I was asked about why I do what I do with my images. The inference was that I use Photoshop too much. I have no idea what that means. Too much Photoshop. Too much Tri-X. Too much Selenium Toner. Too much Velvia, or push processed or strobe or bounced light or... to me it is simply a tool that helps me create the images I see in my head. The poster was taking the point that it is not a real photograph because it was 'over processed.
I replied. This is an edited form of that response.
Style is what we are in essence. It is the essence of our work. I prefer a style that is illustrative. Poetry is far more interesting than Newsweek. Opera more interesting than Rap. Jazz more interesting than formulaic pop. It is their style that sets them apart. Makes them more powerful. At least to me.
Because it is that style that I love. And my work is illustrative of the style that moves me. I can make an image 'straight'. I've done it for nearly 40 years. I don't have any problem with those who do just that. Just don't tell me it is the only way. I hate that. Please, please, please feel free to make images any way you want. Don't ever expect me to tell you that it is wrong.
The people I admire in the industry all have styles that deliver their work, and their essence, with powerful pride. Dave Hill has tons of Photoshop... probably more than I would ever do. Same with Tadder. In this months issue of Elle, (US) there are a wide range of styles... some with blown out skin and some with dark, very muddy skin and a heck of a lot in between. I choose to use Photoshop to create what I see in my minds eye... not to conform to anyone else's style... to mine. Different clients will hire you for different things. Jill Greenberg has amazing amounts of digital correction on her portraits... and I love her work... but probably don't shoot a lot like her. It isn't my style.
I want my work to stand out. That means I must create images that stand apart. Anything that stands apart from the norm is by nature going to offend or put off someone else. Only natural and to be expected. I welcome it. As long as a group of people like what I do, and they encourage me and hire me, then those with whom I have no stylistic relationship will probably have to not expect me to do work for them. I want to do my work for people who like my work... and by extension do not share my taste and style.
That's OK.
In the end, it is a matter of personal style and taste. My style runs toward illustrative images... stories. Mini operas in my mind. So the use of Photoshop to create the image that I want to show instead of the image that simply 'was' is an important part of my vision.
I can certainly understand an editor for a business mag not wanting this style - and that is fine with me. I choose the clients that like my work.
I use Photoshop to stylize those things that I did not do in the camera. Or as an extension of the camera created image. In other words, Photoshop IS part of my photographic work in many cases. It is planned before the lights go up. It is part of the vision of the image that I have before I even book the model. Or sometimes it comes after a moment's presentation of an image on the screen. Something says do this or that... I don't know where it comes from but I like it. And I like the ideas that come from it.
I could not do those things... but why? Those things are what give my work the look that it has... it makes the images stylized. The portrait you refer to (Megan) has a bit of Photoshop work that takes it from a straight portrait to an illustrative photograph. Without it, it would be a lovely portrait of Megan. With it, it transcends the camera and becomes a more personal construct.
There are many things one can do to set oneself apart. Some times those things create controversy. I welcome the controversy and would rather remain a shooter with a style that a few love, a lot like, than a shooter who delivers what 'most' do. My clients tell me that they can spot my work in a book, mag or model portfolio... It is that recognition that is borne from a style. Believe me, it is difficult to have that kind of recognition in a market that is as flooded as photography. I crave it and it is most important to developing my base of clients.
I encourage photographers to create a vision that is unique. Digital is ubiquitous. Images are 10,000 for a nickle. Style remains. It is the only thing that we can control.
1 comment:
I think your response is well reasoned. But keep in mind on how much you have accomplished, and what you're trying to do now with your photography.
There are many folks on the net now tinkering with all things photography, many of which are still fairly new to this business.
One way of looking at this is to divide everyone's perspective into three distinct phases: learning, forming, and established.
In the first phase the person has to actually figure out how to take a clean, well-lit photograph in a repeatable and client pleasing fashion. That's a big step from the first day someone starts using a camera, even though people underestimate the size of this step all to often.
During the second phase, they can deliver those photographs, but they need to establish their identity in this vast sea of other guys out there. They need to do this, so that they can become economically viable. Many times that means staying with mainstream styles.
In the third phase, you're viable, and you start building a more distinguished identiy. You can afford to make personal choices which are not mainstream or non-conformant, and that is satisfying. In fact as you said, sometimes a non-traditional style works when it goes with a well recognized name, but otherwise will be rejected quickly.
I think people in the first phase literally have a hard time distinguishing between a photo that was poorly done, and one that purposefully deviated from the mainstream. So it's not uncommon to be accused of doing something wrong. It's obvious that you do know how to create a clean shot, you just chose not to do it for your own reasons.
Once you put those responses into perspective, its best to politely respond but not take the bait and get into an argument.
Post a Comment