| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2007 11:35:12 AM · #1 |
Some reading to make you think...
//www.bythom.com/collector.htm
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 11:42:19 AM · #2 |
good essay
(I'm a Photgrapher ;) |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 11:47:12 AM · #3 |
Very interesting, really makes me think.
I'm trying to be a photographer.
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:04:55 PM · #4 |
Echoes a lot of the themes I had going through my mind when I made what some thought was a fairly radical lens choice for a recent trip to Yosemite.
I'm thinking about something similar for Zion this January. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:16:18 PM · #5 |
I found that an interesting read, but I did find the author making an assumption that may not always ring true. He was assuming that many, many photos of the landmarks he mentions are taken by people attempting (purposely or sub-consciously) to copy the Pro's that have already captured masterpiece images years ago.
What if many of those "photographers" (people with cameras) hadn't seen these masterpieces the author mentions - honestly haven't seen them. Perhaps they're standing in a similar location to the "Pro" because it presents one of the most breathtaking views of that landmark? A natural spot to gravitate to.
Speaking from a personal viewpoint, I can say that I've probably not viewed many of the images the author mentions. I'm a hobbiest. Now perhaps the workshop participants the author takes into the field are students of photography...in that case then many of the masterpieces have been studied. OTOH, if I was planning a visit to one of the major landmarks mentioned I would most likely run into the popular photos via tourist info sites and souvenir shops - potentially giving me a brief view of the masters and influencing my photographic expectations.
Don't get me wrong, I think the intent of the author is to get photographers to find that unique POV to not only the landmarks, but to any location they find themselves in. That's a great lesson to teach and a challenging one to keep in mind when out shooting.
Forgive my rambling...I think the cut & dry, black & white summation of the author got my motor running. :-P
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:21:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I found that an interesting read, but I did find the author making an assumption that may not always ring true. He was assuming that many, many photos of the landmarks he mentions are taken by people attempting (purposely or sub-consciously) to copy the Pro's that have already captured masterpiece images years ago.
What if many of those "photographers" (people with cameras) hadn't seen these masterpieces the author mentions - honestly haven't seen them. Perhaps they're standing in a similar location to the "Pro" because it presents one of the most breathtaking views of that landmark? A natural spot to gravitate to.
Speaking from a personal viewpoint, I can say that I've probably not viewed many of the images the author mentions. I'm a hobbiest. Now perhaps the workshop participants the author takes into the field are students of photography...in that case then many of the masterpieces have been studied. OTOH, if I was planning a visit to one of the major landmarks mentioned I would most likely run into the popular photos via tourist info sites and souvenir shops - potentially giving me a brief view of the masters and influencing my photographic expectations.
Don't get me wrong, I think the intent of the author is to get photographers to find that unique POV to not only the landmarks, but to any location they find themselves in. That's a great lesson to teach and a challenging one to keep in mind when out shooting.
Forgive my rambling...I think the cut & dry, black & white summation of the author got my motor running. :-P |
You should visit Yosemite National Park some day (made mostly famous by Ansel Adams B&W photography) Most of the popular vantage points that he shot from typically have 15+ photographers with tripods jostling each other to take the 'classic' views that he took, at every sunrise or set. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:37:32 PM · #7 |
| Depends a bit on the type of photography. I plan on collecting certain portraits if I get the chance. I think I do little collecting otherwise. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:03:00 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You should visit Yosemite National Park some day (made mostly famous by Ansel Adams B&W photography) Most of the popular vantage points that he shot from typically have 15+ photographers with tripods jostling each other to take the 'classic' views that he took, at every sunrise or set. |
That sounds like a photo-op in itself! :-)
Are the non-"classic" views not so popular then I take it? Are there so many "classic" points accounted for that the non's are non-photoworthy no matter how creative you get?
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:12:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Are the non-"classic" views not so popular then I take it? Are there so many "classic" points accounted for that the non's are non-photoworthy no matter how creative you get? |
The 'classic' viewpoints have roads that go to them and car parks/ viewpoints. You don't have to put effort in to get to them is a big part of I think.
Also many people who go on photo workshops to essentially get a guided tour to the most scenic parts. They don't have much time to explore or suffer 'wasted' days scouting a location or finding not so gorgeous views.
So the classics are easy to get to and relatively easy to get competent results at. Non-classic views require more work and have the potential to disappoint.
I think there's another aspect though - the cliched views are usually pretty well entrenched in the mind of most photographers going to a particular location - you do some research, you see previous work, you look at postcards, so the tendency is to repeat those compositions or at least subjects. They also tend to be the most dramatic viewpoints.
Yosemite is dripping with amazing views and subjects. About 98% of the visitors to the parks never even leave the roads (according to national park figures). Hike in any direction and you are almost instantly alone.
