# Photographers we aspire to??



## bapp (Dec 21, 2007)

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum and I was just noticing that there seems to be little discussion about photographers and their work.

I feel as an aspiring photographer that this is central to improving our work. Ideas make great photographs and for ideas we need inspiration.

The forum would be a great place to post information for all to learn more about the non technical side of photography.

Excuse me if this is already the case and I have missed it on the forum, if so could someone point me there.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't know what really inspires me, I guess simply seeing something cool is what drives me to take photographs. Either seeing something cool, or being really bored and trying to make something that looks uncool, look cool. I use 'cool' to much. Damned teenage mindset.


----------



## bapp (Dec 21, 2007)

It may be because I am studying photography at the minute but I feel if we want to be truly successful at making great images we need to research great photographers.

Inspiration can be found we should not rely on stumbling across it.

Just as a question, what sort of photography are we into? There is so much more than just things that look nice!

I'll ask you in specific Trenton as you so far are the only one who as replied but the question is to everyone.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 21, 2007)

To me, I like taking landscapes and macro type shots. I like shooting macro using very selective lighting, to really bring out the edges of items. I hate traditional flower shots, but I love shooting flowers. You mention that we should look at great photographers' work, but, really, what makes a great photographer? The thing about photography is that everything is subjective. What you think is good, I might think is awful, and vice versa. It's just the way it is. That's one of the great appeals to photography, or any form of art really, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I guess you could pose that great photographers are the people that take the photos that the most people enjoy, or think are good. And about inspiration, yeah, it can be found. But sometimes the best inspiration is what we stumble upon, and perhaps as we develop as photographers, as artists, we start to look at things differently and suddenly we stumble upon more and more.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

I actually have a lot of people I look up to but they're for reasons too wide for this forum to handle. It just depends on the photograph or frankly, the situation I'm trying to emulate. I have seen work from some photographers that I would given anything to get that particular shot (Andrzej Dragan's Marta (1/6) and perhaps anything Annie Leibovitz ever shot). I've also seen other photographs that because of being shot at that exact time and place... magic happened (the coverage of World Trade Centers tragedy comes to mind or the shot by Eddie Adams photographing the Vietnamese man being shot in the head by the soldier).

I think if I had to name one person, I'd be cheating myself. I believe that if I try to be that one mirror image of that photographer, I would be blinding myself to thousands of others out there and I can't let myself become pigeonholed. That's a big, big question to answer.


----------



## bapp (Dec 21, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> To me, I like taking landscapes and macro type shots. I like shooting macro using very selective lighting, to really bring out the edges of items. I hate traditional flower shots, but I love shooting flowers. You mention that we should look at great photographers' work, but, really, what makes a great photographer? The thing about photography is that everything is subjective. What you think is good, I might think is awful, and vice versa. It's just the way it is. That's one of the great appeals to photography, or any form of art really, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I guess you could pose that great photographers are the people that take the photos that the most people enjoy, or think are good. And about inspiration, yeah, it can be found. But sometimes the best inspiration is what we stumble upon, and perhaps as we develop as photographers, as artists, we start to look at things differently and suddenly we stumble upon more and more.



Thats cool, man I enjoy the odd landscape shot myself.

When I say great photographers I am taking about the groups of people that are regarded as masters of photography. I absolutely agree that the medium is subjective however, I am not a huge fan of Van Gogh (for example) however I can appreciate his unbelievable ability to create new paintings that nobody had even thought of producing before. Truly Avant Gard. Therefore we need to research these masters and all photography that appeals to us. 

It will allow us to critically asses what and why a good photograph is so.

If you want to see the sort of work I am talking about have a look at this link. Fine art photography at its best.

CLICK

If you like your landscapes I assume you have looked at probably the greatest of all time Ansel Adams???

I dont mean to push my thoughts and beliefs on anybody but I do feel passionate about this and I really think It will help everyone.


----------



## bapp (Dec 21, 2007)

dpolston said:


> I actually have a lot of people I look up to but they're for reasons too wide for this forum to handle. It just depends on the photograph or frankly, the situation I'm trying to emulate. I have seen work from some photographers that I would given anything to get that particular shot (Andrzej Dragan's Marta (1/6) and perhaps anything Annie Leibovitz ever shot). I've also seen other photographs that because of being shot at that exact time and place... magic happened (the coverage of World Trade Centers tragedy comes to mind or the shot by Eddie Adams photographing the Vietnamese man being shot in the head by the soldier).
> 
> I think if I had to name one person, I'd be cheating myself. I believe that if I try to be that one mirror image of that photographer, I would be blinding myself to thousands of others out there and I can't let myself become pigeonholed. That's a big, big question to answer.



I totally agree my favorite photographers change almost weekly haha! With the WTC coverage and the like of the Eddie Adams image you talked of we have a case for the subject matter over powering the image. 

Certainly being in the right place at the right time can be crucial to creating great iconic image. In my opinion it is not a requisite. If you have a look at the work of Guy Bourdin. He shot many images for french vogue with huge budgets but it was his Ideas that made them not the money.

His personal work is some of the most original going which would have cost next to nothing and didnt require being in a particular place at a particular time. This is one of my favorite images.







Truly original. Awe inspiring


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm going to have to use my "Art is Subjective Card" on this one. Well shot by all accounts but to me it's not awe inspiring. Frankly to me it's "Ohh" inspiring (as in "Ohh my god... he got _paid _for that?!?). 

