I don't exactly have a shooting list, but I like to visit places where pictures were taken that I really like. I like to try and understand what the photographer saw when he went there, and how easy or difficult it must have been to get the picture. For instance, the view of the Ile de la Cite from Pont Neuf in Paris has been photographed 273 billion times, but somehow THE picture of it, for me, is Cartier-Bresson's http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_ VPage&VBID=2K1HZO45X3IE9&IT=ImageZoom01&PN=3&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Searc h&IID=2S5RYDIOUH0U&SAKL=T&SGBT=T&DT=Image
http://tinyurl.com/5snu4q I've been there any number of times, but have never seen it like that, and have never seen a picture of it as nice as that. But I've taken a lot of pictures of my own that I like around that area because I've gone there as a result of that photograph. I don't want to make duplicates or copies of other people's pictures - it would be impossible by the nature of Magnum photography anyway - but I do like to see what they saw, to try to understand the processes that make them great photographers, and a by-product of that is that I often get quite good pictures of my own. > > BTW, my use of the term "visual plagiarism" refers to rather obvious > reworking of others' ideas rather than direct copying. > David Hurn and Bill Jay refer to The-It-Has-Been-Done-Before Syndrome as Myth #6. Here are some excerpts: "photographers should actively look for ideas, attitudes, images, influences from the best photographers of all ages" "our advice [...] is best exressed by [...] 'the immature artist imitates; the mature artist steals'. So steal from the best" "use other people's ideas and attitudes as your ladder" "a good book is one that includes as many ideas as possible that are worth stealing" > Is genuine originality disappearing from the photographic mainstream? > By definition, no, because it's never been there. It's the mainstream. Originality is not mainstream. If you want to see original photography I recommend the magazine ei8ht, if you don't already know it. The companion website is www.foto8.com. This year's World Press Photo book discusses similar themes to those you've raised, and says "it was disappointing that so much of what was submitted was familiar. One wonders why some photojournalists spend time and energy telling us what we already know in a style borrowed from another photographer. [...] One is left with the impression that many entries were submitted because they looked like previous winners' photos. Their sole purpose appeared to be to win prizes, a pointless journalistic exercise". So all in all, steal but don't copy. Be inspired, but don't imitate. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Poirier > Sent: 13 June 2008 17:40 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: Shooting plan > > Hi Bob > > I rarely use shooting lists, not for my current type of work. > I've noted > that it's something stock photographers do regularly, though. > > What got me out of my lurker's cave was your comment about > "looking through > the Magnum web site for inspiration and ideas". Looking at > good work makes > a lot of sense, of course, for improving your skills any sort of > photography. I do it all the time. > > It did remind me of something that has bemused me of late. > This is the > question of visual plagiarism. > > I have a very good visual memory. I've looked at several > exhibits at a > local gallery recently that contained significant numbers of > prints for > which my first reaction was that I had seen the image before. > In some cases > I was even able to remember whos idea was being used. > Cartier Bresson and > Arnold Newman came to mind. > > Over the last ten years I've increasingly had a sense of > "sameness" about > images in mainstream photo publications. I find them quite repetitive, > essentially reworkings of previously published material. I > also find it > increasingly difficult to distinguish editorial photos from > the images used > to promote equipment, which are generally visually arresting but not > necessarily profound. > > BTW, my use of the term "visual plagiarism" refers to rather obvious > reworking of others' ideas rather than direct copying. > > Is genuine originality disappearing from the photographic mainstream? > > What are the groups thoughts on this? > > Cheers > > John Poirier -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
