While on that note, digital capture is in an extreme and horrifically bad place right now. I hope Christopher Bush is wrong on that sarcastic prediction, although I wouldn’t put it past Canon or Nikon. With Hasselblad’s greed, Leaf’s bad design team and Phase’s struggle to stay alive long enough to sell their company for a large profit, I can definitely see Canon taking over the majority of medium format’s market, perhaps enough of it to kill the market entirely. That’s scary, isn’t it?

Anyway, you all bring up good arguments for Photoshopping a look to one’s work. But at the end of the day, doesn’t it only matter if the image is great or not? Is “the look” terrific? Is the lighting spectacular? Is the subject appealing? Is every hair or ribbon, depending on the subject matter, in perfect placement? That’s what counts: The “Wow Factor”. Do people viewing your book stop and screech with delight, “Oh my God!”, or do they turn through as fast as possible and shuffle you out of their office with a limp handshake and no eye contact?

Oh, and whoever said Jim Ficus’ work would be the same without his insane amount of post is a moron. It might actually look like a photograph, which might be kind of cool. Sharpening sure has blurred the lines between illustration and photograph. Not hating on the work, I’m just saying Jim owes a lot to his crew, and he knows it.

I feel the technique needs to be driven by the content and the story not some preconceived notion by an editor or photographer for that matter.

There’s definitely a place for technique/style, but shouldn’t it work in harmony with the story?

I guess that’s where finding the right person for the job comes in.

My weary eyed thoughts.

The ones that come to mind don’t have a pronounced “style” per se, which mean they are better at bridging their work between ever changing seasons. Their emphasis is on content, emotional power, vision, an uncanny abiliity to be working no matter what, or just consistently great work.

Yet another reason to avoid mimicing a style. A style can make you money today, but consistently engaging content is what makes money time and time again.

hmmm. tough one.

Indeed. However, that same road is equally littered with the eviscerated souls of mimics as well. Failure is everywhere and is not the singular domain of originality.

Soth’s comment - paraphrasing - that photographers fail to imitate, is not the issue. That notion may enhance participation in this discussion, but if anything photographers are the most blatant and unabashed imitators known to all humanity. Perhaps this was not the full context of what Soth intended - I’ll have to read his full comments.

But I believe the key issue is that they fail to imitate the right photographers or that they imitate for the wrong reasons. It is wise for students to learn the elements of constructing photographs through imitation. But the key to maturing from student to artmaker or craft guy is attempting to divorce oneself from imitation. Sure learn to walk by watching others, but once you learn seek your own directions.

Emotional content most certainly matters, although it makes for a tasty argument to the contrary. And yes the decisions a photographer makes before the shutter is the best focus, which is what Cameron was saying. In fact I remember our distinguished anonymous photo editor stating in his view - paraphrasing - that what matters most is what decisions are made prior to pressing the shutter, which I coudn’t agree more. And yet, not a day goes by when my studio doesn’t get emails from students and professionals about my post imaging process, which I’ve been doing for well over 6 years - (OK, perhaps they just think mycontent sucks!) - when my care is really on the characters, expression, their stories, styling, lighting, ie., the content, within the frame. But these are always the first questions out of the mouths of babes.

And yet I do agree with Olivier that personal work that seeks to avoid intersection with popular mainstream consciousness is doomed to one of Dante’s most horrific one hand clapping rings. And in many ways so it should be. The job of Editorial, Advertising and heaven forbid, Fine Art work is, afterall, to communicate. Yes, fine art is a job. The success or failure of that work is as Olivier points to, how well that work taps into the current psyche of the viewer, and the more viewers, the more successful. It just so happens that a mural of Terry Richardson with cum on his face taps in really hard.

However, content most certainly does matter, because it’s inextricably mated to our psyches. So the point that content doesn’t matter is beyond silly. How many times do working professionals have incredible visual charge going or the perfect technique, expressions or attitude except a trained creative or editor just can’t relate to it because it’s a picture of a shoe instead of a purse.

Emotional content as DeBoer stated here. Emotional content is afterall what drives Terry Richardson’s work. That’s his flame. He even says so. Like him or not, it’s the stuff of emotional content and context that defies the road of mediocrity. It just so happens that his emotional content resonates right now. It’s palpable emtional stuff, tangible, like it or hate it, and it’s visceral and right now it connects, whether he cares or not.

Dude- Originality is good and fabulous when you can afford it, as a matter of fact, originality, when you are that idealistic photographer is by far the best there is. We should all aspire to it, but when it comes to commerce, its the baby out with the bath water. Funny you should mention Leibovitz as she is the ultimate survivor. She perfectly understand the disconnect I mention above and does not waste her time thinking about the dichotomy between art and commerce. She keeps changing according to the times, she even admits this without shame or guilt. Let’s face it, most of the top dogs out there are the second comings, the babies as you call them, of a more original artists. Sometimes I come upon the works of fabulously successful commercial photographers, the top tier shooters, and I can pick out with absolute certainty which fine artists, painter or writer they are copying.
I won’t name names but a lot of those guys take a “innovator’s” work and popularize it for the masses. I am willing to go as far as saying that most of top notch guys making all the big bucks and shooting all the stories we wish we were shooting fit that mold.
The road to photography hell is paved with the corpses of unbelievable talents who never went anywhere because they were too original for their times, too difficult to work with, too dead too quickly, too poor to continue doing it. I could go on and on and name thousands. As for making a living it be best to do as Leibovitz; she does what works and shoots her personal work on the side, which BTW is much better than her editorial and commercial work combined. Those are the skills we need to learn and remember, it’s not easy because we have had idealism and the myth of “originality will always prevail” drummed into us since we were born. Separate church and state and you shall be a happier camper. Keep your originality to yourself, and the commerce for them.

http://tinyurl.com/2hbfgk

I don’t think Terry went out and said “I’m going to do point and shoot because it will fill a niche in the market” - I think he probably thought it looks cool. And guess what: his work originally came out of (or was “inspired by”, if you will) his dad’s and his dad’s contemporaries (ie: Helmut Newton) and so on. Without Helmut we would never have a Terry… and Ryan McGinley and Kenneth Capello’s work is “inspired” by Terry’s (actually, Ryan’s work also looks a bit “Nan Goldin” and I’ve heard Kenneth called a “baby-Terry”, which I don’t think is fair to him)… and there are be people out there who are “inspired” by their work. I have seen a bunch of it when I guest-critiqued at an art school a little while back. They were all baby-Ryans, Juergen-wannabees, mini-Gurskys and Inez and Vinoodh clones. The fact is, like Terry, Ryan and Kenneth’s work or not, it’s got their own stamp on it and that’s why they fit into the marketplace.

Anyway, my point is that you have to do something original at ALWAYS or your work will flop and your career will die on the vine. If Annie Liebovitz had kept doing softbox-lit, over the top, “concept” portraits her career wouldn’t be what it is today and she would be one of the above-mentioned photographers publishing and republishing only decades-old work.

Oh yeah, and you’ve got to know how to shmooze and party with the right crowd.