I suppose this  is why this question is so difficult for me to wrap my brain around. And my views in "high art" probably aren't the views you're talking about. I am freakishly passionate about photography as an art and communication medium, but some things are just lost on me.


----------



## bapp (Dec 21, 2007)

dpolston said:


> I'm going to have to use my "Art is Subjective Card" on this one. Well shot by all accounts but to me it's not awe inspiring. Frankly to me it's "Ohh" inspiring (as in "Ohh my god... he got _paid _for that?!?).
> 
> I suppose this  is why this question is so difficult for me to wrap my brain around. And my views in "high art" probably aren't the views you're talking about. I am freakishly passionate about photography as an art and communication medium, but some things are just lost on me.



Haha fair enough, Bourdin is a little out there, I suppose. I am surprised you dont like this shot though... I wont go into it, but I love it hah!

Would you be more a fan of the Magnum "crew"? I am. I bet you like Robert Capa also??


----------



## antoine (Dec 21, 2007)

Im really not an expert in terms of photography, but I do love taking pictures especially on lanscapes and beautiful sceneries. What inspires me to do so is the fact that, the world is so much beautiful that we cant just sit there and do nothing. Its better to capture it and show it to those who really care and appreciate.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 21, 2007)

I think maybe the idea of being able to make something that everyone sees as normal or maybe even ugly, and making it look beautiful, I think that inspires me. I'm not sure if I've ever made something ugly into something beautiful, but I really think most of what I do is centered around trying to do just that. For example, my power plant photos. Bad example, my sunrise photos. Being able to turn something bad or normal into something amazing is definitely an attractive prospect to me.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 22, 2007)

I agree, there is way too little discussion of photographer's work in our community. I'm glad you're here.

My work in no way reflects this, but the work that holds my attention the most these days is Gursky and Burtynski. 

The other school of work that really impresses me is the work of Ruud Van Empel, and Simen Johan. They compose, it's almost a form of collage.

As far as street/documentary/hand-held work goes, I admire a lot of the "older masters", but have a huge recent crush on Josef Koudelka.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 22, 2007)

... and not that my little list of names above in any way actually constitutes a discussion... I just wanted to let you know that some of us pay attention, that it's not always about the gear. 

More later, time to feed the kids.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 22, 2007)

bapp said:


> Ideas make great photographs and for ideas we need inspiration.


 
See quote below:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 22, 2007)

bapp said:


> The forum would be a great place to post information for all to learn more about the non technical side of photography.



This was the main reason I set this forum up.
Once you get past the anal stage of being obsessed by equipment and exposure you find that there is a vast area of Photography to be explored. Sadly most people shy away from this because there are no absolutes here: you can quantify technical aspects but you can't quantify things like meaning and mood. These latter, as they can't be measured, depend entirely on personal interpretation so there is no right and wrong - which terrifies the crap out of a lot of people*.
Also, whilst the majority are happy to learn about f-stops and such, they appear to have no interest in the history and current practice of the subject. The majority of people who like to call themselves 'photographers' are for the most part unacquainted with the work of Eugene, Steichen, Annan, Brassai and the rest of the 'greats' who have pushed forward the boundaries. Once you have mentioned Weston and Adams their historical knowledge dries up, except for possibly a few of the trendier contemporary photographers.
What really depresses me though is their lack of interest in learning about them once they have been made aware that there are a large number for them to discover. And so it becomes virtually impossible to discuss Photography in any meaningful way if you have nothing to use as reference points. If you don't know where something has come from you can't explain or understand how it got here, or where it might be headed.
And you sure as Hell can't put your own work into any kind of context.
It would at least be nice to have a few new people in here who are willing to make the effort. It might cause me to once more look forward to coming back in here every day 


*Largely because they are afraid of embarrassing themselves with 'wrong' answers.


----------



## Rabieshund (Dec 22, 2007)

I shoot mostly bands, portraits and sometimes fashion. I'm not really into any kind of artistic photography at all. But I always try to pull off cool and unique ideas when taking photos. There is more to band shots than just let them stand on a line leaning against a wall or something. You have to stay creative or you'll probably never get anywhere. I guess I am very influenced and inspired by photographers like Joey Lawrence who use Photoshop as a big part of the image creation. Maybe we should call us the new generation of photographers or something. I learned Photoshop before I learned how to use a camera so it comes very natural for me. I never see Photoshop as "cheating" but more like a form of art itself.


----------



## bapp (Dec 22, 2007)

I was really starting to loose faith in the forum for a while, but thank God there are some members with the same or similar idea of what Photography is about.

My lecturers talk of two areas of photography "Chocolate Box photography" and "Photography with value" Obviously this is dumbed down to the crudest form, but the message is clear.

If you want to take pictures of inanimate objects for the rest of your life then fantastic, go an become a "mac monkey" learning every little trick of the trade on Photoshop to make things look pretty. If you want to challenge yourself and your approach to making photographs then research and critical analysis is the only way.

I am glad I brought this topic up. What I suggest is that anyone who wishes to discuss the work of a particular photographer or body of work, start a thread entitled the "Diane Arbus---Discussion" for example.

Maybe even talk to the mods about creating an area solely for this type of conversation.


