an absolute "must read"

http://www.photo-mark.com/articles/repertoire/

I would be very interested in opinions on this one

True, true. Thats were we get our so called "icons". I think that is what he is describing.

Yes, I've shot may popular places, even standing alongside other photographers. I don't care if it's been shot a million times. Sometimes it is the experience.

I do enjoy shooting things that no one has seen before and I am glad Upper MI and WI are largely overlooked though there are a few populer places.

Lately I have been trying to find harder to reach places. Not "off the road". See my Apostle Island images for a very hard to reach place.

Hey Mark,

I've read this article twice now, and it's a fascinating one. Well-written, poignant, and raises some very valid points. I'm sure, as if usually the case, most folks will pay it no heed.

Cheers

Carl

It was a well written article that really gets one to thinking about the photos one takes and why. However, I don't think photographing the icons, reproducing the repitoire as he says is in any way a lack of skill or vision. When learning to play the piano, we all practiced on the repitoire, over and over again to perfect our skills. Just like to trying to reproduce the sounds that we all know and love, so to in photography, we photograph the icons in an attempt to reproduce the scenes that we love to see. And in doing so we hone our skills. The shortcoming though of the "photographic artist" is if he or she just stops at the icons and does not try to expand on that. Arguably Yosemite is probably the most photographed place on earth. Yet I try to make it there at least twice a year to photograph. Everytime I am there I photograph the icons from the same old usual parking lots, turnouts, pullouts etc... but then I wander, I let my emotions, whatever they may be at the time, dictate where I go and how fast I go and I just look for the sublte things that might just go unseen. Everytime I have been there I have come away with something that I consider fresh from that place, something that I have never seen before, something unique that defines me and my vision. The icon spots for me are where I warm up, play the scales so to speak before the real work begins.

So....Because I drive a 2003 Ford F-150, no one else should have one the same color as mine? Vision is unique to each individual person. We all could look at the same object and see many different varyations of what it is we are looking at. There is nothing on this planet that has not been photographed already by some body. Myself..... I am not going to worry about it.

I think this is the first "must read" I've seen that really is. Thanks for pointing it out.

blovius wrote:http://www.photo-mark.com/articles/repertoire/

I would be very interested in opinions on this one

Well, I don't think it's a must read.

While the author makes some good points, he wastes a lot of time doing so. It is, from a contemporary writer's standpoint, poorly written. Putting on my editor's hat (one of the many that I wear), I would have been able to trim much of this piece without sacraficing the core whatsoever. The writing sucks.

What bothers me more is some sort of elitist rectal-cranial inversion displayed here. The core concept -- Have you considered finding subject matter other than where the tripod holes are well calcified? -- is great. The approach taken is bush league at best.

The author also neglects that just because the tripod holes are there doesn't mean the same scene is recorded every time. I go to Oxbow Bend in the Tetons several times a year. No two sessions have been identical.

Don't beat around the bush Dick - say what you mean !

Without getting into the merits of the author's views, or his writing style, one might question his point after looking at some of his images. While I did not go through all of his galleries, a quick look through his southwest images, for example, includes numerous photos that seem to be in the mold of those which his article seems to criticize.

National parks and other popular places have achieved that status because, at least in part, they inspire an emotional response in the visitor. Photographers, whether beginner or experienced pro, like to try to capture either that emotion, or the scene that inspires that emotion, for themselves. Sometimes that results in a photograph similar to or even the same as what has been done before. As time moves on, and more and more people photograph the "icons," it becomes increasingly difficult not to duplicate what has been done before, or to come up with a unique interpretation. Maybe, at least in a few cases, that's why some photographers continue to return to these places, hoping to come up with that unique image, in addition to the standard fare.

More often that not, these are also places that are easier to get to, which may also explain why people with limited time or budgets so frequently visit them. Many people want to maximize the limited time they have available for "vacations" (when such visits usually occur, except perhaps for professionals). Not everyone can afford to go on a multi-week trek in unchartered territory in the hope of finding some undiscovered subject matter. Then again, we also tend to be a lazy lot, preferring to stay in or close to our vehicles rather than exploring the less well known back country of the icons. But then again, the roads lead to certain "popular" locations for a reason.

This is a subject that has come up before in other forums or discussions (including between or among people spending several hours driving to one of those popular places), and no doubt will continue to arise in the future.

vbpholaw wrote:Without getting into the merits of the author's views, or his writing style, one might question his point after looking at some of his images. While I did not go through all of his galleries, a quick look through his southwest images, for example, includes numerous photos that seem to be in the mold of those which his article seems to criticize.

You summed up my impression of his photos very well! While they are very good, a significant portion of the shots on his site are exactly the images he appears to criticize in his article.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

vbpholaw wrote:Without getting into the merits of the author's views, or his writing style, one might question his point after looking at some of his images. While I did not go through all of his galleries, a quick look through his southwest images, for example, includes numerous photos that seem to be in the mold of those which his article seems to criticize.

You summed up my impression of his photos very well! While they are very good, a significant portion of the shots on his site are exactly the images he appears to criticize in his article.

Exactly. Beautiful shots, too.

Russ Chantler wrote:Don't beat around the bush Dick - say what you mean !

I read legal writing -- a lot. Most lawyers take pages to say what could be said in a paragraph. This dude makes the lawyers look succint.

Dick Ginkowski wrote:Exactly. Beautiful shots, too.

Well, some of them. The one of Long's Peak is about as ordinary as could be, and from a parking lot, I'd say. (Haven't visited many iconic landscape locations, so I'm unable to say if his other images were made similarly close to the road.)

I did get a kick out of his meeting with another photographer in Death Valley National Park. That section might have been subtitled, "I once met a photographer less sophisticated than me." I imagine most of us have. But what was he doing at a location favored by such posers?

Without imposing my subjectivity onto the views of the author of this article, I must respectfully submit he missed the point. Photography: "writing with light." Whether one uses an icon in the image or not, the purpose of the photograph is to record the light. I would side very much with Dick (although he uses the Oxbows in the Tetons to illustrate his point, and I have only been there twice): each time is different. What makes it different is the quality of the light and its diffraction, reflection, etc. (i.e., interaction with weather, climate, etc.) and the interplay of the light on the compositional elements. When I am in the presence of light which inspires me to take a photograph, I will endeavor my best to make the best affective and effective image I can; tripod holes be damned! If that means I have set my tripod where others have before me, so be it: the experience is both transient and new to me, ...even if I have been in that exact location before. Galen Rowell wrote often about scouting around to determine the best location from which to record the light. Fine, if you have the time to do so and/or have previous experience in that location; if not, maximize the time you have available and don't worry about tripod holes. The old rule with film was first get the shot, then improve it (another axiom about which Galen Rowell aften wrote). This "flatlander" doesn't get to the mountains as often as he would like (ditto for the seashore -- not too many oceans here in souther Illinois). When I get to the mountains, I'm not looking for tripod holes; I'm concentrating on the interplay of light and the mountains as elements in a composition.