• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

"Seeing like a Master" by Alain Briot

Rachel Foster

New member
This article discusses a number of useful ideas, each of which is worthy of some serious "thinking" time. Obviously, my questions are in the infancy stage, not well-formed yet. Hopefully, this will give latitude for how a discussion of the points develop. I'm looking to explore some of the intriguing ideas in Alain's article.

The first item in the article I'd like to discuss is developing one's own personal style. My own photos have a distinct cast to them. However, I'm not sure that is apparent to "the viewer." How does one learn to label that je ne sais quoi? (Apologies to the French speakers for my clumsy usage of that language!)

I think my work has a consistency but my subject matter is so diverse I suspect it looks disjointed and willy-nilly to others. The best label I can come up with for my approach is "minimalism," but I'm truly uneducated about art so I'm not real sure. Nature scenes are inherently complex, so minimalism in nature sounds like an oxymoron.

Now to my first question about this: Does one need to label and make a conscious effort to follow a particular "style?" What have others done on this point?
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
I thought Alain's article to be interesting also. One area that has intrigued me is his view that you should concentrate on on particular area or topic for your work - I suspect this can be defined in many ways. To counter this Asher has advised to photograph everything:)

My own experience is, similar to my experience in sport and athleitcs, that when I am focused on one project then the other areas tend to be less well executed. I think this just reflects the enrgy and thought that goes into the main project and the focus on seeing in the required way.

As to developing a style, there are many more qualified than me here:), but I think it's probably best not to be too self concious about that. Rather enjoy learning to see and explore the world around you and your own loves and drives will shape what you produce - leading to a style, but not a self consciously learnt one.

I'll now run for the hills:)

Mike
 

Rachel Foster

New member
I think all of those points are valid, but I think maybe it depends on your stage of development. "Shoot everything" has definitely been my approach these past ten months. I think the beginner needs to learn what s/he wants to shoot, for one thing, but there are other reasons as well.

Some subjects I shoot in order to learn how to use my camera, achieve certain effects, and that sort of thing. I've been shooting a lot of birds lately, for example, in order to learn how to focus and get the settings right FAST.

Developing style, though, is trickier. I've hesitated to make a concentrated study of others (until now) for fear of becoming a "xerox" machine. This may be a baseless concern, but I've wanted to ensure I shoot "Rachel," not someone else.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Ah, therein lies the rub. If I may be forgiven for slipping into a little pop psychology, at this point I'm not certain enough in this whole enterprise to easily eschew trying to use left-brain verbalization and allow right brain creativity to follow its own path.

(Now, if I can only find a way to say that in English....)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel,

Forget birds, unless it's your passion. You must photograph everything you feel a need to but don't do what is not really a subject you don't admire and really want to explore for it's own sake. Unless you are paid well for assignments or stock, do what relates to your soul. That's where the "je ne sait quoi" resides.

To fly with style you must first fly!

So I'd just get your wings with subjects you really like. Write down a list. Give each one points. Whichever is highest set a goal and that's it! I happen to photograph everything but I have the time to do that. However, that's not my art. That's photography, an insatiable appetite for recording what's around me in as creative fashion I can achieve. Sometimes the pictures are from the hip, other times leaning on a tree for support or else with a tripod. Still this is only vaguely directed beforehand, rather spur of the moment reaction to what happens or what I happen to find.

My own art is separate from that and thought out. It occurs either after much planning or else working several of my images that talk to me.

I go to museums and look at all the pictures I can. Some essence no doubt is absorbed, some I'm envious of and others I laugh at. I get ideas from them but try to not copy anything, but I may borrow a way of looking or presenting.

Yes, I worry about style, too but feel it will sort itself out or not by the way I work and express myself. Of course one could consciously choose a persona and style and that would work too!

Asher
 
Last edited:

Alain Briot

pro member
Ah, therein lies the rub. If I may be forgiven for slipping into a little pop psychology, at this point I'm not certain enough in this whole enterprise to easily eschew trying to use left-brain verbalization and allow right brain creativity to follow its own path.