----------



## bapp (Dec 22, 2007)

Rabieshund said:


> I shoot mostly bands, portraits and sometimes fashion. I'm not really into any kind of artistic photography at all. But I always try to pull off cool and unique ideas when taking photos. There is more to band shots than just let them stand on a line leaning against a wall or something. You have to stay creative or you'll probably never get anywhere. I guess I am very influenced and inspired by photographers like Joey Lawrence who use Photoshop as a big part of the image creation. Maybe we should call us the new generation of photographers or something. I learned Photoshop before I learned how to use a camera so it comes very natural for me. I never see Photoshop as "cheating" but more like a form of art itself.




I have had a look at your work and it is impressive... if you are not into artistic photography what do you use to draw on your creativity. Or are you one of these naturally creativie types...(who I hate haha). You mentioned Joey Lawrence. I am a fan of his, from the bits and bobs I have seen but it is content I find most appealing as apposed to the photoshop techniques.

 I do prefer the lesser au natural approach to photography personally.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This was the main reason I set this forum up.
> Once you get past the anal stage of being obsessed by equipment and exposure you find that there is a vast area of Photography to be explored. Sadly most people shy away from this because there are no absolutes here: you can quantify technical aspects but you can't quantify things like meaning and mood. These latter, as they can't be measured, depend entirely on personal interpretation so there is no right and wrong - which terrifies the crap out of a lot of people*.
> Also, whilst the majority are happy to learn about f-stops and such, they appear to have no interest in the history and current practice of the subject. The majority of people who like to call themselves 'photographers' are for the most part unacquainted with the work of Eugene, Steichen, Annan, Brassai and the rest of the 'greats' who have pushed forward the boundaries. Once you have mentioned Weston and Adams their historical knowledge dries up, except for possibly a few of the trendier contemporary photographers.
> What really depresses me though is their lack of interest in learning about them once they have been made aware that there are a large number for them to discover. And so it becomes virtually impossible to discuss Photography in any meaningful way if you have nothing to use as reference points. If you don't know where something has come from you can't explain or understand how it got here, or where it might be headed.
> ...


 
Well said, although I would not put Adams and Weston in the same league.





bapp said:


> If you want to challenge yourself and your approach to making photographs then research and critical analysis is the only way.


 
I wish I had more time to discuss right now...

I am with you on what you are looking to do, but there is much more to being an artist photographer.  Yes, I could not agree with more that one must have a sound understanding of the masters, the history of, and master the technical, but even more important is that we find our own way, find our own challenges as we can only grow as artists if we continue to evolve ourselves, and those life experiences - mostly away from photography itself - is what influences and inspires us in our work.  

I believe E.E. Cummings said, "an artist, whose only agony is to grow."


----------



## Rabieshund (Dec 22, 2007)

Thanks!  Yeah well I guess there is some kind of art in what I do, but I never think of myself as an artist, like how a photographer who shoots mainly abstract or surreal shots maybe does. Sometimes I just get interesting ideas and I try to pull them off sooner or later. But of course I never think "I'll do a HDR" when planning a shot. First comes the idea itself and then lighting. The post processing is seldom planned unless it has something important to do with the photo, like a photo manipulation.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This was the main reason I set this forum up.
> Once you get past the anal stage of being obsessed by equipment and exposure you find that there is a vast area of Photography to be explored. Sadly most people shy away from this because there are no absolutes here: you can quantify technical aspects but you can't quantify things like meaning and mood. These latter, as they can't be measured, depend entirely on personal interpretation so there is no right and wrong - which terrifies the crap out of a lot of people*.
> Also, whilst the majority are happy to learn about f-stops and such, they appear to have no interest in the history and current practice of the subject. The majority of people who like to call themselves 'photographers' are for the most part unacquainted with the work of Eugene, Steichen, Annan, Brassai and the rest of the 'greats' who have pushed forward the boundaries. Once you have mentioned Weston and Adams their historical knowledge dries up, except for possibly a few of the trendier contemporary photographers.
> What really depresses me though is their lack of interest in learning about them once they have been made aware that there are a large number for them to discover. And so it becomes virtually impossible to discuss Photography in any meaningful way if you have nothing to use as reference points. If you don't know where something has come from you can't explain or understand how it got here, or where it might be headed.
> ...


 

My background is not photography or art. I did not take any classes in school. I do not know the names of famous photographers in which to draw inspiration. My background is on the technical side of things, however, I have a great deal of respect for the Arts. This is a very helpful thread.

When I first joined TPF I was desparately wanting the technical aspects for digital photography. But in the same breath, I was searching for inspiration as well. That's why I created a folder in my Favorites for photographer websites. When someone has referenced a particular photog and I found their work inspirational or interesting, it gets added.

I started *this thread* within the first week or two in search for this sort of information. The term 'author' is synonymous with 'photographer'. I still think the idea has merit.

Please continue with the names for your aspirations. I'm writing them down.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 22, 2007)

bapp said:


> What I suggest is that anyone who wishes to discuss the work of a particular photographer or body of work, start a thread entitled the "Diane Arbus---Discussion" for example.
> 
> Maybe even talk to the mods about creating an area solely for this type of conversation.



That is what this section of TPF was originally intended for - discussing non-technical matters whether it be the work of a particular photographer or something even more philosophical.
It has, like most of the forums here, got perverted and is in danger of becoming just one more 'what camera shall I buy?' section.
I blame people not reading/understanding the forum descriptors.


