What Do Your Photographs Say About You?

I find writing and photography very different. One is a temporal form and the other a spacial one. One exists using definitive symbols the other does not.

I have found very few writer say anything important about photography.

Well yeah, at some point they diverge along separate paths, (which is why they have different monikers to distinguish one from the other), but both have identical/similar roots.

As to your last statement ... I still have tears in my eyes.

G
 
I think mine usually say I like people and find them fascinating. And that i love my family. Sometimes they just say that I like taking photos and once in a great while they show I have a sense of humor. And when I can just manage aesthetically pleasing, I'm usually happy enough with that. I don't think most of them are terribly deep. I guess I'm not either. Never claimed to be an artist, though, so maybe my shots don't have to be autobiographical...

Oh wait, I forgot, there really are no rules. Except the ones we elect to follow. The author of that piece has his. I have mine. You have yours.

-Ray

Dang. I think I realized why I don't care much for street photography. I just don't like people too much:tongue:.

In all seriousness, the only time I like to "people watch" is when I'm at the beach and occasionally at the park. When I am enjoying that I don't feel like taking pictures. When I'm taking pictures, I don't find most people's everyday activities all that exciting, photographically. Over the last few years seeing your pictures, your attitude is the complete opposite of mine. But that is what seperates most photographers, I think, is their attitude and feelings towards various subject matter.
 
Dang. I think I realized why I don't care much for street photography. I just don't like people too much:tongue:.

In all seriousness, the only time I like to "people watch" is when I'm at the beach and occasionally at the park. When I am enjoying that I don't feel like taking pictures. When I'm taking pictures, I don't find most people's everyday activities all that exciting, photographically. Over the last few years seeing your pictures, your attitude is the complete opposite of mine. But that is what seperates most photographers, I think, is their attitude and feelings towards various subject matter.

Yup, all down to what you like. Show me a macro of a flower or a butterfly or a technically amazing shot of a bird in flight, and I'll probably fall asleep before my eye moves from the left side of the image to the right. But people always fascinate me, particularly if any sort of humanity comes through in the shot (sometimes even a blank expression can work). And sometimes I just like trying to find images in mundane everyday objects, but that always feels more like practice to keep my eye in shape than anything I ultimately want to keep. I just realized that all but two of the shots I have hanging in my house have people in them - just goes to show.

If we all liked the same stuff, life would be really boring...

-Ray
 
I really don't like it when someone I'm with says "Oh, you should take a picture of this." It often makes me feel like running the other way.

My husband will point things out to me or call me out of the house or into the garage or into the yard etc.. usually these things he points out are macro related but not always and sometimes they are worth shooting so I go to look but the feeling prior to seeing.. is.. are you really bugging me with this. Then after it's like.. oh.. or wow.. depending on what I see. When he is out of town he takes photos for me so if he asks me to take something then I take it for him. No biggie. Now if some one told me I should be shooting such-and-such all the time I would probably walk the other way. I shoot what I am compelled to and can't artistically frame something I have no feeling towards.
 
Hey All,

Lots of interesting responses... From been there done that like the discussion just like Grog and Thag when discussing the artistic merit and statement on the human condition of Thag's first petroglyph - to Barrie you really need to consider getting a dog at least - to photography is not at all about me at all - to it's all about me. So those are your opinions yet every viewer of your photographs is forming their opinion too - not only about the picture you post but also about you.

Looking further into this about two weeks earlier than the quote in the first post Guy Tal posted the following on his blog...

The Missing Dimensions | Guy Tal Photography Journal

The Missing Dimensions
Guy Tal | December 30, 2012

Questions and answers are powerful means of gleaning information and opinions. Still, while answers are often scrutinized and validated before being accepted as truth, such examination rarely is applied to most questions. If an answer seems plausible, the question is seldom deconstructed. Thus, it is quite easy to lead a curious mind down a futile path by providing well-reasoned answers to nonsensical questions. This does not necessarily imply ill will on the side of either party, but it does suggest a responsibility on the part of anyone addressing important topics to also recognize those situations when the questions are flawed and should not be simply answered as asked.

Especially suspect are questions containing statements of fact. For example: “Since the Earth is flat, how come nobody ever falls off the edge?” If the stated fact is patently incorrect, it is far more useful to address the fault in the question (however well-intentioned) than to venture an answer within the constraints of error or ignorance.

One such question that seems to come up often with regard to photography is: “How can you distill the richness of a multidimensional real-life experience into a two-dimensional rectangular frame?” The correct answer is, obviously, you can’t. But when examined closely, the question itself, no matter how you answer it, does little more than affirm an ignorance of how images are perceived by viewers. The experience derived out of an image is always a different one from that of the photographer present at the scene. But, neither is it limited to two-dimensions.

