# Do photos need to "represent" something or have deeper meaning?



## davidbeckphoto (Aug 27, 2017)

I'm what some call a lifestyle photographer, meaning my images collectively portray and promote a certain way of being. A lot of my shots are candid, raw, unedited, and unapologetically in-the-moment which I believe adds to the believability and impact of the images.

My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme. That I'm not hiding something clever in the layers. My position on that critique is that photos don't have to mean anything deeper than just being a photo of some stuff I like to be worthy of appreciation.

Here's my portfolio - check it out before replying so you have some context. The best examples I can think of are the "upside down legs" photos and the cat photo (you'll know it when you see it - it's on the stickers page).

[mod edit - link removed]

What is your opinion on this?


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 27, 2017)

My opinion - if you are going to photograph naked or nearly naked women get rid of the coy stars. Nipples are a normal part of naked women. Better still, get them to dress properly as the nakedness is contributing nothing.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## davidbeckphoto (Aug 27, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> My opinion - if you are going to photograph naked or nearly naked women get rid of the coy stars. Nipples are a normal part of naked women. Better still, get them to dress properly as the nakedness is contributing nothing.
> 
> Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk



I'm glad you brought up censors too - I think it's a really interesting topic. I've actually made a conscious choice to use censors at times as part of my aesthetic because of the prominence of social media. 

Hear me out. I'm not censoring because I'm protecting my viewers' sensibilities, or because I think I'm covering up something indecent. I use them because the vast majority of contemporary photography is shared through sites like Facebook and Instagram, and because those outlets require censors, that's become the way things look in 2017. It's part of the photo. There is no uncensored version - that is the photo. 

If it's hard to wrap your head around, just think of it as a multimedia collage and call it a day.


----------



## Designer (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme.
> 
> What is your opinion on this?


One particular adjective that is often used on here is "snapshot-y", used pejoratively.  

While some people may accept and even like your style, the photographers who don't are doing something completely different, therefore they don't understand your style or simply don't like it.  That usually works for you until you attempt to progress to a more widely-accepted style.


----------



## davidbeckphoto (Aug 27, 2017)

Designer said:


> davidbeckphoto said:
> 
> 
> > My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme.
> ...



I appreciate the reply, and I think it's interesting that you used the phrase "progress to a more widely-accepted style" because I actually used to shoot using what you might call a classic fashion style, and I've since moved on to (progressed, if you ask me) to my current flash/candid/snapshot style. 

Here are some examples of the old style: 
Instagram post by David Beck • Sep 10, 2014 at 4:44pm UTC
Instagram post by David Beck • May 3, 2015 at 11:08pm UTC
Instagram post by David Beck • May 13, 2015 at 10:31pm UTC
Instagram post by David Beck • Sep 16, 2015 at 5:37pm UTC

And I have my reasons. In the early days, I grew to a level of technical mastery that I was comfortable with. I'd achieved everything I cared to achieve in terms of lighting skill and complexity, composition, retouching - you name it - and I got bored. I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs. 

So I said **** it all, I want to photograph something interesting and real in a manner that looks accidental. I don't want it to look like I'm "doing a photo shoot", I want it to look like this is what my life is like. And what do you know, it slowly became my actual life.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs.



and now youre shooting just like Terry Richardson.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 27, 2017)

Braineack said:


> davidbeckphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs.
> ...




because photographing mostly naked women is totally original


----------



## limr (Aug 27, 2017)

I find no difference between shooting "caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that boring stuff" just like everyone, and shooting half naked women in unnatural poses just like everyone else.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > davidbeckphoto said:
> ...



honestly man, the vast majority of the shots in your link look exactly like you were "doing a photo shoot". 
its not that the shots are bad, but very very few give the impression of "candid". 
especially when  its all naked women. it *screams *"look at me" shoot.


----------



## davidbeckphoto (Aug 27, 2017)

Braineack said:


> davidbeckphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs.
> ...





pixmedic said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > davidbeckphoto said:
> ...





pixmedic said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > davidbeckphoto said:
> ...





Braineack said:


> davidbeckphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs.
> ...



Yes and no. I get that our styles look the same because of the normal factors - lighting style, post processing, narrow aperture, high sync-speed - but the whole point of using that style is that it's a lack of a style. When you put everything on auto (not that I do that, per se), your job as the photographer is less about fiddling with technical settings, and more about creating an interesting scenario. The whole point becomes the context and the content. The lifestyle.

So yeah, maybe my pics look like Terry's, but I could never shoot like Terry, and he could never shoot like me because we don't live each other's lives.


----------



## davidbeckphoto (Aug 27, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > davidbeckphoto said:
> ...



Something doesn't have to be original to be interesting. In fact, I'd say most things you'd consider interesting fall into at least one category containing other things like it. Most of the time it's the slight variation on the familiar that makes something interesting.


