- This topic is empty.
?To be creative or not to be creative, that is the question?
-
?To be creative or not to be creative, that is the question?. (Wullie Shakesbeer)
A few things have combined lately to give me some food for thought on creativity v documentary recording in photography. I?m still thinking and have no firm conclusions but I would like to open a general discussion on the subject and hear what others think.
Here?s the First Perspective ? the ?Wow!? factor.
Most of us want to produce images which leaves the viewer, and ourselves, saying ?Wow!?. Mostly creative images – well exposed, well composed, images ? will achieve this. Their subject matter may be relatively mundane, but the creative aspects of the image transform it to make it an impressive image. Conversely, some documentary images can produce the same ?Wow!? factor. This is often because the subject matter is outstanding ? eg in photojournalism. But often the image is not a strong photograph technically.Second Perspective ? creativity becomes inappropriate
In some areas of photography it is important to clearly portray the subject and indulging in what the client might describe as ?too much fancy stuff? is not appropriate. Catalogue images, certain products, etc are usually examples of this. A recording-type image of the subject is what is required.Third Perspective ? mere recording becomes inappropriate
In some other areas of photography it is important to creatively enhance the image as a mere recording of the product/subject will not persuade the audience to pay the inflated prices for it. Fashion and advertising are usually examples of this.Fourth Perspective ? Camera Club Photography
I?m close to concluding that camera club competitions will only reward creative images. Occasionally a more documentary image from an exotic location will gain recognition too, but most success is to be obtained from submitting creative images. Would you agree?Fifth Perspective ? Travel Photography
I have a lot of interest in travel photography. Like everyone else I like holidays, but I also work in the travel industry. I have concluded that very creative landscapes, people photographs, etc, are generally not appropriate for the travel industry. If there were such thing as a scale with creativity at one end and documentary recording at the other end, then I think the best travel photography would sit somewhere around the midpoint on that scale. What do you think?All views welcomed. Thanks in advance
BertieWooster wrote:
I?m close to concluding that camera club competitions will only reward creative images. Occasionally a more documentary image from an exotic location will gain recognition too, but most success is to be obtained from submitting creative images. Would you agree?
Ha, ha ,ha – very big ROTFL from me here on this one :lol: :lol:
Right, now that we’ve got the sarcasm over with, here’s my more serious and more appropriate response, or input. Firstly, on club competitoins. Firstly, in the context of club competitions, most good clubs will look for artistic or creative merit, technical merit and that intangible “wow” factor – whatever it is that makes an image stand out from the others as soon as you see it. All three factors must be there. I don’t believe that you can get this wow factor by having a creative image or a technically excellent image or both. Give two photographers with the same ability the task of shooting the same image and you’ll get two totally different images, one of which will usually be better than the other. That “wow” factor is usually something the photographer brings to the image – a part of their personality or something else intangible like that. It’s what ultimately develops into a photographers “style” – something that makes an image recognisable as theirs.
Having said that, I do think that creativity is something that can be learned, through practice and examining ones own work. I know myself that during periods of little or no shooting, my work becomes stale and boring and then when I get out regularly again, I can see a definite improvement in my work (at the moment I’m in the stale stage again :( )
Interesting thread and one I’ll probably come back to later. There’s a lot to think about here – just wanted to get my say in on club photography, in the light of my own experience on this aspect!
I find that photographers generally hold quite strong opinions on just about everything and given that photography is so completely subjective, I find that defining and categorizing genres works only for oneself in most respects. Interesting post though :?
Thanks for the comments.
ecp wrote:
…. in the context of club competitions, most good clubs will look for artistic or creative merit, technical merit and that intangible “wow” factor – whatever it is that makes an image stand out from the others as soon as you see it. All three factors must be there. I don’t believe that you can get this wow factor by having a creative image or a technically excellent image or both. Give two photographers with the same ability the task of shooting the same image and you’ll get two totally different images, one of which will usually be better than the other. That “wow” factor is usually something the photographer brings to the image – a part of their personality or something else intangible like that. It’s what ultimately develops into a photographers “style” – something that makes an image recognisable as theirs.
Having said that, I do think that creativity is something that can be learned, through practice and examining ones own work. I know myself that during periods of little or no shooting, my work becomes stale and boring and then when I get out regularly again, I can see a definite improvement in my work (at the moment I’m in the stale stage again :( )
I think that you’re probably right on a couple of counts there. Creativity probably can be acquired, and to really excel at club level images need to have creative merit, technical merit and that “Wow” factor. I read somewhere lately, thought, where a judge remarked that he rarely saw images with the “Wow” factor. Perhaps when someone sees too many excellent photos the are hard to impress. And some club images do seem to be repeats of old themes – birds, flowers, snow scenes, old buildings, etc – it’s hard to get something really fresh. Perhaps that’s why moderately good images from exotic locations do well.
finoblad wrote:
I find that photographers generally hold quite strong opinions on just about everything and given that photography is so completely subjective, I find that defining and categorizing genres works only for oneself in most respects. Interesting post though.
Again I’d agree, by and large. We all work differently and I suffer from being an out and out analyst of just about everything. The approach that has worked for me though is to categorise things until I understand them and then go out and cheerfully blur the boundaries.
Since this thread opened a new forum for Travel Photography has been opened. (Thanks Mark). Much of where I hoped this thread was leading will be continued in that forum. Please keep an eye open for a thread there called “What is Travel Photography?”
Thanks again
Bertie
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