(Now, if I can only find a way to say that in English....)


Left brain /right brain is a great tool but it is not the entire answer :) It's a mean to an end, but not the end in itself. It can certainly be part of the "toolkit" although it doesn't work for everyone.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
A photographer I met last week, Ron Zimmerman, told me something along the lines of "When you look through the viewfinder, if you don't see the emotion that the scene evoked in you , don't press the shutter."

I've been thinking on that.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
A photographer I met last week, Ron Zimmerman, told me something along the lines of "When you look through the viewfinder, if you don't see the emotion that the scene evoked in you , don't press the shutter."

I've been thinking on that.

That's a good and valid point but its usefulness greatly depends on your personal approach to photography.

In my case the camera captures the facts. I build the emotion back in during the conversion/optimization/printing process. I don't necessarily see the emotion in the viewfinder when I photograph. But, I do know what that emotion is and how I will reconstruct it later on.

This is even more true now that most of my images are collages done from multiple Phase One P45 captures. None of these frames has the emotion in it. However all together, after being stitched and optimized, they do.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Alain, I see your photography differently than you do (speaking specifically of your landscapes). I think that emotion is inherent in nature. Well, as a scientist I have to qualify that: I think humans cannot view the sort of scenes you capture without emotion. It's found in the way we describe nature scenes: "majestic," "wild," "serene," and so on.

I think what you do, both in capturing an image and in the "conversion/optimization/printing" process, is maximize the viewer's experience of that emotion. Yesterday, Asher did some photoshop work on an image of mine (a gull, I think). After his post-processing, it's impact was much more intense. The way I see your work is that first you frame scenes with a pronounced emotional component; then, in the "conversion/optimization/printing" process you emphasize that.

I'm not sure this explanation makes any sense, so I'll try to rephrase. I think you have a pronounced gift for choosing emotionally evocative scenes, and then in the post-phase, you crop/enhance/etc. the emotion you've initially captured.

Is this consistent with how you see your work in any way?
 

Rachel Foster

New member
(I should say that I'm not trying to dictate how Alain produces art...I'm more trying to explore how people see what they do and how that effects how they actually do it.)
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Alain, I see your photography differently than you do (speaking specifically of your landscapes). I think that emotion is inherent in nature. Well, as a scientist I have to qualify that: I think humans cannot view the sort of scenes you capture without emotion. It's found in the way we describe nature scenes: "majestic," "wild," "serene," and so on.

I think what you do, both in capturing an image and in the "conversion/optimization/printing" process, is maximize the viewer's experience of that emotion. Yesterday, Asher did some photoshop work on an image of mine (a gull, I think). After his post-processing, it's impact was much more intense. The way I see your work is that first you frame scenes with a pronounced emotional component; then, in the "conversion/optimization/printing" process you emphasize that.

I'm not sure this explanation makes any sense, so I'll try to rephrase. I think you have a pronounced gift for choosing emotionally evocative scenes, and then in the post-phase, you crop/enhance/etc. the emotion you've initially captured.

Is this consistent with how you see your work in any way?

Rachel,

Thank you. Those are very nice comments. I appreciate them very much.

You are certainly correct in saying that there is an emotional motivation in both the capture and post processing aspects of my work. What's important is that it is a personal choice to approach my work that way. Some photographers focus essentially on the capture aspects and do only minor corrections during the conversion/optimization/printing stage. Others do a lot of work at both stages. I follow this second approach. I do a lot after the image is captured. I essentially wanted to point out this aspect of my work in my previous post.

We just closed on our new house so my forum posts are made in between home inspections, visit to the title company, picking up keys, and so on. As artists we are obsessed with small aesthetics details and although the house is beautiful we can't help but worry about minor aesthetic details. And of course we are running our photography business and as usual we are quite busy.