----------



## davidbeckphoto (Aug 27, 2017)

limr said:


> I find no difference between shooting "caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that boring stuff" just like everyone, and shooting half naked women in unnatural poses just like everyone else.



I do - one is interesting to me and the other isn't. But that brings me back to the point of this post to begin with. Why does a photo have to be some original thing nobody ever though of before? I mean does that even exist? I'm a big believer in the idea that everything you produce is a remix of the things you've observed.


----------



## limr (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I find no difference between shooting "caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that boring stuff" just like everyone, and shooting half naked women in unnatural poses just like everyone else.
> ...



I never said anything about originality. I simply pointed out the irony of your saying that you didn't want to shoot the same things as everyone else, and yet you still are. I personally find the photos extremely staged and unrealistic. But I'm sure you'll come back with reasons why they are not.

As for a photo having a meaning? Dude, whatever. Do what you want.


----------



## Designer (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> Why does a photo have to be some original thing nobody ever though of before?


I don't think anyone here has said that.  For most of us, achieving a good exposure of a good composition is quite enough.


----------



## otherprof (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> I'm what some call a lifestyle photographer, meaning my images collectively portray and promote a certain way of being. A lot of my shots are candid, raw, unedited, and unapologetically in-the-moment which I believe adds to the believability and impact of the images.
> 
> My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme. That I'm not hiding something clever in the layers. My position on that critique is that photos don't have to mean anything deeper than just being a photo of some stuff I like to be worthy of appreciation.
> 
> ...


They sure look planned and posed to me - not that that is necessarily a negative aspect.  I've just read in today's posts that Sony cameras remove stars automatically


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 27, 2017)

To the original question.

A photo means something different to each person that see's it. For example some people see wildlife photo's as boring and a waste of money. Other's see all the InstFaceChat photo's as a teeny/hipster space.

Does the photo change based on who views it? Of course not.

Can the photographer dictate what others think about it. No

Take the photos you want and stop looking for validation. I take a bunch of photos that I'm sure people hate. The difference. I don't care what other people want until they pony up some cash.



davidbeckphoto said:


> But that brings me back to the point of this post to begin with. Why does a photo have to be some original thing nobody ever though of before?



This was not the original point but since you brought it up. A photo doesn't have to be original in order to be interesting or good. The reactions you've been getting is because you implied you were doing something different.


davidbeckphoto said:


> I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs.



Does your photography have an audience and market. Sure.

Should you worry about what other people say about the merits of your photography? I shouldn't have to answer that but I will. There are many people in this world that will disagree with you and your photography. There is a great two step approach to this.

1. Realize that they are entitled to their opinion as much as you are yours.

2. Carry on with your life.

It really is just that easy.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> I get that our styles look the same because of the normal factors - lighting style, post processing, narrow aperture, high sync-speed - but the whole point of using that style is that it's a lack of a style.



Your lack of style screams "slavishly copying stylized fashion" so deafeningly that, well, fortunately I still had my eclipse glasses on my desk.

Joe

P.S. I thought the on-camera flash thing was over already -- guess not.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Aug 27, 2017)

tpf is the wrong place to ask for feedback on these pictures

tpf is about technical details, about managing your equipment, lighting, post-processing and so on. if you were still w orking on focus and exposure, tpf would be great.

your work is about styling and direction, about collaborating with models to make images technical details be darned. with all respect to the regulars of tpf, almost nobody showing work here has a clue about styling or directing.

anyone who thinks your work looks like terry richardson isn't paying attention, although obviously your work as some aspects of it. a bit like ren hang, a bit like terry rishardson, a bit like probably half a dozen others i don't know. a bit more punkrock than either other those two.

you're right it's a remix. to my eye its a moderately distinctive remix, it's quite sexy (both the +ve and -ve connotations of the term)

looks like you're on control of your work making the results you want.

a bit surprised there's not more gushing about your work because after all nearly naked hotties. if you hadn't put the stars on i assume you'd have gotten more positive responses but im a cynic

my only feedback is the bare butts look fake. you've got a semi-gritty aesthetic but you're smoothing the butt cheeks into globes of plastic perfection i think. it jars.


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 27, 2017)

davidbeckphoto said:


> I'm what some call a lifestyle photographer, meaning my images collectively portray and promote a certain way of being. A lot of my shots are candid, raw, unedited, and unapologetically in-the-moment which I believe adds to the believability and impact of the images.
> 
> My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme. That I'm not hiding something clever in the layers. My position on that critique is that photos don't have to mean anything deeper than just being a photo of some stuff I like to be worthy of appreciation.
> 
> ...



Who cares... If you like them, great.


