaborate further then just trying to be the same. We could go on for pages that the copying of trendy styles has been happening for ages – it just feels like right now in particular there is a vacuous look that has permeated the industry so deeply I often think the end is neigh.
The second point was to push some buttons. To hopefully get some juices flowing. I believe Leslie over at B.A.P has some great posts on remaining true to your vision, or at least that is how I understood them. Stick to your guns and your clients will come to you. Copying a trend will only make you redundant once a new one comes along and you had better move fast to catch up when that happens. Not only that but you surrender your creativity when you only follow a trend as there is nothing personal or unique about similarity.
Ok. Oh hell. While I am at it I want to pass some of the blame on to us. The magazines and the agencies. We too shall not be exempt from the word ubiquitousness. No. In the age where the cover lines “Your Best xxxx, EVER” and “Top Picks” overwhelm the racks and once inside layout after layout look like they could have come from any number of magazines I cannot point a finger at photographers as being the soul perpetrators of following trends.
I was at a workshop recently with Mary Ellen Mark. Remarkable photographer who hates photoshop. After much discussion, she did admit that it is as much a tool as picking the paper and film and printer to make traditional prints.
The difference these days is that to many people rely on post as the be all and end all. It makes wonder how the art of printmaking will fair through the next ten years of photoshop and the soon migration of print into multi-media.
I do believe that a good images starts even before the day of the shoot. Concept, then execution, then post. Tyler is an illustrative photographer and it works for him. From his work, he does conceptualize before shooting. The problem these days with a lot of photographers, especially those inexperienced in commercial work flow is the “we’ll fix it in post” syndrome. This does not work. You should have 80 to 90 percent of the work done in your raw image.
To that, I will be happy to send some raw images to show how we conceptualize our images before the creation of the final image.
Photography is a visual medium that is an off shoot of printmaking. Create photography that is beautiful and thought out. The method of getting there is not the issue, it is, for me, how you think out the image and how well it is executed.
Well said Hasnain – the use …the over use of actions, plugins, presets and photoshop trickery to “fix” crappy photographs has always been used, and is still being overused in the wedding photo biz, and coming from the retouchers seat years ago, i see these images that make me wonder what they are thinking! If the shot is crap to start off with, no amount of PS is going to make it great, or bring out any soul or emotion. A great photograph happens when you seize it with the shutter releasing..not after 3 hours of tweaking in Photoshop.
If you’re a illustrative type guy, then it’s a tool..but you still need a great photograph to end up with a great photoillustration.
photographers want to sell, clients want to be on the safe site, art-buyers and art-directors dont want to loose the client, so what will you get? more of the same. and the digital change has nothing to do with it… thats another story. a story that tells us again, that there is no reality outside i can shoot. there is only a picture i see in my mind and my heart… this picture needs to be taken – with computer or without doesen´t matter.
I agree completely. The problem is that agencies and clients are hiring that type of photographer making it very tough for the old school photographer to pay the rent and thus driving more photographers to follow the crowd in order to survive. I’m sticking to my guns and hoping things change but it’s tough!
Old or new school when every book looks the same whose creative voice are you really using? This is not about computers. This is not about tricks. This is not about film vs. digital. This is about ‘sameness’. mg2star23 put it well.
I don’t think the photographers are to blame here, sorry Myles. It works from the top down. If clients, art directors and art buyers aren’t pushing talent that is doing something different then who else will?
It’s easy to blame the photographers for following, but in reality, they follow because they need to pay their rent! Of course, they would rather shoot their dream style, but did you hire them when they did?
If more art buyers had, more photographers would be happy to diversify from the pack. At the moment, Canadian magazines look the same, same, same. Same photographers shooting the same styles every month and being repeatedly hired to do so.
If you want change, guess what, so do all of the photographers. Hire them based on what they want to do, not what the industry expects you and them to shoot.
Joel – good comment but I think you missed the posts where I put some of the blame on us as well – call it shared blame. But “all of the photographers want change” Where did you hear that? There are a ton of shooters making a decent living doing exactly what everyone else is doing. Certainly no need to change in their eyes. And kudos to that.
Here is the thing Joel. I see books. Lots and lots and lots of books. I also see websites that I am asked to look at and repeatedly I see the exact same look. I want something different. I truly do. In fact I need something different esp. here in Canada. When I see those shooters who do not have the same look I call them for jobs I think they are tailored to. Is this easy? No! What I wouldn’t do for a damned good studio shooter who knows how to get to the soul of their subject. Instead I see page after page of subject lost in thought looking aloof or resorting to a trick, or failed humour or post work to make something of the image. What I wouldn’t do for a lifestyle shooter who can really capture the energy of a moment without the shot looking one bit staged. There are good photographers here in Canada that shoot this. They know who they are. But they are few – And I dig them completely. They are shooting from their heart…It is obvious in their images. They are hired to shoot what they want and need to shoot. For the record even if I wanted to I can’t hire shooters that follow this current trend of desat, oversharp, multihead (or aloof or vacant or schticky etc.) My publisher would flip. My art director would kill me and most importantly our reader would not get the image for one second. She does not care for trendy photography. She cares for real and believable photography. More of this is desired in the country than you seem to think.
