I am not sure how many of you will understand this question.
So the question is: why do the photos of some photographers do always look the same?
What I mean by this: I dont want to name names, at least not yet, because some of them are also here. Some photographers have a characeristic style and they always post photos that are quality wise on a High Level. Constantly. I wonder: is that normal? Because human perception is not constant by nature.
I am not saying that those photographers are ingenious artists like Rembrandt.
But is that a good Thing or a Bad Thing?
As far as my own experience and production is concerned, I think it is anything but âconstantâ. And I think it is not because the lighting conditions in the room where I edit my photos Change or something like that. I do re edit my photos quote offen and I make mistakes that I only see days or weeks after my first edit. On the other Hand, I publish photos fequently and it is Hard to create top quality every Day.
I want to add this: I studied art for a long time. And if you have a closer look at the entire work of artists such as Rembrandt or Monet, you will notice that they produced also works of âlowerâ quality.
But especially on social media like Instagram you will see tons of influencer photographers with tons of very similar photos.
Does anybody have an opinion about this? Do you know what I mean?
Mostly, I think, it simply comes down to them being more disciplined at only publishing their best work. In other words, they may have the same good:bad ratio as you, they just donât show their sub-par photos. And if theyâre highly experienced photographers, their good:bad ratio is going to be much better than that of a beginner or intermediary. Plus theyâll most likely have a better âeyeâ for quality when it comes to culling. And they probably take lots of photos. That way they always have something to publish, even on days they didnât get anything worthwhile.
As for having a consistent style, that comes with experience and knowing what you want. And LR presets Thereâs also a branding angle to it: By having a certain style, youâll be more recognisable and seem more professional. This last point is particularly important to influencers and such.
Iâm not sure comparing digital photos to paintings is fair. Making even one painting takes long enough that you may want to keep even the less great ones. Not to mention the cost of materials. Took a poor photo? Just hit delete. No big deal.
As people have mentioned there are schools of thought (business schools that emphasize consistency. Itâs primarily driven by branding. There is also a truth in that you really need to work an expression or topic to explore itâs depths.
A person who makes pictures develops a personal aesthetic (âPAâ), a definition of what makes a âgoodâ picture. The person may not be able to verbalise it, but it is generally present.
When I stick to my own PA, I get a high success rate. When I step outside my PA, outside my comfort zone, my success rate plummets, but I may discover something new.
I think this is normal. It isnât Good or Bad, it just is.
The impressionists typically have many more bad artworks than the Renaissance or Dutch golden age painters. Why? Impressionists typically painted in one layer, on one day, even in a few hours. They might do touch ups the next day while the paint was still wet, if they werenât being lazy. The Renaissance painters did many layers and it could takes many months to complete. The longer you spend on something, the more you refine your craft. But we typically donât see or read about the bad artworks, because they arenât showcased.
Digital photography then is like image producing on steroids, where you can produce hundreds in a day, complete with bad colour science and minimal effort. A recipe for uninspiring images.
I agree with what someone said above about the best photographers likely having the best selection process, weeding out the bad and only showcasing their very best work.
However itâs true some just have more natural talent. I have a relative who couldnât draw a picture to save themselves, she just colours by numbers, while for me drawing isnât too difficult. Anyone can take a photo, but not everyone can take a photo well. You must have an understanding, and eye for, composition, light, colour, expression, atmosphere, costume, etc⌠Not to mention technical choices like camera, Lens, settings, then post production which is both technical and artistic (and given many people seem to have brains wired either to the technical, or the artistic, but not both, mastering both is no mean feat). Not to mention taste, which comes largely from influence. Itâs a lot to master. In movies they split all the departments up. The dop doesnât have to know post production, or actors expression, for instance. The director letâs someone else colour grade. In an age where everyone wants to mass produce quickly, and colour science in most software still sucks, and everyone has the bad influence of modern art hanging over their head (letâs produce disfigured work even quicker than impressionists!), itâs a wonder anyone at all is producing consistent good work.
The primary driver of the sameness in photos is business and expectations. If the profession is photography, then that person must make a living out of it. To do so, they must produce high quality and consistent product for existing customers and to attract new ones. Customers have certain expectations in what looks and is professional. The consistency and the look will make the business viable. Like a restaurant, the business owner must churn out the same to stay afloat. If one wants to go on a romantic quest, photography as an occupation mostly isnât that.
Depending on the customer base, expectations go in a certain direction. E.g., we have images that follow trends set by Photoshop, pseudo-HDR, (digital/print) magazines, movie posters, cartoon, anime, art history, classics, western, modern, B&W, after a famous photographer, after a camera look, meme, inspirational, âŚ, you name the type of traditional/call-back/pop/social media that pervades our culture.