Oh, and in case there is any confusion caused by my previous post. I did not start TPF (that was Chase) - I merely requested that this particular sub-forum to be brought into existence. :mrgreen:


Oh, and Kundalini - I object strongly to 'author' being used with regards the originator of an image. Whilst the word can refer to a person bringing _anything_ into being, it has in recent times become inextricably linked with the written word.
It is because most of the people who have written about Photography have come at it from Literature, and thus equated the image with the written word, that critical writing about Photography is in such a diabolical mess. 'Author' used in relation to someone creating a visual keeps the illustrative Arts firmly subservient to the Word. And I think it should be the other way around. Possibly.
I much prefer photographer but I will settle for artist, originator or creator. But I'm open to suggestions


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 22, 2007)

I do a lot of street shooting and the one photographer that has always inspired me the most is Elliott Erwitt. It is his humility and especially his sense of humor in his approach to his work, that inspires me.

http://www.elliotterwitt.com/lang/index.html


----------



## abraxas (Dec 22, 2007)

Rick Waldroup said:


> I do a lot of street shooting and the one photographer that has always inspired me the most is Elliott Erwitt. It is his humility and especially his sense of humor in his approach to his work, that inspires me.
> 
> http://www.elliotterwitt.com/lang/index.html



Great link!  - NEED MORE LINKS IN THIS THREAD.


----------



## bapp (Dec 22, 2007)

Stumbled across this guy by accident, very clever...love it

http://www.mattstuart.com/


----------



## kundalini (Dec 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Oh, and Kundalini - I object strongly to 'author' being used with regards the originator of an image. Whilst the word can refer to a person bringing _anything_ into being, it has in recent times become inextricably linked with the written word.
> It is because most of the people who have written about Photography have come at it from Literature, and thus equated the image with the written word, that critical writing about Photography is in such a diabolical mess. 'Author' used in relation to someone creating a visual keeps the illustrative Arts firmly subservient to the Word. And I think it should be the other way around. Possibly.
> I much prefer photographer but I will settle for artist, originator or creator. But I'm open to suggestions


 
Noted.

I was refering to the broader sense of the definition for an author being the creator or originator.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 22, 2007)

(I know you were, K. But in most people's minds 'author' is synonymous with 'writer' and has no other meaning. And the Word being more powerful than the Image...)



Try these:

http://www.nickknight.com/main.html     WARNING: contains some nudity.
The images go from work he was doing at College in the late 70's to the present.

http://www.leskrims.com/   WARNING: contains some nudity.
My favourite photographer.

http://www.tonychau.com/gallery00.html
Quality professional photography with a twist. Or maybe I'm biased.

*WARNING: The following site contains nudity and images of a very disturbing nature.*
http://zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/witkin/jpwdefault.html
Witkin's work fascinates and repels me at the same time. I love him for it.

And I couldn't fail to mention this gentleman:
http://www.lensculture.com/blakemore.html
http://www.duckspool.com/duckspool/tutors/john_blakemore/john_blakemore.htm

There are a great many more photographers, both living and dead, whose works are worth exploring. Sadly, many don't appear on the Internet. But you could always try your library.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 22, 2007)

Cheers HvR.

This is the kind of work that I like...the fog laddened backstreets, the dark, smoke-filled recesses that unsuspecting sojourners stumble upon, the moans and shrill laughter echoing from a direction that can't be determined.

I only went through the first two groups of Krims because he deserves much more time and attention (as do they all) that I can afford at the moment.  Unfortunately, I am on my office computer and they have embedded many blocks to certain websites, thus Witkins is not viewable at the moment.  Never fear, there is always a work around.

Now, where did I put that library card................


----------



## bapp (Dec 22, 2007)

I'll chuck a few links at y'all seeing as we are all sharing!! 

Some of my favorites and some not so much but all worth a look.

Robert Mapplethorpe *--Extreme nudity!! WARNING----*

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/selectedworks.html

Albert Watson--- Amazing work

http://www.albertwatson.net/

Richard Avendon-- Amazing portraits

http://www.richardavedon.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=11011&p=-1&at=-1

Diane Arbus--- Not everyones cup of tea but with a little research her work makes alot more sense. Great for someone trying to understand how photography can communicate subtly.

http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/photographers/diane_arbus_01.html

John Kaplan Photojournalist (the russian youth set are a great set of   images)

http://www.johnkaplan.com/pages/index2.html

Thats your lot for now!!


----------



## bapp (Dec 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> http://www.leskrims.com/   WARNING: contains some nudity.
> My favourite photographer.



Oh ny God How have not come across this guy before amazing work love it!!!

Worth joining the forum just to discover that!!!

Thanks Hertz


----------



## craig (Dec 22, 2007)

Excellent post. We simply can not call ourselves photographers with out a strong understanding of photo history and the masters. 

The photographer that most inspires me is Irving Penn. Mostly for his advertising work. Of course his portraits and editorial work for Harpers and Vogue is unparalleled.  

Love & Bass


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 23, 2007)

Arbus is quite amazing and is in my personal list.
She had this wonderful ability to make the strange appear normal and the normal downright weird. A classic example of a photographer who could externalise their internal world.
Witkin is another. Only where Arbus threw in the towel and committed suicide, Witkin puts it all on paper.

