641-831-0186
Photography, Audio and Acoustical Solutions, Telecommunications

Copying Others and Breaking Free

I'm a big fan of Art Wolfe and David Noton. Their photographs grab you by the throat and shake you down for whatever loose change is in your pockets. Absolutely beautiful work. Art's aerial photography of the four-corners region are among the finest landscape photography I've ever seen. I ask myself, "how can I do that too?"

I find out what films they used to achieve the dramatic colors.  Velvia has typically been the answer. Hmm, I'm already shooting that, it's gotta be something else. Filters. Aha!  Who hasn't thrown a polarizer on the lens to darken those skies, or used a ND gradient filter, or warming filter?  In B&W, we use various filters to "enhance" the pictures too. Strange, my pictures are still not as intense as Art's.  Where am I going wrong?  Cameras!  Of course. Large format is required. Wait a second, I already shoot large format. Tripods? Lenses? What is it? The camera bag. Why didn't I think of that? I spend a ton of money on that fancy backpack camera bag with built-in GPS, laptop computer (for storage and digital post-production in the field) and cable-release that doubles as a toothpick. Alas, no matter what I purchase, I'll never be able to do an Art Wolfe picture better than Art Wolfe. Am I a failure because of it? His stuff sells so much better than mine. If only I could just top him ONE TIME than I'll be a successful landscape photographer.

One day I was grousing about this and I realized what it was that I wanted. I wanted an Art Wolfe print hanging on my wall. Knowing this was quite liberating. I went ahead and shot a picture, post-processed it and printed it just like Art would have done. Beautiful? It was stunning. I finally had my Art Wolfe print. Or did I? It was a forgery! An absolute FORGERY! What have I done? What have I stooped to? If I really wanted an Art Wolfe print, I should plunk my money down and get a nice original from him. But it's too expensive. Not really. Less than the cost of most camera accessories. I probably spent as much on a darkroom easel.

An argument could be made that 99.999% of photography today is just a rehash of what has been done before. That's fine. There are only so many roads between Chicago and Detroit--no matter how hard you try you'll drive a road previously driven. It's when we set out to duplicate the efforts or original works of others that we cross over the line. Copying others is good for training purposes and for fine-tuning our artistic vision. Visiting art museums and purchasing art and photography books is extremely important. It provides a base reference for you own work.

Case in point: Recently, on one of the professional photography Internet discussion groups I frequent, I saw reference to an individual who has been shooting weddings and portraits professionally for 20 or so years. This is that person's specialty. In looking at the work I was absolutely shocked--the technical side of the work was horrible. The subjects were off-kilter, horizons crooked, lighting was lifeless and nasty shadows were present. The people were wonderful, though. The poses were great, the photographer-subject interaction was strong. It is quite evident that the photographer has a great personality and is able to pull the best out of people, but it's also evident that the photographer has no visual reference point for basic composition. Taking a day off and visiting an art museum would pay great dividends if this photographer were to study the mechanics of the portraits.

I study the works of many photographers and painters. It's part of my continuing effort to make my own work stronger and more complete. Over the years I've developed my own style of photography. Part of it is form follows function due to the limitations or characteristics of the equipment and film I use, but part of it is uniquely my own vision.

Take this above photograph as an example. This is a photograph of an old abandoned Ford Comet alongside an Iowa country road. What is the subject?  It's the emblem. Or is it? Is it the car? Is it the layer of dirt on the car? Is it the composition? (rules). Is it the technology? (B&W film). Is it the lens characteristic? (Bokeh). If you study the photograph, you'll see that the emblem is placed near the rule of thirds intersection. Aha! So it's the emblem! For those who think that composition alone is the answer to everything, you are missing the point. The emblem is just that--an emblem, it's not the story, it's just a trigger point or a lead in to the story.

By using selective focusing, controlling depth of field, lens selection (wide angle) and B&W film I was able to create a picture in which the viewer is able to fill in the blanks with their own experiences and imagination.

Through technique and technology I was able to create a photograph that didn't say too much. I created an environment that brings up memories and history. Some will remember having a Comet themselves and they suddenly get all misty-eyed as they remember trips, events or people. Others will see the photograph as a photograph and will just analyze the technical aspects of it. Others will see the photograph as an environmental metaphor and will think about rusting vehicles in ditches.

This Red Trillium photograph is stunning when displayed on the wall. It grabs your attention. It demands that you look at it. A popular photograph, and pretty typical of so many flower "portraits".

That doesn't diminish the worth of the photograph. It works well on a calendar, computer background or even in an arrangement of other flower pictures. Stock photo libraries love the bold, demanding characteristics. The "white-space" (of the uncropped version) is also good for advertisements.

But it doesn't have legs. It tells the viewer too much of how to look at it. The selective focusing drives the eye to the middle of the flower. The subject is too limiting. There is no background, which is quite important to the composition, but it doesn't have a placement. "Nice flower", but no emotion. There is absolutely nothing original about it. Every flower photographer (and book on macro photography) has a similar picture.

The following photograph really isn't anything special. There are tens of thousands of pond pictures that are probably better. I'll never put it in my portfolio. As a display-print, though, it is attractive to many people. Why? Because it gives the viewer a chance to substitute their own details into the picture. There are enough things to look at, with pond lilies, grasses and reflections to keep the eye busy for hours. In this case, I was very careful to shoot the picture in such a way to remove any "place" information. This pond could be anywhere in the world. There is just enough information presented to give the viewer a chance to build their own placement. They can hear the crickets, birds and frogs. They can experience their own visit.

Developing your own style and learning how to break free from the self-imposed demands of "loud photographs" takes time and the willingness to venture from what others have done. You can use other works as guides to learn the rules of what works and what doesn't. If you like one of my photographs, please buy it. Don't just copy it. Feel free to use my work as a guide for your own, but spend the time to learn your own way.

Here's my mandatory "Blurry Waterfall" picture.  One of tens of thousands, but it's mine!