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 27, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> with all respect to the regulars of tpf, almost nobody showing work here has a clue about styling or directing.



Just because someone doesn't show it doesn't mean they don't understand it.
I don't shoot a lot of different styles. Doesn't mean I don't understand them.
I don't paint but it doesn't mean I didn't paint....for years.
I don't play drums but it doesn't mean I didn't.
It's a pretty shallow slice of someone that is represented on a single platform.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Aug 27, 2017)

fair enough what _i see on tpf_ of model/fashion/sexy material looks to me to be largely undirected and unstyled while the attention to lighting and post processing is substantial


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 27, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> fair enough what _i see on tpf_ of model/fashion/sexy material looks to me to be largely undirected and unstyled while the attention to lighting and post processing is substantial



ironic that you mention that in this thread considering the OPs first post was about how his photography is "lifestyle", "candid", and "unedited".


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Aug 27, 2017)

davids pix are unedited and candid the same way a d&g ad is


----------



## Overread (Aug 27, 2017)

MOD notice - please be aware that this is a family friendly site - because of the general nature of the content of your link its been removed from view. If you wish to post such content or discuss it in this way you will have to pm our admin for permission to access the NSFW section of the site. IT also should go without saying that such links should have a NSFW warning in the thread title as well.

Admin profile terri


----------



## DanOstergren (Aug 30, 2017)

Big fan of your work. I wouldn't change a thing.

As a lover of the craft of photography, I would be critical of your work if your lighting was poor, or the exposures were off-the-charts bad, etc etc, but your lighting isn't poorly done, your exposures are rendered well, you clearly have composition, color, content, and story in mind. Honestly I don't think your photos look like they are unplanned at all, in fact they look like a lot of talented people collaborated to make them, and I see plenty of depth as well as relevance. This is based on viewing the images on your instagram.

Also, to me your photos DEFINITELY don't look like you're copying Terry Richardson. Some of the members here can just be very salty. Please stick around, I promise we're not all that unfriendly.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 30, 2017)

It must had been another photographer that takes pictures of barely-clad celebrities against a white wall doing handstands with a flash on lens-axis....

  the salt tastes good on my popcorn!


----------



## Designer (Aug 30, 2017)

Braineack said:


> the salt tastes good on my popcorn!


It might not taste as good after having been rubbed into a wound, however.


----------



## waday (Aug 30, 2017)

limr said:


> As for a photo having a meaning? Dude, whatever. Do what you want.


The photo of my fougasse had a meaning. It was meant to tempt y'all, and it worked.


----------



## runnah (Aug 30, 2017)

Simplicity is often discarded in the search for deeper meaning. Sometimes a pretty sunset is just that, something to be enjoyed for a fleeting moment.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Aug 30, 2017)

if you think david's images look like terry's it's because you're only looking at technique. lots of people use on-axis light and pretty girls these days it shifts a billion dollars worth of couture every year. it's a look with very specific properties that appeals to a specific demo with a lot of success. technique is a tool for expression, at best, not a list of right and wrong choices.

its depressing to see this thread. guy comes in, basically a pretty successful photographer with real publications relevant tohis niche, he's got a real honest question and he's basically chased away first by the locals and then the mods decide that his work is too racy _even to be linked to_ from here an astonishing change in policy.

nobody's even taken a stab at his question me included whoops.

david, assuming that you're still around, no pictures don't have to mean anything unless you want them to or if you insist on showing them in a context where we assume there's some sort of meaning (like an art gallery showing, or whatev)


----------



## limr (Aug 30, 2017)




----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 30, 2017)

I don't think these are raw or impromptu, they look directed. So they don't seem as you described. I don't think these look like young women just going thru a daily routine; they look like models pretending to be hanging around an apartment. Who sits around the house eating ice cream on the kitchen counter in topless lingerie?

Just calling something lifestyle doesn't necessarily make it so, or make it well done lifestyle photography. Some are framed with extra space that seems unnecessary, or objects in the background that don't seem like they're part of the image; I think framing shots either something needs to work in the photo or it needs to not be there.

There are some with odd perspective or borderline tilt, but they just seem off. You mentioned Helmut Newton but I don't see that influence here (or any possible study of German expressionism which comes to mind looking at Newton's work) - if you look at Newton's photos to me I think he placed a subject and objects exactly where he wanted them in the frame (including outlets, etc.). When he used leading perspective or tilt it seems like the angle of something like a stone fence was placed where he wanted it in relation to the subject and other objects; he obviously considered where shadows were placed in the frame. I would not have known you were influenced by Newton if you hadn't said so.

It's up to you what your photos mean; I don't think these necessarily represent what you describe. I saw some I thought were pretty cool, one that had color and movement seen in neon lights in the background, etc. The one in Italian Vogue was similar to that. But then there are some in crummy looking convenience stores, one with a young woman in a mink coat - that just seems like it's trying too hard to look like something but to me it just doesn't work. But Newton can have a woman in a rain soaked stone alley and it works.

