Oh damn, that last line is everything. Always enjoy your philosophy and your writing. Also, I remember really loving Soth's photography when I first saw one of his photos 20 years ago. But I had no idea how well-known and esteemed he was until a few weeks ago when we attended a talk he gave at our local art museum, so I chuckled at my ignorance again when you referenced him. During his talk, we were seated near a dark marble wall. As many in the audience lifted their phones in front of me to take pics of him on stage, i noticed the reflection of Soth and the gal interviewing him perfectly placed on the marble wall next to us, so I caught the image and it's become one of my favorite photos. I've always loved photographing reflections, but I'm also a timid photographer who doesn't want to feel invasive. . . and your post made me realize that beyond technique, those two aspects may be what makes me "me" in art. Thanks!
Thanks for the reintroduction to Philip-Lorca diCorcia. May I suggest The Continuing Moment by Geoff Dyer. It helped me come to grips with the influence of Harry Callahan on my own vision. Btw, I love your "secret" lighting technique. There is a beautiful fusion of movement that sneaks by the strobes ability to capture the microfraction of a second. Superb.
Oscar Wilde once noted that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." He actually lifted it from Theophile Gautier (1835) who seems to have lifted it from a Charles C. Colton who first (?) published it in 1820.
Regardless, admired work is always admired work, and will be copied. It does not make it right; it is just a fact of life. Any two artists will always approach a subject from their own perspective. I can walk next to you through the Flatiron or on an Amish vacation, and we would come away with a different set of images, even if we were bound at the hip with identical equipment.
I admire your work and what you capture on the street. I won't ask you for your secrets because I am not you and will never duplicate it, though maybe just imitate it.
I really enjoyed this. As someone who has spent many years interviewing successful photographers, I very rarely encountered an unwillingness to share secrets. The ones who were unwilling were typically protecting some aspect of digital processing. Which I interpreted somewhat ungenerously to imply "if that's what makes your pictures special, maybe they aren't that special after all." The greats often tell me anything and everything, secure in the knowledge that it ain't the technique that matters nearly as much as what an individual brings to it. As you beautifully wrote, "It is not achieved through secret methods or techniques, but a painstaking excavation of personal vision..." And there simply aren't a lot of how-to videos about that.
Thank you Bill! There is one photographer whose process I am dying to know, both lighting and post processing - seems quite a lot of the latter and exquisitely done. You can find his setup on youtube and interviews but not a word about processing. I'm also much more willing to share lighting/process than post-processing, that's the one thing I would probably take to my grave. It's interesting to think why it's the default setting for many photographers, including myself. I think it's because post-processing is a very personal and unique aspect of it all, and gives the photos the final signature.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants - sometimes more intentionally than not. The big question, "in a medium where everyone steals", is why are some remembered and others not? Certainly not by copying a look or technique for a Substack post - more likely through consistently publishing a fully evolved look that reflects your view of the world (which is why so few photographers get there). Thanks for the thought provoking post Dina.
Wonderful insights. A photographer's own unique personality and motivation must play a huge part in how they actually see the world, the streets, their assignments, and then their "unique" images, regardless of influences. You certainly exemplify that.
You’re missing the point…all YOUR photographs are different…in that the subject is unique to every thing and that make the picture only yours no matter how you made it..note:I have been using off camera flash for 50yrs..
Oh damn, that last line is everything. Always enjoy your philosophy and your writing. Also, I remember really loving Soth's photography when I first saw one of his photos 20 years ago. But I had no idea how well-known and esteemed he was until a few weeks ago when we attended a talk he gave at our local art museum, so I chuckled at my ignorance again when you referenced him. During his talk, we were seated near a dark marble wall. As many in the audience lifted their phones in front of me to take pics of him on stage, i noticed the reflection of Soth and the gal interviewing him perfectly placed on the marble wall next to us, so I caught the image and it's become one of my favorite photos. I've always loved photographing reflections, but I'm also a timid photographer who doesn't want to feel invasive. . . and your post made me realize that beyond technique, those two aspects may be what makes me "me" in art. Thanks!
Thanks for the reintroduction to Philip-Lorca diCorcia. May I suggest The Continuing Moment by Geoff Dyer. It helped me come to grips with the influence of Harry Callahan on my own vision. Btw, I love your "secret" lighting technique. There is a beautiful fusion of movement that sneaks by the strobes ability to capture the microfraction of a second. Superb.
Oscar Wilde once noted that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." He actually lifted it from Theophile Gautier (1835) who seems to have lifted it from a Charles C. Colton who first (?) published it in 1820.
Regardless, admired work is always admired work, and will be copied. It does not make it right; it is just a fact of life. Any two artists will always approach a subject from their own perspective. I can walk next to you through the Flatiron or on an Amish vacation, and we would come away with a different set of images, even if we were bound at the hip with identical equipment.
I admire your work and what you capture on the street. I won't ask you for your secrets because I am not you and will never duplicate it, though maybe just imitate it.
This is really good. Thoughtful and bright with "flashes" of magic.
Thank you!
I really enjoyed this. As someone who has spent many years interviewing successful photographers, I very rarely encountered an unwillingness to share secrets. The ones who were unwilling were typically protecting some aspect of digital processing. Which I interpreted somewhat ungenerously to imply "if that's what makes your pictures special, maybe they aren't that special after all." The greats often tell me anything and everything, secure in the knowledge that it ain't the technique that matters nearly as much as what an individual brings to it. As you beautifully wrote, "It is not achieved through secret methods or techniques, but a painstaking excavation of personal vision..." And there simply aren't a lot of how-to videos about that.
Thank you Bill! There is one photographer whose process I am dying to know, both lighting and post processing - seems quite a lot of the latter and exquisitely done. You can find his setup on youtube and interviews but not a word about processing. I'm also much more willing to share lighting/process than post-processing, that's the one thing I would probably take to my grave. It's interesting to think why it's the default setting for many photographers, including myself. I think it's because post-processing is a very personal and unique aspect of it all, and gives the photos the final signature.
That is a very good point. And a much more generous reading than I had inferred!
Loved diCorcia’s series on strippers
It was such a strange one compare to his other work. So good.
Looking up Philip-Lorca diCorcia!
Enjoy!
I’ve been reading David Campany’s On Photographs and came across the following that made me stop and think for a bit:
“If you produce a work of art while pretending to be someone else, who made it? Is authorship ever completely free of influence?”
We all stand on the shoulders of giants - sometimes more intentionally than not. The big question, "in a medium where everyone steals", is why are some remembered and others not? Certainly not by copying a look or technique for a Substack post - more likely through consistently publishing a fully evolved look that reflects your view of the world (which is why so few photographers get there). Thanks for the thought provoking post Dina.
Wonderful insights. A photographer's own unique personality and motivation must play a huge part in how they actually see the world, the streets, their assignments, and then their "unique" images, regardless of influences. You certainly exemplify that.
You’re missing the point…all YOUR photographs are different…in that the subject is unique to every thing and that make the picture only yours no matter how you made it..note:I have been using off camera flash for 50yrs..
I don’t think she’s the one missing the point, but thanks for mansplaining. 🤦🏻♂️
LOL.
Only men leave this sort of ignoramus comment