Krims is just wonderful. He earned his place in History for his invention of _the indecisive moment_. It's just like the 'decisive moment' but there are more of them 
He is one of the two funniest photographers living. He shows that photography can be both funny and intellectual. Viewing his pictures can be like doing a crossword where you are given the clues and then have to find where the answers go.
Getting hold of any of his stuff is difficult. Since the 70's he published all his own books so the runs were limited and no reprints possible. And he refuses to reprint anyway.
He still teaches Photography in Buffalo (I don't think he's retired) and at one time we had a Board member who had been taught by him.



Another one to try:
http://ralphgibson.com/gallery/
He's in my top ten as well.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Dec 23, 2007)

bapp said:


> Hi guys, I'm new to the forum and I was just noticing that there seems to be little discussion about photographers and their work.
> 
> I feel as an aspiring photographer that this is central to improving our work. Ideas make great photographs and for ideas we need inspiration.
> 
> ...



Thanks for starting this thread bapp, it would indeed be good to see more of what you describe. By the way, you mention your lecturers and your location is Blackpool, so I wonder if you are on the photography degree at Blackpool & Fylde?

I'm not sure if I have the knowledge or the vocabulary to join in, but I'd like to talk about two of Tony Chau's pictures. First, the one at the greyhound track. If this turned up in the galleries here, even in the critical analysis section, the chances are that most of the responses would be telling the photographer that the horizon isn't straight, the white balance is wrong and  how he needs to get a faster lens or bump up his ISO because everything is blurred. Those things may be true, but it's still a strong image. Is that just because we know (or assume, since he is a professional) that he knows what he wanted and how to get it, rather than the image just being captured that way by chance? If so, when can an image stand on its own artistic merits, regardless of technical flaws and what we know about the photographer?

Second, this picture of a young woman. She is obviously from east Asia, perhaps Japan, or of Asian descent and looks like she is a model. However, she is sat in what is clearly a London pie and mash shop - a meat pie and mashed potatoes in front of her, a plastic bottle of malt vinegar, tiled walls. It made me smile because, well, I'm not sure exactly. It's incongruous, but gently so, not heading towards archness or surrealism. It's a simple thing, but imagine how the impact would be different if the same model had appeared in the same pose in a McDonalds, or how the impact must be different for someone who has no idea where she is sat. There's a quote somewhere, probably in a signature line on TPF, about there being two people in every photograph, the photographer and the viewer, and I suppose this is an example of that.

Thom


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 23, 2007)

ThomThomsk said:


> ...Those things may be true, but it's still a strong image. Is that just because we know (or assume, since he is a professional) that he knows what he wanted and how to get it, rather than the image just being captured that way by chance?



I can assure you that Tony knows exactly what he is doing. He was in the same year as me at Bournemouth. Also in our year was Nick Knight.
The College put the stress on knowing what you were trying to do and why, rather than technical perfection. The theory was that the Idea dictated the technique and approach, that is to say once you had a rough idea of what you wanted then you achieved it by problem solving and the technical side of it took care of itself. This ethos had the added advantage of promoting experiment and exploration - a sort of 'let's do this and see what happens' approach. Doing this developed a large resource of unusual tricks and techniques that you could call on as and when needed.
Don't get me wrong, we were as keen on technical perfection as anyone (and often took it to extremes) - it's just that we weren't subservient to it. The visual was paramount.
People who come at Photography from the technical route are apt to find themselves in a creative straight-jacket. Being obsessed with technical perfection means that you tend to avoid things that would 'degrade' the image: out of focus, wrong colour balance, incorrect exposure, wonky framing, et al. We saw them all as an opportunity to try something new, though we kept our critical standards high. Good because it was bad didn't wash. Good because it worked was our motto.
Technical perfection is OK in it's place but it's rather like plastic surgery. The face and body can be flawless and fit the ideal - but the sex appeal just isn't there. It's the imperfections that make beauty, not the lack of them.


----------



## bapp (Dec 23, 2007)

ThomThomsk said:


> Thanks for starting this thread bapp, it would indeed be good to see more of what you describe. By the way, you mention your lecturers and your location is Blackpool, so I wonder if you are on the photography degree at Blackpool & Fylde?
> 
> I'm not sure if I have the knowledge or the vocabulary to join in, but I'd like to talk about two of Tony Chau's pictures. First, the one at the greyhound track. If this turned up in the galleries here, even in the critical analysis section, the chances are that most of the responses would be telling the photographer that the horizon isn't straight, the white balance is wrong and  how he needs to get a faster lens or bump up his ISO because everything is blurred. Those things may be true, but it's still a strong image. Is that just because we know (or assume, since he is a professional) that he knows what he wanted and how to get it, rather than the image just being captured that way by chance? If so, when can an image stand on its own artistic merits, regardless of technical flaws and what we know about the photographer?
> 
> ...



Hi Thom, yeh I am a first year (mature Student) at Blackpool and the Flyde. Studying the BA Hons. I am from Northern Ireland and decided to quit my full time job to follow my passion and attempt to make a career out of it. Blackpool was an easy choice as it's reputation precedes itself many regard it as the Number one Photography course in the U.K. LINK Are you familiar with the college and the course?

Anyway back to the topic, I have not seen Chau's work before and I have not looked at it long enough to really comment on it. However I would offer some advise when viewing an image. Many images are there to be read just like text, therefore to enable ourselves to read them we must break them down, deconstruct them.

One of main differences between top photographers and amatures / students is the attention to detail. If we are looking at the work of a top photographer we must assume that everything in the frame has some sort of meaning and is there for a purpose. So if we take Chau in this regard then each little element of this image makes the whole.