While seemingly a reasonable question, one has to wonder why writers are never asked how they can relay complex experiences using just a two-dimensional page covered in strange little symbols; and musicians are not asked how they can stir the hearts of listeners using one-dimensional invisible waves.

The more helpful answer is this: The question is meaningless, since it relies on two false assumptions: that photographs (and photographers) are limited in their expressive powers to simple objective recording of appearances, and that the evocative powers of an image are limited to its visual aesthetics alone.

Let’s start with the understanding that an experience is not derived exclusively from the senses. An experience is always the product of a mix of stimuli, sensibilities, memories, beliefs and states of mind. Therefore, an experience, whether triggered by a real-life situation or a photograph, is always multidimensional. It can, therefore, be said that artists don’t just record experiences, they create them for their audiences. These experiences are derived not only from the raw materials, tools and processes used in the creation of a given work, but also from interpretations and meanings originating from the artist’s mind and expressed in their creative choices (from composition to the use of color, line, tone, etc.).

More important is an understanding of how we recall memories. Connections in the brain link data together. A scent may trigger a memory, which is linked to other memories – perhaps of sounds, moods or sensations – which, in turn, may be linked to others. The dimensions – visual, emotional, auditory – are all there in memory. The image is only a starting point for a greater experience.

Taken a step further, though, the actual memories really only exist in the mind of the person who was literally there. An image may tap into more than just memories, though. Color, line and tone may be linked to visceral sensations, to emotions, to moods and concepts that are common to given audiences, perhaps even to all people. This is how we can convey deep meanings through the use of symbols, sounds, euphemisms, etc.

In photography, as in every other medium of art and communication, the finished work can never explicitly contain every related fact and meaning. If the artist is skilled enough, though, they may unfold a complex story by merely arousing the right kind of connotations in their audience, through an understanding of visual perception, of effective metaphors, and of common sensibilities.

Through the power of perception, an artist may literally control the brains of their viewers, prompting them to produce a desired experience and reaction, oftentimes far exceeding the simple graphics contained within the frame.

Viewers of a work of visual art are no different from viewers looking out a window. They may not have the actual experience of being on the other side, but they have enough for their minds to form an idea of what it feels like. Art goes beyond that, though. More than just a window, it is a deliberate arrangement that can be consciously designed to prompt desired reactions.


The missing dimensions are not missing at all; they are manufactured in the mind of the viewer. An artist may opt for the ease of simply relaying objective experiences associated with easily-predictable interpretations, or they can assert control over more nuanced responses by taking the time to study how visual information is converted into perceptions of meaning. The two-dimensional image can answer so much more than simply “What did it look like?”; it can very clearly suggest what “it” sounded like, what it smelled like, what it felt like, or better yet, what the artist wanted the viewer to hear, smell, touch, taste or feel.

I would go further to say "the awareness the artist artist wanted to create in the viewer and/or to experience..."

So now I want to go back to those two parking lot pictures I posted in my first post following the idea that the missing dimensions are not missing at all as they are manufactured in the mind of the viewer.

Aside from the fact that the photographer is obviously very skilled at photography - those images are impeccable and beautifully done in their composition and colour - what I saw as I looked at them was - in the case of the first - what a wonderful world this would be if we were not so dependent on drugs (I think it is no accident that the word pharmacy is in the image and off to the side and not the first thing you see) - and in the case of the second - the famous Rolling Stones song Goodby Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you... - beautiful juxtapositioning of an excavator often used for demolishing buildings and a building with that name. Those two photographs are images that I would have been very proud to have captured.

I would have thought the photographer to be highly trained in photography and to have a wonderful sense of the ironic.

I have no idea what the photographer intended but wonder...

The point being every time you press the shutter not only are you saying something about yourself - whether you think so or not - but you also have an opportunity to control the message and to express something. Meanwhile we rush to take another picture of the Moulton Barn or Antelope Canyon or Horseshoe Bend.

My all time favorite photographer is Dorothea Lange and she addressed these very issues as well. Some quotes...

Every image he sees, every photograph he takes, becomes in a sense a self-portrait. The portrait is made more meaningful by intimacy - an intimacy shared not only by the photographer with his subject but by the audience.

As photographers, we turn our attention to the familiarities of which we are a part. So turning, we in our work can speak more than of our subject – we can speak with them; we can more than speak about our subjects – we can speak for them. They, given tongue, will be able to speak with and for us. And in this language will be proposed to the lens that with which, in the end, photography must be concerned – time, and place, and the works of man.