The good news is that once we are moved and set up we'll have a home gallery, a very large consulting/teaching space and more :)
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Oh, congratulations, Alain!

I was afraid you'd take my interpretation amiss and am relieved you were able to see what I was trying to say. For me, art is all about emotion. Creating good art is about being able to effectively evoke a specific emotion or constellation of emotions.

Your landscapes, to me, evoke a sense of majesty, awe, and reminds me that I am part of something much larger than me that is also eternal.

Ron's instruction to me was not meant to preclude or slight post-processing. Rather, I think he was suggesting its time I abandon shotgun approach and go to a sharpshooter approach (to use a firearms metaphor). I think he's right.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Oh, congratulations, Alain!

I was afraid you'd take my interpretation amiss and am relieved you were able to see what I was trying to say. For me, art is all about emotion. Creating good art is about being able to effectively evoke a specific emotion or constellation of emotions.

Your landscapes, to me, evoke a sense of majesty, awe, and reminds me that I am part of something much larger than me that is also eternal.

Ron's instruction to me was not meant to preclude or slight post-processing. Rather, I think he was suggesting its time I abandon shotgun approach and go to a sharpshooter approach (to use a firearms metaphor). I think he's right.

Rachel,

Thank you. We are very excited about the house. It's a big move for us, both in the physical and metaphorical sense, but we very much look forward to it. I'll have more information on it soon once we get a schedule for the move and studio/gallery/consulting installations. I'll also have photographs. I probably should post this in the workshops section.

I like the shotgun/sharpshooter metaphor. In my terms it equals quantity versus quality. Shotgun being quantity and sharpshooter being quality. There's no doubt that I am and that I foster the quality/sharpshooter approach! Much better for fine art! Quantity works for other approaches, but not for art, at least not in my experience.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Yes, I think that's true. But the new shooter may need the shotgun approach for a while first. You've mentored many neophytes...have you found this to be the case? I seem to have used the trial-and-error method. I'm not sure if this is typical or if it's a result of my own stubbornness and penchant for the Frank Sinatra method ("I did it my way").
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Yes, I think that's true. But the new shooter may need the shotgun approach for a while first. You've mentored many neophytes...have you found this to be the case? I seem to have used the trial-and-error method. I'm not sure if this is typical or if it's a result of my own stubbornness and penchant for the Frank Sinatra method ("I did it my way").

The trial and error approach wastes a lot of time. And eventually there's no way around learning the foundations of photography, composition, printing, etc.

My approach, in regards to my work and my teaching, has always been to not try to re-invent the wheel. The wheel has been invented, my goal is not to find out how to build it. My goal is to find out how to use it. I hire consultants regularly to teach me what I don't know (the wheel is a metaphor for something very important but that you are not familiar with). Before that I went to school, then to the university, and took private classes when what I wanted to learn wasn't offered in schools. Whenever something couldn't be learned directly from someone I read books. I have a very extensive library on many subjects. What I did on my own was practice. But learning took place with experts in one of the ways described above.

I just don't have the time to learn it all by myself. And, errors are very costly, either in terms of time, or money, or both. One gets struck quickly, and then discouragement sets in, and finally one risks the chance of giving up because one can't see a way out. I've been there, I don't want to go back!

The problem with the trial and error process is that it is first trying and then prone to errors. Why put yourself through that when there is an easy way around it?

This approach has allowed me to move up very quickly. In the 11 years I have been in business I went from rags to riches, literally. I couldn't have done it any other way. If I had been using the trial and error process I'd be way behind where I am now. In fact, some of my competitors with whom I was going against in my early days in business, are now way behind or have quit altogether because they were using the trial and error process. In business, trial and error is very unforgiving. When one has a problem, one needs reliable solutions that can be implemented right away. One doesn't need would-be-perhaps-maybe-it-might-work-ideas. Business isn't a post doctoral research proposal. Business is about finding solutions to pressing problems now.

I use the same approach in my teaching: my goal is to save my students as much time as possible by giving them everything they need to succeed.