I think it looks like you would benefit from studying art and photography more and figure out what you are trying to say; most of the portfolio work could be further developed. Not that someone can't get photos used or published, but that doesn't mean you stop learning or working to improve. Or I guess it's up to you if you'd rather appear to be a Terry wannabee, because that's what came to mind to me as it did others - if that's not what you are or want to be, maybe you need to think about what's coming across and how you want to represent yourself.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Aug 30, 2017)

when you can't think of what to say just post some copyright material it's like supercalifragilistic


----------



## limr (Aug 30, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> when you can't think of what to say just post some copyright material it's like supercalifragilistic



I assume you are addressing me?

I can think of plenty to say. It's just not worth the effort.


----------



## otherprof (Aug 30, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> davidbeckphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm what some call a lifestyle photographer, meaning my images collectively portray and promote a certain way of being. A lot of my shots are candid, raw, unedited, and unapologetically in-the-moment which I believe adds to the believability and impact of the images.
> ...


"Did they say those terrible things about me? I guess they didn't know my other faults or they would have mentioned them too." - Epictetus


----------



## Overread (Aug 30, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> its depressing to see this thread. guy comes in, basically a pretty successful photographer with real publications relevant tohis niche, he's got a real honest question and he's basically chased away first by the locals and then the mods decide that his work is too racy _even to be linked to_ from here an astonishing change in policy.



The user in question was not "chased away". He was simply told that this content wasn't deemed suitable in the open forum as a result of the policies put in place by the administration/owners of the site. He was told how to access the NSFW section where he can freely post his question and photos. This is the last post on the subject; if you wish to contest moderator actions please use the private messaging system.

If you disagree with site policy then there's the feedback section where you can freely post your argument/case for changing policy. We DO read and listen to suggestions there.


----------



## Designer (Aug 30, 2017)

The title of this thread; "_Do photos need to "represent" something or have deeper meaning?" _appears to be a non-sequitur in that both options are similar, so it cannot easily be answered without some clarification.  Not knowing if the title question is the one we are expected to try to answer, some of us just skipped on to the text of your first post, which has posed a completely different question.  It should not be a surprise that not everyone here is inspired to answer questions that they don't understand. 



davidbeckphoto said:


> I'm what some call a lifestyle photographer, meaning my images collectively portray and promote a certain way of being. A lot of my shots are candid, raw, unedited, and unapologetically in-the-moment which I believe adds to the believability and impact of the images.


That's not what I get out of it.  In fact, I would say it is more like the opposite of your intention.  All of the shots I saw were highly directed, completely aware, very "groomed", (they may be unedited, I can't tell), and not spontaneous at all.  



davidbeckphoto said:


> My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my (photos - sic) don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme.
> 
> What is your opinion on this?


Here again, I am not sure of your question.  If you are asking a question about photography in general, and not just yours, then my answer is (I'll try to re-think your question) A good photograph will always represent something, and a great photograph will often convey deep meaning.

Now if I am to divine the intent of your second question, I will answer thusly: Your photographs do appear to be planned out (see my comments above), and whatever meaning you may have attempted to convey remains hidden. 

You're welcome.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Aug 30, 2017)

im pretty sure that lifestyle here means naturalistic settings, homes, parks, stores, etc. places that either are or appear to be places that people conduct their normal lives. obviously the models are not conducting their normal lives there.

this is incidentaly one of several points on which david differs from terry the latter works largely in what are obviously studio spaces


----------



## Braineack (Aug 30, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> if you think david's images look like terry's it's because you're only looking at technique.



quoted for false.

It's more than the complete and utter blatant copying of his technique for the white wall shot, it's also the subject matter -- the herpes infested, sex drugs and rock & roll, child-predator style to them; the utter disregard for class and taste.  It's also the retro Polaroidesque look to them. The overly contrived raunchy-casualness of a staged scene. The weird people, wearing weird things, doing weird things with weird things. The "OMG look at the roll of film this customer just dropped off" feel to them.  The posing with animals....


----------



## Designer (Aug 30, 2017)

Congratulations, you just won this thread!


----------



## waday (Aug 30, 2017)

So much hatred in this thread.

I don't understand why someone taking a picture that's outside of either one's comfort zone or one's own subject matter interests is immediately considered weird/contrived/copying/etc.

I found the images interesting. Interesting enough to follow @davidbeckphoto on IG. 

It'll provide some relief from the usual food and landscape shots.


----------



## limr (Aug 30, 2017)

Well, I'm not sure about hatred, but I do see a conversation that has outlived its usefulness.


----------

