I get more questions via email and social channels than I could answer in a lifetime, but occasionally one jumps out at me as incredibly worthwhile to share. The answer to this question is important, and my response is below. Chime in and let me know what you think:
“What’s more important as a photographer… to remove yourself from the photograph, or to make the photograph about you as a photographer?”
-from photographer Jay McLaughlin
In order to make the most successful, effective (read: insightful, moving, impactful, beautiful, etc) image, the photographer must be “present” in the image. Simply put, this is crucial–perhaps MOST important for any shooter– you should strive to make a photograph that no one else in the world can make. And the primary mode of being able to do this is to infuse your personal vision to the image. Period, whether it’s reportage, fine art, or a fashion shoot. Doing otherwise is creating a commodity – something that anyone, or an “other” can make– that can be bought or sold like a pork belly or a barrel of oil.
Making such a photo that no one else can make can take many forms–technical excellence is a part of that–but at it’s essence is the need to reflect a mood that only you can capture or evoke, based on your access, your knowledge, your interpersonal skills or otherwise. So you absolutely must put your fingerprints on the shot. It’s not “about” you (sic), but you are clearly present…
Thanks Jay for the evocative question. Readers please chime in below if you feel inspired, otherwise go make that photo that no one else can make.
It’s interesting reading the comments to Chase’s point. This is a question I’ve been pondering for quite some time, so it’s always nice to see different viewpoints, which is why I thought I’d get Chase’s opinion.
Anyway, here’s my take…
http://blog.jaymclaughlin.co.uk/2012/01/its-not-about-you-its-all-about-you.html
Most clients who hires you wants you for the work you’ve produced or just want you to surprise them.
Some photographers like to work collaboratively in art direction, wardrobe, make up etc & putting enough of your ‘DNA’ in it is important.
Some are just there to record and great ones find a way to makes theirs special through technique.
very interesting and crucial topic indeed. but I really think it is matter of what the artist is about to tell. there are many ways to convey different many stories. I do not believe in emphasizing my point of view as an artist as a rule. observation can be done through different levels of “presence”.
I just wonder who’s question this answers: The 1% who are really put there to do all things new, or the 99% who no matter what they do will capture an image that you have to look hard to see your “thumbnail” on? To me this is an artificial question for anyone who don’t aspire to be a pro: My take would be: See what you see, capture what you want to capture, let others worry about your thumbnail. This “vision” thing is a high wall to climb.
I disagree to some extent. I’ve always thought paintings and drawings are definitely mostly about the artist–the brush strokes, the color mixing, the re-arranging of objects and perspective, the abstraction…and on and on.
With photography, it’s still about the photographer’s choices to some extent, but it’s also more about the model or subject, probably because of its extreme “realism.” The photographer’s absolutely still there, but has to step aside a bit and let the subject take center stage. Not that it’s any easier, though. Being a great people photographer means first seeing unique things about the unique person in front of the lens, and than capturing it in a personal way.