I hate timeless. Timeless is gutless. It’s dull and predictable. It is constipation – an idea stuck in the birth canal waiting for a little love. That doesn’t mean that some pictures don’t endure. But timeless is one of those loaded words that you use when your sales cap is on to justify pictures that don’t have much to say. Everything has a shelf-life, whether you’re Paul Strand or Paul Graham, because the moment you introduce something to market, it changes the market. Photography is a dialogue, and if that dialogue is doing nothing but repeating the same, tired, euphemisms, it’s just not worth saying. Timeless is boring, and photography has so much more to say than just that.
I just discovered this blog… so fab. Love the concept- I will definitely keep following!!
Thanks so much! Writing this and talking with the people I’ve interviewed has been the most fun I’ve had in a long time!
I disagree. I mean, what’s your gut reaction when you see a photo with selective color? Not “wow, the emotion in that image is amazing” but rather “wow, that photo is so 1990!” It’s distracting.
I think if we focus too much on the “trendy” things in photography, we’ll create distractions unintentionally for when these photos are viewed in the future. I have a hard time seeing past selective color, even if the photo would have been fabulous and full of emotion on its own. I think we’ll have a similarly difficult time seeing past the trends of today when they are used too heavily.
I think being “timeless” means that the photo speaks for itself. It doesn’t need to be “processed” to look good. It’s simply a story in itself, without a pretense or costume of processing to make a boring photo better. And it will tell that same story 20, 30, or 50 years from now, not just while it’s on facebook. 🙂
Appreciate your post, Jamie! I’m going to stick to my guns on this one. First off, I love selective color. It’s beautiful. Just kidding. It’s heinous in the worse way possible, I totally agree with you. But that’s exactly my point – when you try something that isn’t time-tested, it’s risky. That’s what makes it gutsy. I’m sure a lot of people thought selective toning was the bees knees at the time, but, guess what? It was the mortal sin of 90’s photography. When you do something in the contemporary, it’s unproven. You have no idea how history is going to view that technique. You take a risk, and maybe you fail big. But when you hit it, you really hit it.
A couple of things that come to mind in reading your reply. I do agree that technique for technique’s sake is distracting. As for processing, I could care less either way. If it works, it works. Some pictures use color processing well. Some don’t. I don’t think anyone can categorically say that it’s always good or bad, but there’s no doubt a lot of people rely on it to create a look without bothering to put in the substance, so I’m with you on that.
But, I don’t really think the opposite of timeless is trendy. Sure, in dictionary terms, maybe it is, but in practice, when a person shoots timelessly, what are they doing? They’re applying a set of proven techniques that are known to work in the situation. How do you know something will work? You just copy what’s been done a thousand times before. That’s technique, not creativity. If photography is nothing but applying time-tested technique for any given photographer, that’s their choice. But I think photography is more than that. It’s a way to expand the how we see the world. It’s a way to show what we see, and not what our predecessors would have seen. It is art.
The opposite of timeless – the type I’m talking about – is experimental, which is anything but trendy. It’s seeing beyond the present body of practice. Yeah, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but, paradoxically, true timelessness – the type I’m not talking about – is in fact quite extreme. Even downright radical. When you look at a list of history’s great artists, the ones who defined the techniques we accept as timeless today, you inevitably read words like unusual, radical, first, and different. You hear about people who created a movement, changed opinions, or forged new paths. What you don’t read is that they were doing what had already been done in a safe, acceptable way. Those people are long forgotten.
I think in some ways we are arguing for the same thing with different words. But I would caution being “experimental” too much on a wedding day, as this is such an important day for your clients.
Once you know you can pull off a style well, then go for it. Your clients hired you for it, you know that they love it (because they’ve seen you do it for other weddings where you slowly started mixing it in), and it’s less risky at that point.
But there are just so many non-experienced photographers out there who miss the mark by trying to do something new or unique the whole time and end up disappointing the couple for the sake of wanting to be different, and that’s just a shame. Especially when they then try to “fix” it in photoshop afterwards. Icky.
Play with your style in personal projects and outside of weddings before going all-out with it at a one-time (hopefully) life-changing event. It should always, always be about the couple and capturing their memories in the best way possible. If you’re doing that, no matter how, then awesome. If you are only shooting for yourself and your art without thinking of the client and what they want, then shame on you. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what you’re saying and that we’re the same page. 🙂
Works for me! Yeah, agreed – I believe in shooting for yourself and loving what you do, but definitely not at the expense of the client.
Spencer, very much enjoying the blog.
Reading what you and Jamie have said, I think what may better express what you’re saying is “Just don’t be lazy.”
Don’t always take the easy shot. Grow. Expand your repertoire. Look for new shots. Don’t be static. In other words, be creative.
Thanks, Casey! I think a lot of people have the ability to do so much more than they know, but they become anchored on something without even realizing it. I heard that once an elephant is tamed, you only need a small rope to keep him tied down.
I love the risk takers. The people who put themselves so far out that they might fall flat on their face even when they have everything to lose, because, when it works, it’s magic.