[CWyatt]

I regularly advise people to look at the work of great photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson or W. Eugene Smith. I have plenty of books of great photographers and great photographs, and often link people to sites like Adam Marelli's. I even made my own post about important things in photography using great images (with some quotes and painters too).
Magnum photos is doing a series of quotes of advice for young photographers every now and then via their facebook page and today's one from Alex Majoli really caught my eye:

'I would advise to read a lot of literature and look as little as possible at other photographers.'

I found that pretty interesting. What do you think?

[slackercruster]

Nice site. Good advice...all classics.

Wanted to save a copy of the intertwined legs, horse and a few others... but you blocked downloading. Your making me work to get a copy of em!

Isn't it something how those ladies can wrap them legs....WOW...such lucious creatures!!

I already found a nice copy of the legs, I'd better get going finding the horse and the other images. Too much lady thinking drives you crazy!

Next time don't be soo stingy with the downloads. They are not even your photos. Let others have some low res copies in the 150 - 300 kb range.

[CWyatt]

Didn't even know. My site's via Zenfolio, must be a built in setting for my blog.

[RioRico]

I've been studying photo and art portfolios for over 1/2 century now. I'm hugely inspired by some of the greats -- my personal hero is Alfred Eisenstaedt, with Gene Smith & Eliot Erwitt & Annie Liebovitz & Jerry Uelsmann not far behind-- but I also know that many of the great photographers (like HCB) came from fine-arts backgrounds. My advice would be, not to ignore the photographers, but to study how graphic artists have built images over the centuries. In fact, IMHO the best photographic training is learning to draw.

[Tamia]

... In fact, IMHO the best photographic training is learning to draw.

I agree on the importance of drawing. To draw you have to observe. You can't draw elsewise.

[CWyatt]

I will make a few points about what I thought about it:

1) I’m not sure it’s meant to be taken totally literally. And he did say ‘as little as possible’, read that how you will.
2) It’s advice for young photographers, and that might imply an up and coming photographer developing a style rather than someone who just picked up a camera.
3) The reference to literature is interesting. To use a term from someone else I read, it may imply ‘the ability to visually imagine things’.
4) When people look at other photographers that often are drawn to/copy the surface aesthetic rather than trying to understand the reasoning behind images, or why other photographers see things like they do.
5) Photographers as a group (this is perhaps a great generalisation) seem to be very keen on just looking at other photographers in terms of thinking about making images. Quite a few also look at drawing painting. The idea of just reading being useful goes further on what I’d call the same path.

I still don’t really agree (and I’ll go on looking at great images), I just think it’s coming from a interesting point of view that might have more to say than a simple reading of it might think. Just the concept that there’s more you can learn – I like that.
And I may be totally wrong, I don’t know Majoli very well, it’s just what I got from a little think about it.

[Clavius]

I think it depends a little on what aspect you want/need to improve. Photography isn't only about art, but also about technicalities. Going through the great pictures in the exclusive gallery and trying to replicate those pictures with my own gear has improved my technical skills with regards to photography a great deal!

Moreover, looking at all those beautiful pictures also inspires me a lot. Maybe it's personal too?

[RioRico]

Ah, photography. It's art! It's science! It's craft! It's vision, internal and external! It's accidents! It's all those! And more! It's a reflexion of who you are.

A noted togger said that photography is learning to see with a camera. I disagree -- it's learning to see LIKE a camera. Cameras don't see as people do. Untrained people don't see as trained observers do. Mastering photography is learning to see like a camera rather than like an untrained viewer, and then forcing the camera (and the whole image-making process) to produce the images you DO see, or want to see. Maybe you want to see like a camera. That's fine. Maybe you want the camera to see your visions. That's fine too. Whatever works.

[philbaum]

'I would advise to read a lot of literature and look as little as possible
at other photographers.'

Its an interesting statement, with some truth in it, but contradictory as well. On one the hand, he's saying not to look at other photographers work, then he says we should all look at literature (which is like saying we need to all go down the same trail)


I think every one of us brings our life experiences, whether derived from education (reading literature), visiting galleries, and/or life experiences to the table with us when taking images. There's no one approach since our life experiences can all be quite different. I do find it interesting to hear the photographer's comments about images they have taken; which often gives clues about seemingly unrelated photos. Last winter i heard Michael Kenna talk about his photography: Michael Kenna Early in his life he trained to become a priest but then decided on photography, nevertheless, there are spiritual contexts behind many of his photographs.

I think context of images is underemphasized today and as a result, there is an overemphasis on the images themselves. Many iconic historical images, would be stripped of their meaning if the context wasn't available.

In other words, the subject matters as well - its not all technique and composition.

[CWyatt]

In other words, the subject matters as well - its not all technique and composition.

Just reminded me of a very strong case in point of Robert Capa. King of being there and getting the image, often in a pretty poorly composed way. But it didn't matter really, no one else had anything like it. (And you could argue with some war images and poor compositions actually added to the realistic feel).

[RioRico]

In other words, the subject matters as well - its not all technique and composition.

Oh, definitely. One of my mini-rants: A perfect photograph of boring crap is still boring crap. The subject should be of interest to the audience, else they'll yawn and wander off.

The photographer can try to FORCE viewers to be interested. One approach: Shoot your obsessions. Anything that consumes your brain -- shoot it lovingly, whether stamps or toes or snails or barb-wire. Spread your obsession like a contagion. Case in point: Was this artist chap who was obsessed with celebrity but wasn't much of a phototechnician, so he shot celebs up close with a simple Polaroid camera, then made silkscreen prints from the photos. They sold rather well. You may have heard of this guy, named Warhol.

Another mini-rant: Content trumps quality. The measure of a great photo is how badly it can be presented and still evoke a strong response. Some of the great iconic photos can be terribly mangled and are yet recognizable and disturbing. IMHO image quality should be as good as it needs to be. But if it NEEDS to be pixel-peeping-perfect, maybe it's lacking elsewhere.