The vinegar bottles mirroring each other but slightly off, the two mirrors again slightly off but still hold symmetry. The Blue square framing the Asian girl again it is slightly askew. So are theses elements now creating a context behind the picture. Is this a representation of how this beautiful girl should not really be in this pie shop, she is more likely to be found in a fancy London restaurant, or China whites? It could then again be a reflection of society and it's current cultural and social ideas of beauty and maybe even our social status?? I don't know but I can attempt to draw conclusion HERZT may know more about these images.

I could go on and on, but I wont I just want to show how images can be read, if you do not see it straight away try reading it and deconstructing it.

As regards the technical/ creative debate, In my opinion both have there place as Herzt mention. I think that to be able to experiment with different styles or techniques we should be expert or at very least competent with technical aspects. 

But again I go back to my theory of IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS if you have good ideas it wont take long to learn any technical tecniques to create them.

Ohh I'm loving this thread whooop!!


----------



## Helen B (Dec 23, 2007)

Ah, Les Krims. Until my big clear-out earlier this year, _Making Chicken Soup_ was in my book collection.

I started at about the same time as Herz - late sixties, early seventies. There was a great magazine called _Creative Camera_. The name was a bit unfortunate, but it was an excellent way to see some of what was going on in photography outside of the stuff that was shown in the mainstream magazines.The quality of the photogravure printing was very high. In '75 they began a short-lived series of excellent yearbooks. 

I first saw the work of Raymond Moore in an issue of CC, and it was his work that influenced my change from painting to photography.

There were also _Ten·8_ and _Camerawork_ which discussed other non-technical aspects of photography. The kind of forum that those magazines provided is also missing here.

I was taught that technique should never, and need never, intefere with one's vision. It should not be something that we are afraid of, lest it diminish our genius. It should never be the reason that our work fails - we should have complete mastery of the aspects necessary for our work. It should not be taken to the point where it dominates the viewer's impression of our work - it should be adequate. I think that the predominance of technical discussions in this forum and many others is that they are, in general easier to have. 

The disparate nature of opinions on other issues makes discussion difficult, and the hegemony of the mainstream is maintained. If you think that there is a lack of discussion of other photographers work, what do you make of the discussion of members' work? Compare the amount of discussion of clever spectacle with that of quieter stuff. It's often the quiet stuff that is more unusual, more challenging, than all the more obvious work.

Best,
Helen


----------



## ThomThomsk (Dec 23, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I can assure you that Tony knows exactly what he is doing. He was in the same year as me at Bournemouth. Also in our year was Nick Knight.



Just in from the 'Small World' department, I studied at Bournemouth too, although at DIHE, across the road from where the Arts Institute building is now. Mostly English in my case, 1983 - 86. The art students always had the best parties though.



Hertz van Rental said:


> The College put the stress on knowing what you were trying to do and why, rather than technical perfection. [good stuff snipped]
> People who come at Photography from the technical route are apt to find themselves in a creative straight-jacket. Being obsessed with technical perfection means that you tend to avoid things that would 'degrade' the image: out of focus, wrong colour balance, incorrect exposure, wonky framing, et al. [more snipping].



That is one of the things that frustrates me about TPF, which has plenty of technical perfectionists, although that is hardly unique amongst internet photography forums. I am striving to get past this in my photography, but it is quite a challenge for an amateur. I think I need to go back to college...

Thom


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 23, 2007)

ThomThomsk said:


> I studied at Bournemouth too, although at DIHE, across the road from where the Arts Institute building is now. Mostly English in my case, 1983 - 86. The art students always had the best parties though.



I was there 79-82. And damn right we had the best parties. One Dip show party went on for three days...
And it is a small world - as far as BPCAD students are concerned. At one point I remember someone in London making a reference to 'the Bournemouth Mafia'! :lmao:


----------



## petey (Dec 23, 2007)

I'm new. I can't say for sure what or who has inspired me. I've been taking photographs for years, but never really gave any thought to it. I met a few people at work who turned out to be pros. They invited me to join a club which I did for a while. I started sharing family portraits and travel pictures and it all snowballed. 

I read a few books by John Hedgecoe and Boyd Norton. It started to make me think a lot. A handful of people on this board I have a lot of interest in reading more about. There is some amazing stuff here. 

The pleasure of taking portraits for people is a great thing. My day job working in a cube pays the bills, but snapping about has turned into my therapy. Seeing both the technical and non-technical side of photography has me convinced that every last bit of it is art in the end. I enjoy rediscovering things so often overlooked. 

It sounds strange but I enjoy a hobby without words. Silence, numbers thought in my head, colors and shapes, lighting - it's enough for me. It's private beauty and I like it.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Dec 23, 2007)

bapp said:


> Hi Thom, yeh I am a first year (mature Student) at Blackpool and the Flyde. Studying the BA Hons. [_snip_] Are you familiar with the college and the course?



I'm aware of it, rather than familiar. I'm at the stage in my career where I could really do with a change of direction, and I looked around at photography courses a while back, the Blackpool one amongst them. Sadly mortgage, pension and family don't really mix with taking such a big step, not for me anyway.



bapp said:


> Anyway back to the topic, I have not seen Chau's work before and I have not looked at it long enough to really comment on it. However I would offer some advise when viewing an image. Many images are there to be read just like text, therefore to enable ourselves to read them we must break them down, deconstruct them. [l_oads of good stuff snipped_]
> 
> I could go on and on, but I wont I just want to show how images can be read, if you do not see it straight away try reading it and deconstructing it.