And yes, you are right…a lot of this has to do with advertising (much more so than magazines I think – editorial is a tough grind for most and really, for the most part are we rewriting design history here in Canada with our large mags? No. I don’t think one amongst would say we are) The look the AD’s and more specifically the clients are calling for is one that is not unique or stand out. Like I said earlier in post 4 and 24 – the death of ideas or the rise of the client. Take your pick who killed it.
It works from the top down? Hey if you want to be a slave to the man and not yourself then go for it. But be prepared to continually assign your creative freedom to the trend the industry desires.
Myles, this post is well past the cute “lets get more traffic” barrier by baiting and being provocative, but I wanted to make a positive comment about Canadian PEs and mention by name Clare Jordan at the Globe & Mail magazines (Report on Business, etc) who not only articulately asks for original and unexpected photography but also turns around and publishes it gracefully and boldly. It’s quite common for me to talk to a PE who goes on and on about wanting something new, different, or quirky, but that talk is often cheap and doesn’t play out in editing. Clare is great and a pleasure to work with — your readers should certainly seek her out.
Myles
Thank you for being willing to take on my comment and for taking share in the blame. I do believe that you are looking for something different, but I think photographers need to know that there are ADs and Art Buyers who are out there fighting for them and they need to see that fight reflected in the final pieces put on public display.
It takes courage on both sides (the photographer’s and the art buyers/ADs) to stand up for work that doesn’t scream familiarity and even in the best of times, I guess I haven’t seen that courage displayed.
So, as the challenge was issued here to the photographers, here’s my challenge to the other side. Hire a few photographers that you’ve never tried before – shooters that you may have been afraid to approach because you thought they were too green for the big job, to unfamiliar to you or the client, too ‘out there’ in terms of style to be understood and work with them to create magic. (men·tor: a trusted counselor or guide)
If risk is to be taken, then let’s all take it together.
John I agree 100%. Clare is great and she also gives younger shooters breaks they need to get into working full time. She has nurtured many a shooter to maturity!
No baiting here! All of my comments are borne of frustration. Plus, Heather is away and I am fresh outta new ideas to blog about at the moment ; )
Joel, this is why I love smaller pubs. they do not have to answer to the mighty shareholder. What do shareholders hate? Risk.
Myles,
Great post and comments. I wonder how the internet and easy access to so many photography sites has contributed to the ubiquitousness of the style you’re referring to. It seems like access to so many photographers’ work, websites, blogs, etc., would help to refine vision and authenticity, but I’m not sure it actually is.
As so many people have pointed out, there have always been trends in photography. But now, somehow, they’re all so much more… I don’t know, accessible? There’s a certain numbness that comes from it all, and this seems to permeate the market in general.
Now, in one hour, I can see more work than I could have five years ago over several months. RSS feeds deliver images to my desktop all day long. Instead of just being familiar with the local photographers in my market, the masters who’ve published books and the bigger ad shooters taking out space in source books etc, I’m able to see photographers from all markets and all areas of photography in minutes. Anyone, anywhere can find 30 photographers in 10 minutes whose style somehow resonates with them and then mimic what they see.
I find myself almost having to filter out so much more than before… not checking my feeds, blogs etc. There’s a fine line between feeling inspired and forgetting who I am in the whole thing. In a sense it’s so easy to just get caught up in a wave… so much easier I think, than it has been in the past.
Clare was the first one locally to give me a shot so I can definitely vouch for her!
I think there is a definite issue with ‘green’ photographers getting decent assignments or in many cases assignments at all.
I am a professional retoucher for a large agency.
I completely agree that the computer should be a tool and only that. These days art directors and photographers completely abuse photoshop and use it in a way that I think it should not be used (and I am the one doing it!). In a perfect world the computer would be used to enhance the image in a way that might not be easy or possible to do the old fashioned way, not to “polish a turd” as we say sometimes.
In regards to this whole retouching out the sole of the image thing; I have to say this. Have you forgotten the industry we are talking about here. Advertising. There is no soul there to begin with. We are pushing product here people. The second the photographer signs that contract they give up all their rights to create a soulful image. I am so tired of hearing art buyers say stuff like this.