When a photographer makes a name and enough dough, or burns out, they realize that photography is more than just a business and to stay afloat. They remember the art and craft and then do their work for artistic reasons intermittently to stay sane. However, that is hard to do and stay successful. That person must realize that they must sacrifice a bit or a lot of their time, clients and resources to do what they love or truly want to do.
There are many a podcast and article that explores this theme. When is a good time to ramp up or down? Should one find a side hustle to make the money that art doesnât provide? Life of many an artist is tough that way.
If this statement is actually true, then it is only in the beginning and the difference is so small, it almost doesnât matter. By the time anyone is producing consistently high level work, its been a journey of thousands of hours.
I think everyone has their own speed, and speed of production does not correlate to quality.
Thatâs certainly true. Give someone talented a short period of time and they will probably produce something better than someone untalented with lots of time. However, in most instances, that talented person could improve upon their own result when given more time.
I think thatâs still way too much of a generalization. Most of the artists I know work on things until they feel they feel content⌠Whether a viewer feels it can be improved is another thing completely.
Well I know if I work on something for 5 minutes I can make it look pretty good. But if I have an hour it will be much better. And if I revisit a day or two later for some tweaks, better again. And if I revisit six months later once there are some new modules, and my understanding the of the current modules has improved, or I have developed a different workflow, better again.
âFeeling contentâ doesnât correlate to speed or quality, which was your initial point. I sometimes feel content after just that 5 minute edit, if I know the importance of the work is insignificant, or if it is an acceptable work for the job at hand.
Oh thanks guys. This seems to be an interesting topic. I will need some time to Study and think.
Nevertheless I think it is kind of not ânormalâ. Many of those photographers are amateurs.
Edit: normal is not the right Word, natural is better. Photos that always look the same are not natural. Plants dont always grow to the same direction either. Its like apples that always have the exact same size and color.
I believe the issue is that we never really see the thousands of photos even those amateurs have taken to get to the one displayed, even here in this forum. I donât consider myself particularly good yet, yet I have taken some photographs I enjoy and have also shared with people. But to get to those I also have almost 2TB+ of mostly trash (a lot of burst shooting for birds and macro, but still). There used to be weekends when I would get 500-2000 unique pictures, just practicing and trying to get things in a way that felt right and enjoyable, with all the technical parts in place.
After that people just create a formula and follow it, chance is that if they feel good about a work of theirs, further work they feel the same about will also have similar or greater quality.
How many rolls did Henri Cartier-Bresson go through till he got all those iconic pictures we now know?
I usually spend an hour or two per image when I edit. But it is not that I just sit there for two hours straight and work on it, and I think thatâs what youâre getting at here.
Whatâs the difference between editing on image for an hour straight vs 3x 20 minute sessions over the span of a week? I think giving yourself time away from an image and coming back with fresh eyes is very important.
And what would you say is the main reason for the changes?
Is it different feeling (as in: intrinsic feeling)?
Different knowledge/skill?
Just some creative fun?
Would you value the first edit other than say, the last?
Or did you just try out to be like Warhol ?
Itâs the subjectivity and inconsistency of human perception. I think that is the normal thing that you regularly change your view, opinions and taste. If itâs always the same itâs kind of not natural. The ultimate goal is consistency and perfection but that is theory.
I think if you never change your perspective thatâs not healthy but Apparently there are such people.
On the other hand in art there is no such thing as perfection.
I will say curiosity trying out ideas and learning process. - How do the colors work here? What happens with color changes (cold/warm, harmonic/complemetary)? What about contrasts (soft/strong)? What is the main subject - people or clouds? What happens when you shift the emphasis? etc.
The impressionists typically have many more bad artworks than the Renaissance or Dutch golden age painters. Why? Impressionists typically painted in one layer, on one day, even in a few hours. They might do touch ups the next day while the paint was still wet, if they werenât being lazy.
There may be some survivor bias here. There was likely a lot of bad painting during the Renaissance. What we see in our museums could have been the top of the crop. I visited the Palazzo Borromeo some years ago, and among the collections there were some awful things.
Skill and training in a way always work against ânatureâ. Fighting entropy is kind of what itâs about. If itâs to controlled , or not, becomes a question of expression and aesthetics. The only worthwhile discussion
** Of course itâs absurd to claim something from nature such as ourselves arenât natural but nevertheless.
Thereâs also a branding angle to it: By having a certain style, youâll be more recognisable and seem more professional. This last point is particularly important to influencers and such.
that emphasize consistency. Itâs primarily driven by branding. There is also a truth in that you really need to work an expression or topic to explore itâs depths.
