At 14:53 8/22/01, Ken Norton wrote:
It is one thing to learn techniques and "ways of seeing" from
others, but a totally different thing to copy them. I look
through my files and see hundreds upon hundreds of John Shaw
photos. It wasn't until I woke up one day and started applying
my own "DISTORTED" view of the world into my photographs that
they started becomming my own. This came through radical use of
the wrong lenses for a task (like your wide-angle close-up shot)
or using a shift lens the wrong way. My personal style tends
towards the abstract. How many of you have used a 35/shift as a
macro lens? (14mm extension tube, lens dropped all the way
down. Try it by laying it on on a flat object like a CD or a
dollar bill at the edge).
If you've found a personal style, one that's uniquely recognizable as a
"Norton" photograph by those who've seen your other work, and one you can
articulate, then you're miles ahead of 99.9990f the serious photographers
in this world.
I'm still wandering in the wilderness trying to find one. In the mean
time, I approach every project or subject with some thinking about what
unusual, unique or bizarre perspective, point of view, or composition would
_work_ to express something special about the subject(s) that cannot be
expressed otherwise. Thoughts about unusual and bizarre combinations of
hardware to accomplish it pop into my head. The hardware that's needed
follows the visualization to execute it. Maybe that is a "style" but (IMO)
it hasn't been consistent and recognizable as such. Perhaps it's because
I'm letting subject material dictate the style for it too much. Then
again, I wouldn't want only a hammer and approach everything as if it's a
nail, because it's not! See? I'm wandering around again, still in the
wilderness.
Then again, there are times when an image is visualized almost
instantaneously at first glance. For me, there is a magic when that
happens in a world of its own. Other times I must hunt very hard for how
to convey something uniquely special. If a good image results, the reward
is overcoming the challenge, but it's still not the magic of instantaneous
visualization.
Of course, professionally, it isn't the abstract that usually
sells. It's the mundane "tractor in a field" or "hey cow, look
over here" shots that sell.
[snip]
In portrait and wedding work, we must remember that "artistry"
doesn't apply too well. The artistic shots sell in a blue moon.
It's the standard "18" in wedding work and the "6 poses" in
portrait work. Doesn't get too exciting. Just like those
wedding shots I took that are in the online gallary,
artistically they are awesome, but it was the "granny and me"
shots that got the reprints. There are always exceptions to
these rules, but generally speaking.
Photographers are not alone in this. About 6 weeks ago, I visited the
studio of T.C. Steele, a noted 19th C. midwest landscape
impressionist. It's now a state historic site (willed to Indiana by his
wife). They have paintings from each of his "periods" organized on the
studio walls. Beautiful work, and a consistent style shifts slightly over
time, some with the palatte used (pastel to earth tones, etc.). Half of
one wall though has about a dozen dark earth-toned portraits on it. They
were very well done, but nothing like the landscapes. Thinking they were
of his family, I asked the curator about them. Nope, they were his "bread
and butter," the stuff that put food on the table until just a few years
before he died. In his earlier years, he did portraits in Indianapolis for
9 months and would retreat for 3 months to do his landscapes. Later this
almost reversed, doing portraits at his Indianapolis studio during the dead
of Winter for just a few months. Mentioning this because it was an eye
opener to me. What most fine art photographers go through today to support
themselves has been going on for 200 years plus probably a few more
centuries, albeit they were painters.
The world is flooded with John Shaw, Galen Rowell, and other
"workshop" photographs. G.R. is particularily good at
"inventing" a new shot, but within a year it is so copied by
others that it no longer is unique or fresh.
[snip]
The TOPE events have been good as there have been really cool
"ways of seeing" revealed that I had never seen before. Just
like going to an art gallary, I study these pictures to learn
techniques and study "flow".
I too have "reverse engineered" the techniques, probably better stated as
the "principles" used and benefitted greatly from them, and that has been
very useful in generating my own ideas in applying them to completely
different situations.
Back to the point of this post: I do learn from others and
constantly try to make my images more marketable. Immitation
may be "the sincerest form of flattery", but it is also a sign
of a lack of personal vision.
The technician can imitate the work of others. An excellent technician can
do excellent imitations. Some seek to coat-tail on the path blazed by
others as the "formula" that sells. It's not just photography, but music,
movies and television; all the arts. They won't have a legacy though. A
true artist creates and blazes a unique trail, and leaves a
legacy. Sometimes the legacy is not as much their art as it is the trail
that was blazed.
I'm looking forward to trying out the 600mm lens. I'm already
visualizing shots that will be both unique and a creative use of
a lens not particularily designed for the purpose.
Hoping you share some of these with us (is there a TOPE 7 in the
offing?). Have fun with your 600mm!
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|