I would like to see photographers become responsible and photography realize its potential.

She had no problem with the issue. I obviously need to find a personal "hero photographer" far more superficial than Dorothea Lange! :D

I confess to thinking about this alot - not with respect to all my photography much of which is just family documentation but some portion of it. I been trying to think of a way to move forward with this... By and large pretty just doesn't cut it with me anymore. I would like my photography to say "creative, thoughtful and unique" but I think right now it may say - I'm not sure what - muddled, confused, struggling - who knows.

Am I the only one who struggles with this?

-Ed-

PS For those "into" landscapes that work to "say something" much as new topographics did I would recommend this site and do have a look at some of the work being produced. New Landscape Photography I spend a fair bit of time looking at the work of the photographers listed.
 
Food for thought on heroes: what do Paul Strand's photographs say about him? Do they perhaps say much more that is not about him ie do they instead speak of time, space, nature, art, and the place and function of humanity in this world?

Gosh, this subject is getting much too complicated for my limited understanding of things.
 
Ed, I sense two different photographic purposes in your text, which I also sensed in the essay you quoted in your OP. The first of those purposes seems to be to communicate something about the subject, to give the viewer a certain experience, thought, meaning etc though your photograph. The second purpose seems to be to communicate something about yourself through your photos (lazy, creative, unique, etc).

It seems to me the first one is a much more useful thing to be worried about. If you set out to create photos that show that you are a unique and thoughtful photographer, for instance, you'll probably be less successful in communicating something about the subject.

If I can re-quote part of the essay:
Legendary film director Federico Fellini expressed what, to me, is one of the most profound truths about art when he said that all art is autobiographical. This simple sentence illustrates the gravity and importance of thinking about our images as more than just attractive photographs. Someone who had not yet understood this premise may ask: “is this a good image?” The serious artist, however, knows that a far more important question is: “what does this image say about me?” Do your images say that you are creative? lazy? thoughtful? formulaic? sensitive? an imitator? an artist? unique? generic? When you consider that the image reflects the person who made it, you must also acknowledge that everything that may be said about your image is ultimately said about you. More than that, it means that you have the power to control your artistic legacy. Rather than repeating formulas or producing images devoid of meaning, make sure there’s a concept behind your images – something deliberate you wish for them to express – something of your own making and that represents you – your thoughts, your relationship with the things you photograph, and the meaning you wish your viewers and critics to find in your work.

I strongly disagree with the part I made red; I think those judgements about you as a photographer follow from your work, but should not be an integral consideration when you're composing your work. I much more agree with the blue part; if you approach photography like that, showing your own emotions and thoughts about the subject (or triggered by the subject / composition), you can create an emotional or intellectual response in your viewers.

I think the lazy / formulaic / creative / whatever adjectives should follow from your way of creating an experience for your audience; particularly if you consider that lazy or formulaic approaches can often work very well (and can often relate what you're trying to say in a tried-and-true, effective way), but might also not keep the viewer's attention for long, whereas creative, innovative approaches can relate your message in a fresh way, possibly triggering a stronger response but also offering a higher chance of failure.

Basically, I see it like a discussion. Would you rather show your creativity, thoughtfulness and uniqueness through your ability to discuss subjects in a creative / thoughtful / unique way, or would you rather show it by saying, 'I'm creative, unique and thoughtful! :)'? I think the first is both more interesting for your discussion partner, and more convincing in shaping his opinion about you.

Oh, and thanks for that Missing Dimension article, I enjoyed reading it :)
 
"If I could say it in words I wouldn't need to photograph" is often quoted (though I think what he actually said was "If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."

Either will do for me.

Which is not to say one shouldn't think, of course.

But in the end, when I look at a photograph, I'm not interested in what the photographer thinks. I'm interested in what the photograph does.

I agree. I absolutely love Minor White's photographs, his yammering about the cosmos less so. He was a great photographer, a less convincing guru, at least to my mind. HE needed all that stuff to produce his work, just a Yeats needed his cycles of history and ghostly platonism; WE don't need it to take the work in. His photographs themselves reveal his mystical side, his awareness of something transcending the reality he shot. But don't we all believe that? Even if the shot is a family photo of a child at his birthday party, we are pointing to a larger reality, to the family that cares for the child and threw the party, to the child's friends, to the importance of nurturing. Can a photo say all that? Yes, and usually does. The trick is to say it well, and that involves inherently photographic principles.