In regards to Frank Sinatra, he may have done it his way. But he got a lot of very good advice and help from world-class experts along his way. Nothing wrong with that. Actually, that's the best way to do it. He was not only a great artist but a very smart person as well. Success requires both.

In regards to stubbornness it is worth considering the relationship between stubbornness and success. While stubbornness can bring an advantage, it can also prove to be a disadvantage. Everything in moderation is a good approach I think. I know I can be stubborn myself and I have to watch out and put a stop to it in time as it is not a good thing :)
 

Rachel Foster

New member
It does, at that. I tried a workshop last week and was miserable. A major reason was that it was a bad fit and didn't address anything I'm interested in. I think I need very specific guidance that addresses just what I'm interested in, so I'm going more toward individual instruction.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
One thing to point out, Rachel, is that only you can know the framework in which your goal to become proficient in expressing yourself will work. If your aim is to run an art business, then that's one thing. If you'd be happy just getting the work done to your satisfaction, that's another. I too read a lot of books, visit with artists and photographers, going over their work and have tours with art docents in museums. I am never satisfied or comfortable that I know enough.

Courses can be very useful or else a distraction. I personally advise that a course or a new book should be a reward for having done a piece of work that you promised yourself and is necessary for your growth. Otherwise one can be a book or course "junky"!

Art is work! I will exclude as "art", for the moment, anything that does not require the creative process using imagination and skill and work to make something impressive to be enjoyed by at least the artist and hopefully the world.

I do a lot of shooting. That is my daily work. I inspect what I have done and make notes as to what could have been improved and go back and re-shoot some more. Again, this is not my art, just work, honing my skill to find and frame subjects and investigate possibilities. I could take 3 pictures all day or 300. It doesn't matter, as long as I look around and try to imagine images everywhere. This is not happenstance, since my interests are already honed in to a limited set of subjects as I prowl the streets. Still I'm open to new experience.

Don't think one has to give a performance with a cello all day! However most successful musicians practice every single day. Then, when they need to perform, they will have the physical skill and insight to deliver the notes and also express what is not written and what sits between the notes, again, the "je ne sais quoi" which comes from the soul when physical skills are coherent with creativity.

No course can make up for dissecting a human body to understand anatomy. Only hundreds or thousands of hours assisting makes a surgeon competent. That's all physical work to align one's intent with sufficient skill that one can easily accomplish one's goals with reserve.

I too use consultants and will do even more in the future. However, for photography, one cannot replace hard work with course after course! Each course should be a reward for keeping one's promise to oneself. For us that means completing a body of work, critiquing it, finding where one needs help and then the course will be worthwhile.

Asher
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Art is work...but when it's a passion, it's a different sort of work. I don't yet claim to create art, but my journey toward that goal is driven by many motivations.

My over-riding motive is to search for a form of self-expression I've yet to achieve. I'd like to sell enough to pay some of my expenses, but money is not my primary goal. It's a need to create something in which I see beauty. There is also the need for mastery: A need to be challenged and meet that challenge.

Advisors, books, examples are all extremely helpful. But, if the work -- the image -- doesn't please me, no amount of praise will make it satisfying. I imagine most people here feel the same.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
I think that an essential question is: "how much time can you afford to lose?" Another question is "how far are you from the goal you want to reach?" Being close and having lots of time to get there is very different from being far and having to get there quickly. Then, again, there is a fable about a tortoise and a hare . . .

Earlier on in my learning process I wasted a lot of time. I didn't mind. I enjoyed trying things, seeing how they turned out, then making changes and trying again. In other words the trial and error process was something I enjoyed.

Over time this became more and more frustrating to me because I wanted results, good results, and I no longer could afford to take years to get these results.

I also had the income to hire experts to help me. I suppose that if I didn't I would have continued the trial and error process. But then again, maybe not. It's hard to say because comfortable income and the realization that time was running out came pretty much at the same time.

