The search for expression

N

Northaway

Suspended / Banned
Messages
156
Edit My Images
No
Recently I've been reading some essays by Guy Tal regarding the art of landscape photography. This quote sums up his thoughts pretty well:
A great image is not the same thing as an image of something great. I have a hard time with the premise that the art is in getting there or in getting lucky or in the camera settings or some processing technique, or really with anything that does not reflect a personal and emotional, and by extension, original response from the artist as a unique and creative being. I challenge you to dare to be an artist, and to be more than just a chauffeur for your camera.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to feel that I am indeed merely a chauffeur for my camera. I take 'nice' shots, or rather, shots of nice things - being a landscape photographer in Britain makes that relatively easy. I think I have a reasonable eye for composition, and I'm willing to get up early or stay out late to increase my odds of seeing some 'good light', and I'm willing to travel to 'good' locations. I know my camera reasonably well and am comfortable with the technical aspects of achieving a well exposed and focused shot. But I feel that too often my shots follow the same recipes - nice and/or dramatic view, foreground interest, leading lines, blah blah blah. I don't feel like my images convey any emotion or message other than 'here is a nice view'.

Having become conscious of this lately, I have been making efforts to slow down and compose more thoughtfully, trying to visualise my shots more and generally taking more time to 'craft' an image. While this has increased my number of 'keepers', I don't feel like it has solved the problem of lacking expression.

For those of you have felt the same way and feel you have moved past it, what steps did you take to do so?
 
Really good question and something I would love to know the answer to. It feels to me that there is a hard to bridge gap between the tried and tested formula and more creative expression. I have found it hard to get a response from people for things that are not to a large extent formulaic and without that considered critique it is hard to know whether what you produce is any good or not. On the other hand if a photo is close to the “rules” it is a lot more approachable for people.

I often wonder if we need some sort of separate area for non-standard stuff (Personal Projects on here quite good) where people are encouraged to take time and consider photos in detail and try to get behind what the photographer intended rather than a quick glance and a comment about white balance or thirds or dynamic range. And I often think that if you are going to step beyond the “rules” you need a collection of images that lead the viewer in the direction you want to take them otherwise your thinking might not be obvious. My daughter is doing A Level art and this is what they do, it’s not just a final piece but all the things around it, influences, references etc.
 
Whats the idea behind the image you've created. Are you merely wishing to show your prowess amongst your peers, so are searching for that perfect, processed image that fits the idea of a standard 'pretty' landscape, are you recording a moment, a memory. or are you creating an image for another reason, to promote thought, document an incident etc. I think to many times photographers think there's a pressure to produce a 'pretty' image thats meets the standard idea of what a 'pretty' image is. This tends to destroy any creativity as everyone repeats the same formula.
It's not helped by the many magazine articles promoting this.
 
Byker28i said:
Whats the idea behind the image you've created. Are you merely wishing to show your prowess amongst your peers, so are searching for that perfect, processed image that fits the idea of a standard 'pretty' landscape, are you recording a moment, a memory. or are you creating an image for another reason, to promote thought, document an incident etc. I think to many times photographers think there's a pressure to produce a 'pretty' image thats meets the standard idea of what a 'pretty' image is. This tends to destroy any creativity as everyone repeats the same formula.
It's not helped by the many magazine articles promoting this.
Click to expand...

This is the issue. Personally I feel like I am at the standard pretty landscape stage - technically competent, but somewhat soulless.
 
Northaway said:
This is the issue. Personally I feel like I am at the standard pretty landscape stage - technically competent, but somewhat soulless.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you're putting too much thought into it. There are times I've gone to a location inspired by others photographs and actually just sat/stood there and taken it all in, enjoyed the location. Perhaps an image taken as a memory jog of a good visit. I don't try to create a perfect image of everywhere I go, just create memories. If an image comes out thats brilliant then thats a bonus :D b ut its the joy of the travel, the experience. The camera is an enabler, or excuse :D
 
An Interesting subject. Are we all just following a tried and tested formula and producing "Stock" images to appease the masses or to gain some sort of acceptance into the ranks of landscape photographers? (That is a bit of an OTT sweeping statement but you get the sentiment).
Interestingly I had a recent cull through my Lightroom catalog and was conscious of the number of keepers and where I had taken them. It was interesting how many of those shots were, for want of a better term grab shots (If you can grab a shot on a tripod) Let me say shots that were not planned and were photographs taken because I had spotted something inspiring or my gut instinct said shoot this. I was astounded how many of the keepers were these instinctive grab shots, compared to the tripod hole shots.
Planning is a large part of my photography as like many of us here we are caught up in that Bl**dy rat race called work. Time is at a premium and we have to optomize the time we have for Photography. Slowing down is something worth considering and I have found this helps enormously.
Are we all falling into the convention trap I wonder? Or perhaps scared to break convention less we get chastised by our peers?
I think I have been through all the stages of Photography ... Enthusiastic, Prolific, Depressed, Demotivated, Packed in, Reborn and probably the whole cycle again as many have.
I think you get to the point of asking yourself why you are doing it, and when it ceases becoming enjoyable is that the time to pack up or look at what we do more closely.

Personally I am inspired by the Photographs posted here, that's good for keeping motivated
I try to look for that landscape that just hits you as you turn a corner or walk down that path.Natural but beautiful, I might return there to see it in different light, or what my minds eye might be envisaging.
That's all a bit deep isn't it! I think @Byker28i has the right idea, don't over think it.
 
