When I was first getting to grips with photography I tried all the usual shots of photographing smoke, drips, light paint etc. At the time I thought it was creative but now, when I see it done 100,000 times over (and usually better than my attempts), it doesn't seem so creative. Perhaps I'm blurring the line between creative and original?
To me, the whole point of that Creative Forum is redundant. It implies that everything in the other forums is not creative, and to be quite frank, that's not true. There's far more creative stuff in the other forums. That forum was named by someone who has no idea what creativity is.
It's full of images that are not really creative, but are just using a process or technique as a means to an end. Take away the process or technique, and there's not much left. I fail to see what is creative about shooting water droplets, or little Lego people, or wire wool spinning in itself. That's not to say creative images can not be created with ANY of these techniques, but merely using them in itself is not creative.
I'm also not suggesting there's anything wrong with doing any of this (before someone plays the elitist card..... again), but is it really creative? If there are already hundreds of thousands of images of water droplets out there... is making another one creative? If anyone thinks it is, I'd like to hear the rationale.
Take wire wool spinning: Why are they always in abandoned urban environments, or in abandoned buildings, or tunnels etc.? Why not do a fashion shoot using it, or a portrait? That would be a more creative use of the technique. Water drops... why? How many of these images can you spend hours creating before they all just start to look the same. It's technique led. It's not really creative. Creativity requires originality and innovation. and if you're making something that's already been done millions of times, how is that creative? Why not use it in conjunction with something else.. so it's not a photograph OF a water droplet. An example is a few weeks ago a student of mine used the technique to build up components to create a little water person that formed the basis of an ad as part of a live brief we had to create imagery for Highland Spring water. So they've taken the technique and used it for something other than just shooting water droplets. THAT'S creativity... finding uses for techniques... not merely using them.
Creativity is about synthesising and appropriating ideas from other areas and creating something fresh. It's also about using the photographic medium for a reason other than creating eye candy. It's to communicate something about the subject you're photographing.
For me I think an image can be creative based on a number of factors - a good portrait which is well lit and offers interest could be considered creative.
I've highlighted the key word there. How many portraits are actually INTERESTING though. Many are good... but are they interesting?
Take wire wool spinning (calm down Matt
), is this creative? Certainly the Creative sub-forum on here has lots of these shots in, so perhaps not original but is it still creative? To answer my own question I would say it IS creative if there has been thought applied to the location, composition etc to make it interesting.
Exactly... but they're all the same... some tunnel, car park, abandoned building, monument, or ruin. Why create something that's already been done to death? It can't possibly be creative if you're just copying what other people do, surely?
Sometimes it's about breaking the rules, letting a highlight blow out if it doesn't add to the image or having your subject in the centre of the frame because its adds impact to what you are trying to show....
Yeah. [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] to rules. Living by rules is never going to lead to being creative.
I'm not suggesting at we start posting everything in the Creative forum
.
I'd love to see what happens if people start to post REALLY creative work in there with no discernible technique behind it. Would the mods move it because it's not technique led? That would be funny.
I think the clue is in the name. If you're creating something, anything, you are being creative on at least one level.
You are creating something, yes. Is it creative though? If I made a simple cheese sandwich now (2 slices of bread, butter, and cheese), am I being creative?
So, wire wool is creative because your subject wasn't there before you started
But the millions of other almost identical shots already created are. Is adding to that pool really displaying creativity?
a well lit portrait is creative because you're creating an insight into the subject's character,
Really? Is that what does it? Being well lit? I've seen millions of well lit portraits that give me absolutely no insight into the person's character. I've also seen many that were not well lit, that do.
At that level, creative is anything that's more than just a record of the scene before you.
I agree with this, but I think it also has to be original to a great extent. If it's highly derivative of millions of other images taken in the same location, then is it creative? I've had this discussion before: Do a Google image search for "Durdle Door". How many of those are actually creative? Squint a bit and the majority are pretty identical. Is going down to that location, and creating something almost identical to what hundreds of thousands of pother people have previously done creative?
It can even be as simple as creating an image someone likes, as long as its the image they like, not the subject (people like crap pictures of cute kittens, but that's not creative photography).
People working in a Venture studio are producing work people like, day in, day out.... is that creative? They can't like it JUST because of the subject, because they go to Venture because they like the style of work. Is shooting stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator ever creative?
Wire wool has been done to death, but can still be original if you apply it originally. Even selective colour can be, but at he other extreme you could capture something in a way that no one's ever seen or thought of before.
Exactly. Techniques are just that.... they can be used creatively; Anything can. Merely using them as a means to an end is not creative however.
So I think photos in the creative forum need to have had a creative process used, such as a camera technique (e.g. zoom burst), photoshopping, or a created subject such as wire wool.
Why? Can they not be creative if they have none of these techniques applied? This is what makes that forum so UNcreative. This belief that a creative image needs a technique applied. Creativity is NOT a process.
They might or might not be original as well, but originality isn't the criteria for that forum.
Hence why it's stupidly named. As using techniques is not creative in itself. I think the forum is pointless as named.
BUT, I think there are plenty of photos that we'd describe as creative that don't fit in there.
Again... highlighting it's pointlessness.
Those are the ones where there's some originality, so we might say "that's a very creative portrait", when we mean "that's a very original portrait".
I fail to see how a creative image can't be original. If it's derivative of other work, then it's author has not been very creative.
Of course there's a whole other level of creativeness, where it's used to refer to a solution to a problem. e.g. "What a creative way to overcome low light". This doesn't necessarily add any value at all to the shot, beyond the fact that it was captured at all.
Good point... but the work that results wouldn't necessarily be creative because they were creative in over coming a technical problem. It could well still be as dull as dish water.
Creative, the word itself is very subjective to me it depends on who is viewing the image. A seasoned photographer or a casual snapper will look at an image in a different way, like Southdowns says depends how your using the word.
The "snaps" from a creative person will be creative though. The work of a "seasoned" photographer can be tragically uncreative if creativity is not part of their mental faculties.
Creativity is something inside the person... not anything to do with photography itself. It's a way of thinking.
It CAN be taught however. It is though, usually met with some resistance from most who are not creative.. mainly because the first step is to actually admit your work is not creative.
certainly made me laugh!