This is great advice. As I just said in my reply to Hertz, my degree is mostly in English, so I've done a bit of textual deconstruction, albeit half a lifetime ago! For some reason it never occurred to me to take the same approach with photographs. 

In literature, at least at the time I was studying it, the philosophy was that the author's intention was only of passing interest, and that the reader's response was everything. Accepting for the moment your point about the difference between professionals and amateurs being attention to detail, what is the current thinking on this in photography?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 23, 2007)

ThomThomsk said:


> my degree is mostly in English, so I've done a bit of textual deconstruction, albeit half a lifetime ago! For some reason it never occurred to me to take the same approach with photographs.



The danger with this approach is to see images equating to language.
This was the mistake Barthes (and many others since) made. 
In order to deconstruct the image it is first described, and then the description forms the basis of the deconstruction.
There is not really another way of doing things when taking this approach.
But the problem is that what is deconstructed is your personal _interpretation_ of the image, and not the image per se. And this is an entirely different thing.

I think there may be a way around this problem - I was supposed to be working on it - but first a framework has to be put in place within which discourse can take place. The current situation is that Photography 'borrows' it's framework from other disciplines and this is far from satisfactory.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Dec 23, 2007)

bapp said:


> ...Many images are there to be read just like text, therefore to enable ourselves to read them we must break them down, deconstruct them.
> 
> One of main differences between top photographers and amatures / students is the attention to detail. If we are looking at the work of a top photographer we must assume that everything in the frame has some sort of meaning and is there for a purpose. So if we take Chau in this regard then each little element of this image makes the whole.
> 
> The vinegar bottles mirroring each other but slightly off, the two mirrors again slightly off but still hold symmetry. The Blue square framing the Asian girl again it is slightly askew. So are theses elements now creating a context behind the picture. Is this a representation of how this beautiful girl should not really be in this pie shop, she is more likely to be found in a fancy London restaurant, or China whites? It could then again be a reflection of society and it's current cultural and social ideas of beauty and maybe even our social status?? I don't know but I can attempt to draw conclusion HERZT may know more about these images.


 
First and foremost before I make my own observations on this, I acknowledge that you've only had a short time to study the image in question, therefore I recognise that you are probably know about as much about the photographers intentions as I do. Thus far we are on a level playing field (I think). I can also acknowledge that you have had infinitely more formal training to be making informed comment in the first place (you have had some, I've had none). With that I'll make my own observations.

Insofar as the elements you mention set a context, I'd wholeheartedly concur - there's no doubt in the viewers mind that this is rather traditional British chipshop cum cafe - one that I could have easily found myself in a few years back. On the face of it, the girl doesn't look a natural fit within this environment. In my mind this leaves me with a question - is this a found situation or has the photographer chosen the location as a studio backdrop. Looking at his other work, including the same subject, I can only conclude the latter.

As to what's being conveyed, I'd guess I'm as much in the dark as yourself. What I do feel though, is that it is all a little contrived - attractive subject in (let's be honest) grubby setting. It's not a new tack to be taken by photographers and would suggest that it's very much in vogue at the moment: witness the many 'trash the dress' portfolios here and other places.

Is that what we have here then? Another fashion shoot? Buggered if I know to be honest, but that's the message I'm getting from it. Does that transcend into a piece of art? I'll reserve judgement for now I think.

PS. If I look out the window behind me, I can see Blackpool Tower - wonder if it will freeze again tonight...


----------



## plentygood (Dec 23, 2007)

I have to say, this is probably my favorite thread I've seen since I joined this forum.

I've never really studied any of the "masters". The only two pros I can ever remember by name without trouble are James Nachtwey and Joey Lawrence. I'm mostly inspired by local photographers because they don't seem so distant like the masters.

There is one college student from my town named Kent that inspires me a lot though (even if I have problems pulling my ideas off). I just love a lot of the work he's produced. Some of it is very creative and some of it is just so well executed. A lot of his stuff is posted on his myspace (http://www.myspace.com/trees_of_life).

Since I know a lot of people won't have myspace, these are some direct links to some of my favorite things he's done.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v38/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30048960_9265.jpg

http://a930.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/24/l_c1c21963bb027537e4acc56033645c81.jpg

http://a717.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/69/l_e5ed044001ef7c2780fa8df7f8849d2c.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v158/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30286240_7659.jpg

http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v74/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30158957_2584.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v74/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30158964_9171.jpg

http://a746.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/71/l_89e3fdddec10351896e3a5e2076980b9.jpg


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Dec 23, 2007)

Recognising great photographers of the past is one thing. Looking to them for new ideas is another. Personally, I don't understand the looking back to move forward thing. Plenty of truly great photographers I appreciate from the past, but I'll never be looking at their work for inspiration - inspiration comes from the world today, not yesterday.

Far to easy to fall into the trap of imitation.

Current photographers I respect greatly include Thomas Struth and some others from the Dusseldorf School of Art. Looking at much of my own current work makes me think I'm guilty of imitating.

No more looking at photographs for inspiration. Much more looking at the world with an open mind.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 23, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> inspiration comes from the world today, not yesterday.