There are no art buyers in the real art world for a reason. The same goes for the rest of the design committee.
I’m in the don’t blame Photoshop/computers camp.The discussion of what is original art and why has been going on forever, and every time there is a new medium, technique or style it seems to flair up.
The new medium, technique or style seems to get the blame for the lack of originality vs the artists themselves. It seems to me, there is no more a less originality now then before — I remember when everything was shot on a cove- or the use of gels, no depth of field, lots of depth field, high contrast, very little contrast (all pre-computer). When these styles or techniques first appeared they were original and very compelling but then they got copied and become less so.
There always been original artists and copycats- it’s human nature. Being original is very difficult- that’s why there’s only a few Einstein’s, Picasso’s, and Avedon’s (and even they copied at different points in their lives).
This conversation, to me, is much like ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg.” One of the problems that I see (and I’ve been a photographer for over 20 years) is that all too often ‘the client’ is not that knowledgeable about photography. And certainly not at all knowledgeable about lighting. ‘Clients’ generally know what they like in their competitors advertising schemes and want that duplicated, hence all of the white backgrounds for websites on the internet. Anyone, with any art education background, knows that white is probably the worst color for backgrounds as everyone’s eye always goes to the brightest part of an image (or the part of an image that is most in focus.) For those who never took a photo class, that’s Photo 101. And yet go to the internet and it is filled with products with ubiquitous white backgrounds. Why the hell would any knowledgeable client or buyer want an image where the eye goes away from the image and into the background? The answer is very simple. The people making some of the most important decisions about art aren’t knowledgeable about photography, they are the bean counters or the owner’s but they are not knowledgeable about photography and certainly not about lighting. Want good, unique product, editorial or portrait photography? Look for natural light images first ! If you can’t find it there then go find someone who uses a judicious amount of strobe light. As far as computers and the over-use of Photoshop goes, there was a whole lot of good photographs taken before computers, no less Photoshop were invented ! MASTER the use of a camera, the PRIMARY tool of photography first. Then learn Photoshop. There’s also no need to place ‘blame’ on anybody, any trend or any time frame. The problem as I see it, is that some of the ‘clients’ making ‘art-buying’ decisions just don’t have an art background.
This debate can go on and on, but the fact remains there is time and place for everything. Every gimmick and every trick can be used in a very effective way just as much as it can be used completely out of place by someone who has no clue why they are doing it.
It’s about understanding the impact the image will have on the viewer. Professional understands all of his/her tools and knows when to use them and when not to.
I gained a lot of respect for Platon when I went to his seminar last year when after being asked by one of the participants (to large disappointment for most of us) to talk about his equipment and lighting technique, he responded just the way I hoped he would. By saying that time is short and it really doesn’t help anyone to learn which lens he uses or where he puts his light. What matters is how you approach your subject and the challenge of engaging them in a successful portrait session.
I had the great honor to work with and learn from Hasnain, who understands his craft very well and knows when to call on a digital artist and when to minimize any further fussing with his imagery.
That is to me what makes some people stand out. I can only hope enough of this knowledge has rubbed off on me!
No. I’m sorry, I don’t agree with this.
Well I do to agree, because a good photograph is the core of an image, but aesthtics go a long way these and every day. The same could be said decades ago, people complaining about over printing black and white images in the dark room, but here’s the thing…It’s the ‘End Result’ that matters. You do what you need to get that, and if it’s retouching, then that’s what it is.
Sure, i’ll always love raw unretouched photogarphy, but layers, levels and curves, as you say, are often protagonists in the emotion of a shot.
I think there are some very valid comments. I would like to piggy back on what Henry Blackham briefly touched on. While I obviously agree that taking a poor photo and trying to stretch it into a viable piece of work is not good practice, I less agree with the arguments about the sameness of all of the photos these days. I don’t disagree with the fact that they are the same; but the fact is, that is trend. That is history. Whether you look at painting, music, design, anything, there are trends that become popular, then they fade. So many musicians fall into a style that is popular and sells. And painters, sculptures, architecture, that is why we have eras. Baroque, Romanticism, Renaissance, the lists go on. Even Picasso who was so original and almost single-handedly started a style, copied others. It is fact that he took the African masks he had hanging in his studio and replicated them in his portraits. Now while he made a very different interpretation of them, is still was not completely original. How many car companies don’t share similar styles with other companies. In any artistic field that is just the way it is. That is the way it always has been.
Too often artists who try something different or new are chastised by critics for pushing the limits. For stretching the realm of what is considered acceptable. I’m not saying that all of this is either right or wrong, but rather simply, it’s just the way it is.
{ 4 trackbacks }