My own feeling is that the photographer will bring his conceptual apparatus to his work -- his loves, and his neurosis too, probably. To be too self-conscious about trying to translate a concept can put one in a straight-jacket, narrow the focus too much, and cut off the connections to a wider world that make photography interesting in the first place. I see a fair amount of conceptual art that is long on concept and short on anything else. I have a taste (not a talent, a taste) for philosophy, but if I'm looking at the ground and shooting interesting shapes and shadows, forms and textures, I'm thinking more in terms of Guillevic's basic, elemental things than of Whitehead's prehensive gatherings. Though both the poet and philospher are among my heroes.
 
Interesting topic...I don't think about what my photography says about me. Not that it doesn't reveal a lot about me (perhaps it does) but then again I have never been particularly guarded about myself so I reveal a lot about myself in a simple conversation I suppose. It's too much work to hide anything so why bother?

It's like any art the doing is the important part and not the result.
 
Much of what a photo reveals is subtle ... but it is there:

This was for publication and the editor and I had a brief discussion.
Mime---HP-L.jpg


The first thing he mentioned was my angle - eye level, he said most photogs wouldn't drop down with the subject for that eye level, eye contact.

So firstly, I think looking someone straight in the eye displays a self-confidence, self-assurance even a confrontational manner ... in this photo I went for eye-contact, which in-turn outwardly states I am unafraid of confrontation and when the subject lowered himself I dropped with him to maintain a direct eye-level, confrontational contact in my image.

This was in public, shooting a person I've never met before, which says I'm not shy ... or perhaps I am willing to overcome my personal shortfalls to satisfy the requirements of my task. This, if I recall correctly, was cropped 100% in the camera (back I rarely printed anything which required cropping in the darkroom), which says I am a bit of a perfectionist and confident with my camera to the point of being a jerk about my photographic ability. I burned-in around the subject (excessively by today's standards), reflecting my need to make the image as good/perfect as I can.

I can probably go on, but my point is that one's photographic 'style' reveals much about the person behind the camera. As much so as a writing style reveals the person behind the words. Not having any psychological education or training, I cannot speak to the depth of what a photo reveals, (if anything beyond the obvious), but photographs can tell us much about the photographer. Hell, even people walking by trash on the ground and one person stops to pick it up speaks to the nature of those people. Albeit a very limited characterization, but something is revealed, same too with photography, some images may speak volumes about the photographer, while some images may be merely a whisper, but a photog cannot help but leave fingerprints with every release of the shutter.

Gary
 
Gary,

Really nice story. I'm probably a little too lazy to bend down to take that shot, but then again, I don't shoot people. However, I've gotten myself in trouble before trying to take photos of waterfalls or scenery. I will go out of my way(sometimes dangerously so according to my better half) to get a better shot.
 
I can probably go on, but my point is that one's photographic 'style' reveals much about the person behind the camera.

I think your style is directly related to who you are, but it does not define you. I enjoy taking environmental portraits and do it with normal to short lenses. It is very much a style of engagement. However, I am a shy/private person. My photographs do not reflect that. Since I like to sing in the shower, perhaps the noise in my photographs reflect the quality of my voice...
 
A more interesting exercise would be to ask other people what the image conveys about you before providing your own analysis. What has been revealed in this case has not been revealed through the image but through your text.
 
Going back to Ed's quoted text, I wonder whether the author is putting on the rose-tinted glasses by intimating that an image needs to have a concept or contain a deeper meaning. A photograph doesn't have to be art. But then, maybe every image does have a concept. Is "at this place, at this time, through this lens, this is what I saw" an acceptable concept? That's usually all that I want them to say. I'm just the guy who presses the button.
 
I think your style is directly related to who you are, but it does not define you. I enjoy taking environmental portraits and do it with normal to short lenses. It is very much a style of engagement. However, I am a shy/private person. My photographs do not reflect that. Since I like to sing in the shower, perhaps the noise in my photographs reflect the quality of my voice...

I don't believe the OP nor my commentary ever stated that one's photographs define's the photographer. In my case, as a photo journalist (has been), I think it may be a 50:50 proposition of, moi defining the photographs and the assignments/photographs going a long way in defining moi.

While your images my not reflect that you are shy, they do illuminate that you feel photography is of such importance in your life, that you are willing to overcome an inherit physical trait of shyness to create the images you desire. And that reflects upon who you are in a very defining manner.

Do you really sing in the shower?

G
 
A more interesting exercise would be to ask other people what the image conveys about you before providing your own analysis. What has been revealed in this case has not been revealed through the image but through your text.

Yes my text, because the editor who discussed this image with me is not privy to this thread. Much of what I wrote was the spoken word of a third party. Terry Redknapp, where are you?
 
Back
Top