But the present is informed by the past. They are inextricably linked.
Where we are to-day is a direct result of what has gone before so everything that you do contains the past within it. Consciously or unconsciously when you create something - in this case a 'new' image - you reference the work of others. You can't help it. It's the way we are. So everything in the world to-day that we have created references the past.
Taking inspiration from the present you have to recognise that you are being inspired by the past at the same time.
And Time moves ever forward. There is now such thing as 'now'. As soon as you choose a moment it has gone. As soon as you take a picture it immediately makes that moment into history. It is consigned to the past. So you mean 'from the recent past' 
But I'm just playing with you and I do understand what you mean, though my point is a valid one and is worth thinking about.
Another aspect is 'inspiration'. 
Are you taking it from the image itself - or the approach the photographer has taken?
You can get the latter form of inspiration just as easily from the past as from the future.
Each photographer makes a choice as to the direction their work takes. And if they influence other photographers then that initial choice affects the direction of all these succeeding photographers. Like charting a course through a maze over generations. At some point you may find yourself in a dead end or a sterile area. Examining the history of the journey allows you to see where someone chose to turn 'left' and you can find other, more productive avenues opening up to you.
To write of the past and say it cannot hold any inspiration for you is to cut yourself off from a potential goldmine.


----------



## bapp (Dec 24, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Far to easy to fall into the trap of imitation..
> 
> No more looking at photographs for inspiration. Much more looking at the world with an open mind.



Personally I agree with your point on looking at the world for inspiration however as Herzt says why deny yourself the experiences of great photographers that have gone before us. 

Also the chances are that we are actually quite likely to imitate something in the past that we have not seen. Now I know that may sound strange but almost every "general" idea as been done before (not talking about cliches) and done at a very high standard. So as honest photographers there is a chance that we think an idea is original when in fact it is not.

To find inspiration we should not discard any form of creativity, past or present. This idea runs from Art to literature to almost anything.


----------



## bapp (Dec 24, 2007)

Hey guys just a quick note...

I am overjoyed with the response this thread has received and I am going to attempt to change the use of this category as it was originally intended.

I will be starting a thread to state my ideas for change so any support would be much appreciated!!

Much Love.x

edit: Thread started:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 24, 2007)

Any thread that wants to stay true to it's intentions has to be 'policed'.
There was once a Mod who did that in here but no more.
Best of luck.


----------



## bapp (Dec 24, 2007)

Helen B said:


> There were also _Ten·8_ and _Camerawork_ which discussed other non-technical aspects of photography. The kind of forum that those magazines provided is also missing here.



Are you familiar with the Portfolio Magazine? It is a journal for up and coming British Photographers. It has some fantastic articles on non technical photography.

LINK


----------



## Joves (Dec 25, 2007)

Well I grew up in the era of LOOK and, LIFE magazines which gave me the photobug. Atleast that is what inspired me to start with, the idea of capturing moments. I started when I was 9 shooting with a hand me down Kodak Brownie type camera. Ive pretty much been at it since for 40 years now. Now what keeps me shooting is trying to log the vanishing wilderness. Especially here in Arizona it is all being built up.


----------



## itsanaddiction (Dec 26, 2007)

THANKS EVERYONE! I'm so glad y'all posted links. i was googling every name I came across.

I often type in master photographer or something to see what comes up. This was an amazing post!


----------



## abraxas (Dec 26, 2007)

Joves said:


> ...the vanishing wilderness. Especially here in Arizona it is all being built up.



I'd like to see some of your shots- I try to do what I can with the shrinking California area.  I can see it becoming smaller everyday. It used to be so pretty where I live. Now it has become what I moved away from 20 years ago.

There's not too many landscape photographers I study.  Josef and David Muench, Galen Rowell and Ansel of course.  Other than that I browse, but never really pay attention to who is doing what.


----------



## elsaspet (Dec 26, 2007)

Rabieshund said:


> I shoot mostly bands, portraits and sometimes fashion. I'm not really into any kind of artistic photography at all. But I always try to pull off cool and unique ideas when taking photos. There is more to band shots than just let them stand on a line leaning against a wall or something. You have to stay creative or you'll probably never get anywhere. I guess I am very influenced and inspired by photographers like Joey Lawrence who use Photoshop as a big part of the image creation. Maybe we should call us the new generation of photographers or something. I learned Photoshop before I learned how to use a camera so it comes very natural for me. I never see Photoshop as "cheating" but more like a form of art itself.


 

Another huge Joey Lawrence fan here!!!!!!!!!


----------



## molsen (Dec 31, 2007)

i get my ideas from all over the place, but i don't aspire to any particular photographer or photographers.  i want to craft my own style and the last thing i want is to copy others.  i don't pay much attention to the photographer's name when i see a photo i like...i'm more interested in the elements of the photo itself.  i aspire to be the best and most creative i can be


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 1, 2008)

I find what inspires me is to see the progressive work of the masters such as Ansel Adams. He wasn't always good, and in fact when he started he was quite average. So it helps me to feel better about my abilities as a photographer. 
Some of the other photographers that I really enjoy are Michael Kenna, and Georgia O'Keef.
While I was in my photography class I found a picture from Michael Kenna that made me want to become a photographer. And since then I have yet to find it again. It was a set of swings taken at night in the fog. I think it was done in NY. But it was that picture that made me want to be a photographer.
But reading all that you guys have written, I feel inadiquate with my associates degree in photography, because it seems as if I know a tenth of what you guys know.


----------

