Jakov Markovic wrote:
I'm just worried I might end up being a fake version of him?

I think if you're just using his images from memory, you'll always be putting your own spin on it, even if you don't really feel like you are right now. If you have printouts of his pictures and are instructing your models to pose exactly the same to the 1/2 inch, lighting them the same, etc...then you might need to worry a bit more about doing your own thing.

Herman Surkis wrote:
First you copy, then you imitate, then you innovate.

+1

If a particular person's work resonates for you at a particular point in your development there's no harm in aspiring to create something similar.

As long as you're not flat-out coping it image for image, then eventually your own voice (some call it 'style') will come through and you may find yourself going in a different direction... or you may not. Either way if you have enough passion for your work you still might end up being a better photographer than your hero.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Teddy Johnson wrote:
as long as you don't flat out copy him then you're fine.

This is very true..  You can copy a shot as an exercise in technique... but beyond that it's best to emulate, not imitate.   Normally, imitation is not done well and only creates mediocre, if no down right bad, boring images.

I've had artists of all sorts inspire me over the years.  Sometimes I studied their techniques, but I found it was better to study them.   Try to understand their inspiration and it can give valuable insight to your own work.

Hopefully, you'll find your own way artistically and as that voice matures, you'll find your style and others may look to you for inspiration.. who knows..

Good luck to you!!

Jakov Markovic wrote:
So, I've been doing photography for very short time, but I discovered this photographer early on, and I keep on going back to his images for a reference.

He's at the top of his game right now, but isn't one of "the most famous" ones, and I was thinking, is this normal?

I mean, I have every single image of his in my mind(not to mention on my hard drive), and I keep instructing models based on his work.

I research a lot, but i still haven't found an equivalent inspiration.

Is it that I'm plain crazy, or that he "feels" the image same way as I do, or something?

There is no way for us to know from the outside what the answer is in this specific case, but I've had a similar experience lately and I think it's finding a kindred spirit who shares overlapping points of view/beliefs.

It's also possible that they are unique at the moment, and are compelling because they are different from everything else that's going on.

Or a synergy of both of these.


I don't think it's a waste of time to ask the question, but I don't think answering it successfully is important.


I think one thing that's happening is that you're looking at that work as a viewer, not as a photographer, which can be difficult to do, but important to be able to do. So not answering the question allows you to continue to view as a viewer - purely emotionally, not analytically, until the point where you can view any work, including your own, that way, at any time.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
I'm just worried I might end up being a fake version of him?

That won't happen.

You might go there temporarily, but unless you really have no personality or identity yourself, that won't happen.

Jump in, learn what you can learn, and then be yourself.



I think when shooting "for real" you should always shoot from instinct - don't think, just shoot.

I think it's also important to have times where you shoot only from thought. If you end up with something good, it's legitimate, but ultimately the intent of the "thinking" shoot is as a test shoot.

In sports, you have practice and games. Within practice you have drills and scrimmages and pre-season, you also have training, like football players running through tires or lifting weights.

Working on things both as a whole and as parts are valuable and it's important to do both, not just one or the other.

Teddy Johnson wrote:
as long as you don't flat out copy him then you're fine.

There's nothing wrong with flat out copying him.

It's wrong if you do that and then misrepresent what you've done.

Probably the best way to move past an obsession like this is to copy so exactly that they mystery is gone and it's become boring so that it's no longer compelling.

Amul La La wrote:
Initially I was addicted to scowering photographers, but as I started to formulate  my own way, it declined steadily. 2 years ago I looked at many upon many Ph, now it's just down to a handful.

I think this is the natural progression.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
It's not about even similar looking images, it's about myself constantly comparing what I've done to him, and not to others? I'm concerned that I can't run across anything that "works" as a comparison?

Assuming that is in fact the case, so what?

And in response to your answer, so what?

Keep asking yourself that.


It's important to clarify your own views from other's views that you've internalized.

Someone posted "as long as you don't copy him exactly". There are people who because of their need to fit in, will internalize that and believe it as an objective truth because of their need for acceptance rather than because they believe it.

Whether it is an objective truth is irrelevant to you, only what you truly believe is relevant to you.


You're instinct is driving you one way and your intellect is fighting it.

It really comes down to your beliefs on the relevance of instinct.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
I don't copy, but I get what he's aiming at, and that just feels right, so whenever I come up with something, I keep asking myself what would he have done, and sometiems I even ask him ahaha.

Great, but I don't think you go far enough. You should copy his work. Take 1 image per month and try to recreate it as closely as you can. If he's agreeable then have him critique it afterwards and see what you have missed.

In older visual art mediums it's common and recommended to copy the masters. Even more common in music. I see no reason that someone studying photography shouldn't do this.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
It's not about even similar looking images, it's about myself constantly comparing what I've done to him, and not to others? I'm concerned that I can't run across anything that "works" as a comparison?

Don't look at just other photographers then.  Painters to movies are all visual arts that you can be inspired by (well nothing with Ben Affleck in it).

AJScalzitti wrote:
Don't look at just other photographers then.  Painters to movies are all visual arts that you can be inspired by (well nothing with Ben Affleck in it).

I look critically at everything. If I didn't, I'd be perfectly happy with only shooting weddings and high school portraits.

ST Retouch wrote:
Or he/she is just trendy/fancy photographer and if you ( not "you" personally) are young and without deep knowledge in photography , you will be disappointed one day with "your hero"

ST

He's definitely not trendy, or fancy, and he does shoot Vogue... so...

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There's nothing wrong with flat out copying him.

It's wrong if you do that and then misrepresent what you've done.

Probably the best way to move past an obsession like this is to copy so exactly that they mystery is gone and it's become boring so that it's no longer compelling.

Yeah, but... I think I'm past the "mystery bit", it's now more like this. I come up with something, few months later I se where's he at and he's done the exact same thing. I try to experiment, and then when I google, I've seen he's done that thing pretty much the same way (obviously my production is incomparable to his, but I'm referring to his early work). I do other stuff to, but things that are similar come naturally.

And, also, we both have sam reference points when it comes to "all stars". Maybe I like him, because he's out there, and Ritts isn't?

Should I try and lend an assistant position with him? Is that healthy?