I went to Big Bend National Park in the busiest weekend of the year. All of the campsites in the park were full - we really struggled to get a site. One day we did a 10 mile hike and saw 2 other people. Yet you get back to the main front country camp site and folk are fighting for space. Same with the photographic locations :)
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:27:35 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I went to Big Bend National Park in the busiest weekend of the year. All of the campsites in the park were full - we really struggled to get a site. One day we did a 10 mile hike and saw 2 other people. Yet you get back to the main front country camp site and folk are fighting for space. Same with the photographic locations :) |
Sounds like a good place for a DPC GTG. Scenic and candids in one location. :-D
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:30:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I went to Big Bend National Park in the busiest weekend of the year. All of the campsites in the park were full - we really struggled to get a site. One day we did a 10 mile hike and saw 2 other people. Yet you get back to the main front country camp site and folk are fighting for space. Same with the photographic locations :) |
Sounds like a good place for a DPC GTG. Scenic and candids in one location. :-D |
it would be an awesome place for a GTG. Some of the best portrait subjects around in Terlingua, amazing hiking in Big Bend, fantastic views. Desert, high mountains, canyons, ghost towns, pine forests, cayotes, snakes, deer, mountain lions, bears. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:35:57 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:47:12 PM · #13 |
i think certain subjects just scream "shoot me!!!" i recently went out on an assignment to shoot a photo essay of a gala being held at a local botanical garden. upon entering, i was immediately attracted to a shot. i set up, shot it, and went on about the job. typically, these assignments are shot a week ahead of their run date; this one was being shot on a saturday to run two sundays later.
well, the following saturday (the day preceding my to-be-published spread), they ran a photo by another photographer that was shot the day before i shot mine! and they ran it HUGE. which left me wondering what my spread was going to look like without my centerpiece shot (i mean, really, there was no way they were going to run the nearly-same photo two days in a row...).
unbelievably, they DID run my shot, and upon closer inspection, you could see the subtle differences between the two shots. i called the photo desk the following monday to satisfy my curiosity as to how this happened. as it turns out, they do the page layout for this particular section of the sunday paper way in advance. the people putting together the saturday paper had no way of knowing what the sunday paper was going to look like, and hence, both photos ran!
oh, yeah, the point...depending on where you are photographically and what interests you, invariably, you are going to be drawn to images that others have shot and images that others will shoot--and sometimes this will happen even when you're off the beaten path. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:52:40 PM · #14 |
I'm afraid I'm a collector.
I have asked myself the same questions before (though not in the exact same terms). I will NOT try to reproduce a photo I have seen already. But I WILL shoot the classics, even if I know that hundreds of pros already have, and my shots will not be any better (or close for that matter). The fact that it was taken by me gives me enough satisfaction.
The closest comparison that I can come up with is wild game hunting (which btw I don't do and probably never will, but that's a different matter). I don't suppose any hunters out there will be content buying a (potentially splendid) trophy from somebody else and saving themselves the cost of the trip. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:58:07 PM · #15 |
That's an interesting article and it has a lot of validity.
But I'd add, as a counterpoint, that if you're serious about improving as a landscape photographer and if you study the work of the masters, there's a lot to be gained from going out and trying to replicate what they did. What better way to understand all the components that go into a great, classic landscape image than to try to remake it yourself?
Some say there's no point to this because you are just borrowing someone else's composition, not creating your own. But when you are on-site, you can gain a LOT of insight into how the composition evolved by observing the alternatives and perhaps coming to a deeper understanding of the thought process that led to the specific composition.
And of course it goes without saying that you can learn a lot about the effects time-of-day, time-of-year, sky conditions, etc etc have on the finished work.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:05:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's an interesting article and it has a lot of validity.
But I'd add, as a counterpoint, that if you're serious about improving as a landscape photographer and if you study the work of the masters, there's a lot to be gained from going out and trying to replicate what they did. What better way to understand all the components that go into a great, classic landscape image than to try to remake it yourself?
|
Of course all that's true if you are trying to learn and if you try to use it as an opportunity to learn. But then there are many people who purchase GPS co-ordinates for their tripods feet, make sure they have exactly the same focal length, then complain that some tree has grown too high to be able to exactly re-create the scene.
At tunnel view in Yosemite, I crossed the street from the car park and climbed half way up the inspirational point trail to shoot some. Everyone else in the car park that day were literally shuffling each other around to get the exact same classic view - even though there were half a dozen equally interesting other ways to shoot.
Their tripods were interleaving and overlapping with each other, because 'that's the view' to shoot there.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:07:53. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:05:52 PM · #17 |
That was a good read.
I try to pass over the shots that I know have been done before, many times over. However, everytime I think I have a unique view of something, I find it has already been done. There are just so many people with cameras and it has been around so long, I suppose it is to be expected. Here is a shot I took of a well known historical landmark, bypassing the obvious one that everybody takes:
Was I original? Can you identify the place? and has someone else beat me to this "original" shot and I just did not know it? I would be hard pressed to believe someone before me did not see this perspective.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:07:10. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:09:06 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
That was a good read.