It's obviously a matter of personal choice and situation. But, no matter where we are and what we like, we all have 24 hrs in a day and we don't know when the clock is going to stop.
 

Chris Kresser

New member
Rachel & Alain,

I've been following your discussion with interest, as Rachel's current exploration into the development of a personal style is one that is close to my heart as well.

I recently came across the following quote by Bill Brandt in "Photography Speaks" (excellent book, by the way, which short articles written by many famous photographers throughout history about their work).

I did not always know just what it was I wanted to photograph. I believe it is important for a photographer to discover this, for unless he finds what it is that excites him, what it is that calls forth at once an emotional response, he is unlikely to achieve his best work. For me it was not so easy. Simply because my response was so much a matter of instinct that consciously I could not formulate it.

And later in the article...

Too much self-examination or self-consciousness about it or about one's aims and purposes may in the early stage be a hindrance rather than a help.

The first passage, in particular, struck a chord in me. I find myself now in that stage that Brandt describes. I do not know just what it is I want to photograph. I am closer to knowing what I don't want to photograph (due to either lack of interest, practical concerns, or both); but I have not yet found what truly inspires me and "calls forth at once an emotional response".

I have certainly experienced that emotional response in some the work I've done, but I have not been able to successfully identify what produces that response. It occurs to me that a worthy project would be to gather together those images that did evoke a strong emotional response and see if I can work out the common thread that links them together. It is not obvious - at least upon first inspection.

It also occurs to me that for some photographers, it may not be content alone that evokes a response but also process. In my case, for example, I've noticed that I feel far more inspired and rewarded by project-based photography than I do by a "greatest-hits" style of photography. I've found that, at least for me, working in the context of a project leads to a deeper level of inquiry and thus higher quality of photograph.

But I come back to this question of style. Later in his life, Brandt said that he wanted to be remembered by his nudes, and that all of his other work was "commercial". Eventually he found what it was that called him, that allowed him to achieve his best work.

I'm still searching.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
That makes a lot of sense, Chris. I'm not sure I can narrow my passion down to a single genre. It's more an approach for me, I think. I'm not sure if what excites me is better described as "minimalism" or "finding beauty in everyday surroundings."

I'd be interested in hearing more about your work.

What I've seen of Alain's work would lead me to describe his as the majesty found in nature.....but that's the best I can do so far.
 

Chris Kresser

New member
Rachel,

Like yourself, I'm fairly certain the answer for me is not to limit myself to a particular subject or genre. I lean more towards a certain working method, as I mentioned in my previous post, and perhaps an aesthetic or style that is consistent regardless of the subject matter.

I haven't developed that fully yet, though. I am still in the exploration stage, and, following Brandt's advice (and the advice of others), I am trying to avoid the excessive "self-examination or self-consciousness about one's aims and purposes" that "may in the early stage be a hindrance rather than a help."

This isn't easy for me, however. Patience isn't my strong suit :)

A small sampling of my recent work is here. The site opens into my last project, but if you click on "portfolio" in the toolbar there are a few more as well.

P.S. I seem to remember reading an article by someone (it may have even been by Alain?) where they specifically advised against trying to develop a style. They said that style develops naturally and organically out of doing the work on a regular basis. They cautioned that a style "created" by an artist outside of the context of a consistent body of work is likely to be derivative and superficial.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
In my Achieving a personal style essay I wrote that style develops through work.

But work is only one of the variables. One also needs a direction. Hard work and long hours won't generate success. One has to have an organized plan.

This plan, in regards to style, is knowledge of the elements of style, i.e. knowledge of what style consists of. Knowledge of the different art elements that affect style.

Armed with this knowledge one can actually plan ahead towards achieving a specific style. It's always going to be a lot of work, but without a roadmap one works in the dark, without knowing if one is getting closer or moving away from the goal.
 

Tim Ashley

Moderator
Hi Rachel,

I too have been following this one with interest and I hesitate to add advice to advice. However, my hesitation is brief!