Last edited:
Northaway said:
This is the issue. Personally I feel like I am at the standard pretty landscape stage - technically competent, but somewhat soulless.
Click to expand...
P.S. I don't think your images are soulless "Name" ................ What is your name BTW!!!
I think the sign of a good photograph is when someone else (Photographer or not) appreciates your work. and I don't mean "Like" and move on.
Sometimes when you look at a Photograph that shot imparts a "Feeling" some shots I look at are just Photographs, others I can feel why they have taken the shot, what has inspired the Photographer. That for me gives it soul.
It might be just a wisp of mist, a highlighted tree, but its just an element that makes the shot and is conveyed by the photographer, and i think its how well they convey that, that's the key, that's what gives it the soul.
 
The Guy Tal book (More than a Rock) is very interesting, if a bit repetitive, and certainly raises the key questions about documentary/descriptive photography versus interpretative/subjective images. Inevitably he doesn't or can't define exactly what the latter terms mean. But the clear message - with which I concur - is that the only person you need to satisfy is yourself. I guess it's different if you have a client or are selling to a particular audience. Personally I'd also make a distinction between a picture that immediately grabs you, and one you keep coming back to. Many of my 'quieter' images are the ones that, for me, have more long-term value.
 
69Bonni said:
That's all a bit deep isn't it! I think @Byker28i has the right idea, don't over think it.
Click to expand...

I just go out now and carry my camera, if I see something I shoot, if I don't then I don't. I may go out to a place because I've seen it in others photographs, or I've planned to see the area because of photographs, but I don't plan to go out to capture my version of that image.
 
A thought about improving (not that this means I think that I've improved!). Looking at lots of pictures - painting as well as photos - for how and why they work, not location. Going back over your old photos and re-evaluating them - do some you rejected now seem to have merit; do some you like seem to be less good - and why? But perhaps the key thing is already apparent in Northaway's original post - a dissatisfaction, a feeling there should be more, and the humility to start looking for more. And that 'more' is inside each of us, not in others' pictures. (I think it was Henri Cartier-Bresson who said 'Your first 10,000 pictures are your worst' !!!).
 
Good question and something ive gave some thought to.
Purely on a personal level as opposed to say shooting for a living,ive realised to me i like each photo i take to be a memory of time and location and hopefully a remembered emotion
of that moment.
This has helped me realise that for me this is more important than a ‘technically’ correct shot.and removed the tension i was feeling on not getting this photography lark.
I now really enjoy my photography .
I dont know if this helps but thats my take on it.
 
I must admit, I went through very similar feelings a while back. In the end I got some decent landscape shots that seemed to be well received and fit the landscape 'mould' but they left me feeling unsatisfied. I realised I wasn't shooting for myself, which is something I'd heard people say since I began taking an interest in photography but never really understood it, if you know what I mean.

In the end I realised I had much more joy from looking at photos taken of family or on days out and holidays, so then the gear transition happened to have something more portable and I am enjoying my photography much more than before.

I still do some landscape stuff occasionally, but it's very rare that I post any as I honestly don't think a lot of it would be well received on here or elsewhere. People are very good at giving critique of your shots to make them look like everyone else's. And that get's back to the main question and subject of this thread.

I honestly think that a lot of the 'big name' landscape photographers work follows that same pattern of looking like everyone else's images. Perhaps they are better at marketing themselves or more dedicated to putting themselves out there. But there are some whose work doesn't fit the mould. These are the ones I am drawn to. However, it is extremely hard to find a niche or a certain style, concept whatever you want to call it, and develop it to the point where other people enjoy it too, if that is your goal. There are some fantastic photographers on here, but I can only think of one possibly two (naming no names) whose work I feel I could pick out in a line-up.

But it depends what your goal is, if you want to be well known and/or make money from it I think it's clearly very difficult to distinguish yourself, if your goal is to take photos that you enjoy then that should be easy or you have the wrong hobby.
 
Just to follow up on this as I have been thinking about it a bit this morning, do you mind clarifying from which perspective you are approaching this? Personal or Business/Professional? I notice that you have a website and I assume you make some money from selling prints and tuition that you offer. I only ask because the responses you get may differ and be more or less helpful if we knew.

I see a trend that goes either one of two ways in the work of the people whose work I'm drawn to. Either they have an absolutely clear vision of their artistic intent and what they want to capture which allows them to put out consistently excellent work. Or, their output is quite slow and I imagine they have many more images they could share but they don't quite fit with what they are trying to achieve. But that could potentially be at odds with a business model that relies on selling lots of 'postcard' type landscape images.

I would also say as a general observation, the VAST amount of landscape images I see that fall more into the category of 'fine art' or work that has an artistic style, is NOT of grand vistas and lakes. It is much more intimate, picking out details and graphic shapes, mostly mono with subtle tonality and a burst of colour etc. Whether this should really be classed as 'Landscape' photography or something else is up for debate I suppose.

A couple of for instances:

https://www.brucepercy.co.uk/

http://www.into-the-light.com/gallery/
 
Last edited:
mabe getting the feeling and mood of the place is the way to go
 
Last edited:
I think that as a photographer, you have to seek your own engagement. It's about what you think and / or feel. Maybe we could say that the acid test isn't aesthetic (prettiness), but meaning. Though many will cleave to prettiness and convention (copying) - whether through commercial intent, or lack of imagination.

But meaning can be subjective, so meaning to whom? But we should be able to analyse and verbally express what we see as the meaning of a given picture - to characterise what we have done - if only retrospectively, but this will influence how we go forward.

Motivation for picture taking / making varies. For some the camera's a notebook. Certain others just like having / using equipment. For some it's a genuine exploration.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top