I try to pass over the shots that I know have been done before, many times over. However, everytime I think I have a unique view of something, I find it has already been done. There are just so many people with cameras and it has been around so long, I suppose it is to be expected. Here is a shot I took of a well known historical landmark, bypassing the obvious one that everybody takes:
Was I original? Can you identify the place? and has someone else beat me to this "original" shot and I just did not know it? I would be hard pressed to believe someone before me did not see this perspective. |
Looks like the Alamo from the right hand side. I've got a few like that ;) |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:21:27 PM · #19 |
See, I knew someone had done it before. Didn't even take 5 minutes.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:21:56. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 03:05:43 PM · #20 |
Really interesting read..... The short answer is, A little of both. Not been much of a landscape photg and never been to those areas, I gota say I don't recognise most of those landmarks (maybe I would if I saw images of them). By defn that means I am not really trying to recreate something.
I go to places like that for travel reasons (I just love the travel experience) and want to record some landmark images just to remind me of the memory of been there. I certainly ain't the type to fight other photg for a spot and would just go somewhere else :-/
A good number of images even have the people I travel with in them :-) Some places are just photographed to death and that's fine... but ,for example, I have images of the Eiffel tower that you cannot tell from anyone else's images BUT to me they are so much better because I know what was not in the photo or I remember the feeling of been there e.t.c. They are memory joggers more then images for sale.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 03:48:11 PM · #21 |
| Kind of off on a rabbit trail, but related, I have never felt the need to purchase a lot of "souvenirs" of the places I visit. I have a collection of shot glasses from the places I visit and that's it. My real souvenirs are my photos. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 04:41:58 PM · #22 |
I have plenty of unique photos, but I also have a bunch of those "typical" shots (like Mt Rushmore, Old Faithful, Brooklyn Bridge, Alcatraz, etc) and I am thrilled that I do.
I don't give a hoot that others have photographed them, too...... to me, it matters that > I < was there, and that those photos will help me remember the occasions.
What on earth is so wrong with taking those photos?
Should we avoid using anything with wheels just because we weren't the ones who invented the wheel in the first place? |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 04:56:47 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I have plenty of unique photos, but I also have a bunch of those "typical" shots (like Mt Rushmore, Old Faithful, Brooklyn Bridge, Alcatraz, etc) and I am thrilled that I do.
I don't give a hoot that others have photographed them, too...... to me, it matters that > I < was there, and that those photos will help me remember the occasions.
What on earth is so wrong with taking those photos?
Should we avoid using anything with wheels just because we weren't the ones who invented the wheel in the first place? |
My thoughts exactly. I am a photographer and a collecter and I like it just fine.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 04:57:07 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I have plenty of unique photos, but I also have a bunch of those "typical" shots (like Mt Rushmore, Old Faithful, Brooklyn Bridge, Alcatraz, etc) and I am thrilled that I do.
I don't give a hoot that others have photographed them, too...... to me, it matters that > I < was there, and that those photos will help me remember the occasions.
What on earth is so wrong with taking those photos?
Should we avoid using anything with wheels just because we weren't the ones who invented the wheel in the first place? |
I don't think the original article is saying you shouldn't ever take them.
It is more observing that for some people, who pay large amounts of money to specifically visit places with very well photographed views, that that's all they take there.
and that perhaps if you are aiming to be a landscape photographer, you might be better served going somewhere that isn't such a well photographed place that it is imprinted in your mind.
I've seen it on quite a few workshops that I've been on - everyone lines up and shoots the same view from the same place and then shows similar shots come review time. Then there was always one person that everyone else says 'where you in the same place as us ?!?'
My goal these days is to be that person - worked well last time ;) |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 07:22:59 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's an interesting article and it has a lot of validity.
But I'd add, as a counterpoint, that if you're serious about improving as a landscape photographer and if you study the work of the masters, there's a lot to be gained from going out and trying to replicate what they did. What better way to understand all the components that go into a great, classic landscape image than to try to remake it yourself?
Some say there's no point to this because you are just borrowing someone else's composition, not creating your own. But when you are on-site, you can gain a LOT of insight into how the composition evolved by observing the alternatives and perhaps coming to a deeper understanding of the thought process that led to the specific composition.
And of course it goes without saying that you can learn a lot about the effects time-of-day, time-of-year, sky conditions, etc etc have on the finished work.
R. |
I'm a little bit collector, and a whole lot photographer......always have been.
There are some shots that really are required, and even if they are collector's items, sometimes you don't even know. I have this shot: The Classic Road Picture, going into Monument Valley, but I took it before I ever really researched the area.....I did that after I got back, only to find this jewel EVERYWHERE!!!
Florida sunsets, Yosemite waterfalls, Old Faithful.....they're all nice to have, but the difference is, I have always gone further than just the obligatory tourist shot my entire life.
That's what a photographer does, right?
Robert definitely hits the nail on the head too, with his assessment of self-judging your skills within known parameters. I like to see how well I can capture the traditional sights, and will always continue to do so. I will also get shots of other things as well.
Somewhere from long ago when I was in Arches, I have a picture of Wilson's arch, and a shot of a tiny flower that was thriving in the sun-parched desert sand in front of it.......you don't know that to look at the shot of the little flower.....unless of course, you were there!
|
|