Do as Asher says. And as Alain says. Do as everyone says. Take a lot of images of everything and anything but at the same time decide on one theme that interests you. You won't be bound to it forever, or even for more than a few days or weeks so it doesn't matter if you don't choose optimally. Let's say for the sake of interest that you choose 'birds in a human context'.

Now go out and shoot the world - anything and everything - but as you do so, keep your eyes open particularly for your theme shots. Also, plan a day trip or two to places where you expect to get shots that fit the theme (zoo, park, seaside, whatever) and try to add to your collection in that more planned way too.

And here's a tip: for the project shots, always use the same camera and fixed focal length lens (or zoom but keep the focal length constant) and try to use the same-ish apertures and ISO so that your shots have a uniformity that pulls them together.

When you have enough to whittle down to 10 or 20 (assume that 5% of the ones you shoot will 'make it') pull them into Aperture or Lightroom and give them all about the same RAW development treatment, including aspect ratio, which should be the same you shot in. Then make a light table or collection where you can re-order them into the sequence that most reflects whatever narrative you have felt emerging as you shot and reviewed and processed.

That's it. In this way you will begin to find your style, Rachel-ness and visual voice because you will have started to think about narrative. And developing an ability to create narrative across a series of images will give you the ability to develop narrative within individual images.

Easy to try and I 100% guarantee results or your money back!

;-)

Tim
 

Chris Kresser

New member
Alain,

Thanks for your important clarification. It reminds me of the saying "perfect practice makes perfect". Practice alone isn't enough; it has to be the right kind of practice.

Tim,

Thanks for your very succinct and practical explanation of a project-based working method. I agree with most of it, except I'm not sure it's necessary to limit oneself to one focal length. Just to share another perspective, in their book "On Being a Photographer", David Hurn and Bill Jay talk about collecting various types of shots for a project: set-up/overall scene shots, middle distance shots, and then detail or close-up shots. We may be speaking of different types of projects here, but I think an argument could be made for choosing different points-of-view, and thus using different focal lengths, within a project.

For example, in by recent Birds on Wires project, I used three different focal lengths (35, 72 & 100) to capture different aspects of the subject/theme I wanted to communicate. Perhaps it would have been more effective had I used a single focal length, perhaps not.

I'm not making a strong argument here, just pointing out a different possible approach.

Chris
 

Tim Ashley

Moderator
Alain,

Thanks for your important clarification. It reminds me of the saying "perfect practice makes perfect". Practice alone isn't enough; it has to be the right kind of practice.

Tim,

Thanks for your very succinct and practical explanation of a project-based working method. I agree with most of it, except I'm not sure it's necessary to limit oneself to one focal length. Just to share another perspective, in their book "On Being a Photographer", David Hurn and Bill Jay talk about collecting various types of shots for a project: set-up/overall scene shots, middle distance shots, and then detail or close-up shots. We may be speaking of different types of projects here, but I think an argument could be made for choosing different points-of-view, and thus using different focal lengths, within a project.

For example, in by recent Birds on Wires project, I used three different focal lengths (35, 72 & 100) to capture different aspects of the subject/theme I wanted to communicate. Perhaps it would have been more effective had I used a single focal length, perhaps not.

I'm not making a strong argument here, just pointing out a different possible approach.

Chris


Hi Chris,

I totally agree that projects can benefit from no 'focal length restriction' - but I also think that for Rachel's specific objective, it helps during the first learning project to cut out as many variables as possible otherwise one starts to think of technique rather than narrative. Of course when one has learned how to make the narrative work, one can throw as much variety of technique at it as one wants!

But even for the experienced photographer I think the discipline is useful sometimes. I recently shot an entire project in one day on a Sigma DP1 and was able to get ten good shots for a framed series in about half a day, just because the limitations of the camera had already enforced a degree of conformity of 'look' and of looking.

It might suit Rachel's natural tendency towards a minimalistic style too!

Best

t
 
Top