Over the years I have looked at so many portfolios and seen time after time the same ideas and similar images. Its not unusual. I feel people can make up their own minds about who has been influenced by who and where credit should be given.

The best photographers I have ever known in my opinion are the humblest, they realise how lucky they are to be the conduit of circumstance that has chosen them to create what they have. Where as the worst and most insecure are generally those who claim status over others.

V best Giles Rocholl

Credit union payday loans. Payday loans credit union….

Some of the posts – like the one above are hilarious. Not to say that PDN is the end all be all of what is good, but they run plenty of stories about amazing photographers. And all of you that are putting it down would absolutely JUMP at the chance to be in the magazine. The 30 is not a contest – it’s a free editorial that highlights 30 talented people each year. I’m a photo editor and I use it every year to hire people. Love it or hate it, it’s one of the best showcases in the photo industry. Everyone should just get off it and go make some work they are proud of.

Interesting how this all works.

I think she makes some great points in her remarks.

I can’t imagine that Jan is the first person to ever have done this.

If Jen gets knocked on for this, then there are a lot of us who have been inspired by other photographers and artists who should just quit now and start doing some number crunching job.

I immediately saw the connection with the PDN picture, but to be honest I just thought “that reminds me of those brilliant photos of kids by that dutch guy”. If anything, Jen should not show that one picture purely because it is so reminiscent of the Dreams of Flying **and yet just not as good**, which is for me the crucial thing.

RDP

How is this different from all of the Jim Fiscus wannabes a few years back?
I mean, look at all of the overly contrasty images floating around because so many photographers wanted to outright copy his signature style.

But wait … did Fiscus ripoff Andrzej Dragan or was it the other way around?

Ahh … the cycle.

I’m not an avant guardian, but I know a few people who were and from that point on, you run the risk of being pegged as a “Surface” photographer. Sure, it doesn’t dog you for the rest of your career, but it can take a while to shake the stigma.

I’m not naming names, but certain, VERY prestigious NYC based independent fashion magazines (that should narrow the pool a bit, so guess away) in the past have openly stated that Surface is a conflict. Actually, I think it’s just that they don’t like Surface’s aesthetic (too plastic-y/contrived) but go figure.

Back when I was a young-un, I wanted to be an avant guardian but now I am soooo happy I wasn’t given that “honor”.

http://tinyurl.com/34v944

And make sure to follow the link, near the bottom, about the video interviews published by the Tate. These are not related to this topic, but they are fine interviews, especially the ones from Rineke Dijkstra and Paul Graham.

http://tinyurl.com/2rrz67

(There is another one, from Stephen Shore, easily missed. Scroll down the list of interview names to find his.)

And in this particular case of Jeniffer and Jan…in biology it’s called parallel evolution.

As for PDN doing poopy edits. I have long had a theory that they do it on purpose, that they intentionally muck the work up just a bit as not to intimidate, isolate, or make their very sensitive ego photographer reader base feel like un-subscribing (that’s you). Imagine if the work in PDN was really brilliant and you weren’t able to get high horsed about how smart you are and how dumb they are and you were instead on a monthly basis reminded that you’re mediocre.

(All the shit-talking on this site lately has made it lame.)

Its why I don’t have a website and don’t engage with any of that, the whole celeb “name” bollocks is just turning people into headless wannabe chickens seemingly desperate to be part of a feudal structure (with “important” curators as king and Queens) and getting fucked over along the way, its now entertainment with TV programs showing us endless wannabes stepping up to be humiliated, photography paid review, mag submissions is just part of that. The people who are really doing intense and, for me, interesting stuff, are not part of any of that, and in this environment are never likely to be.

I don’t claim sole copyright on the idea and was just very surprised that pdn featured that image as a signature-picture of Jennifer for given reasons.

The discussion is an interesting one, but please dont haggle over whose wrong or right between Jennifer and myself. We re both fine with it.
In the end the visal consumer decides if he likes the individually produced image, considering his/her knowledge. The discussion should rather be about political power and manipulation in so called indipendant and all-knowing photography magazines. What do awards mean after all, who funds them, who makes money with them and who are the people in the judging panel.. how much do they know and how limited is all of that!

A good day from sunny Berlin,
Jan

P.S: You should all see Robin Rhode’s work.. he rocks.. and funny enough we both started independantly with our series in 2002…
http://www.perryrubenstein.com/artists/robin-rhode/?view=images#

and who knows who influenced us on our creative processes. I am a strong believer that great ideas come always to several people. It only gets funny when ad-agencies or magazines think commercial!

I am also planning to pioneer a technique that requires Natalie Portman, a cutlery drawer and at least three copy editors holding chairs…but with a twist. No one else my now photograph her. Ever. You might as well send her to my house right now.

There are 4 or 5 contests that I’d like to enter each year, to a total tune of $300 or so. Which in some ways is not a lot of money, but at a time when I’m trying to establish myself, pay my bills and promote myself, it’s very difficult to come up with that kind of cash.

I’d love to hear Rob discuss contests.

I understand that the entry fees are a way for the magazine to make money but I think you are ignoring the fact that they are also an inexpensive way for a young photographer to (possibly) get noticed by a ton of photo editors and art buyers.

Now that I think of it PDN’s 30 doesn’t even have an entry fee.

I remember a few years ago I had this great idea to paint one of my walls glossy black and shoot against it with a hard light. I did this with a great model and was so excited about the pictures…then someone referred me to Terry Richardson’s “Black” campaign for Sisley. Oops.

Nowadays something like that wouldn’t bother me. I think if one’s style is so dependent on the concept that they need to be concerned with its originality, then he/she doesn’t really have a style at all – the photographer is easily replaceable. The Jennifer/Jan example is a good one. They have distinctly different styles, and the coincidence of this one photo concept is really no big deal. It’s not so peripheral that it’s some kind of surprise two people came up with it independently.

PDN and its staff are not experts any more than anyone else who avidly follows photography.

The awards mean very little. Most awards mean very little.

The ones that are selected are skilled photographers who are also very lucky. There are many more than 30 good young photographers out there.

Oh, I am a past PDN30 photographer. Being selected didn’t change much for me. Continuing to shoot and make good work did.

This is an interesting read ( keep up the good work APE ).

How many of you had an idea, and yea, you know its been done before, but then you open one of your favorite mags, and see it that same day?

@ 56. Kevin: Bravo. Great response.

Photography is generally a means to an end, and that end, if you do it for a living is to generate income by having your photography serve a purpose. The purpose could be to raise awareness, compel someone to buy something, illustrate something, build a brand, serve as an investment medium, etc. The purpose is not to be the most creative or original. We may like to think so, but really that’s not the purpose it serves. It may win accolades and praise from others in the industry, but other than feeding our egos, and helping us to get more work, it’s not accomplishing much. PDN may be New York centric, but that’s not surprising. So many would have you believe that those profiled in, or graced by, the photography gurus at PDN are the only ones worthy of being photographers. When in truth, there are so many others out there successful, fulfilled, and making a good living as photographers. And many of them probably never read PDN or CA, don’t enter the contests, and don’t care who wins.

As has been stated several times, the most creative and original are not usually winning the awards anyway. Most photography is a product, and their are winning formulas out their. Swap out the pages of the last five years of the PDN’s photo annual, or CA’s photo annual, or whatever. It’s all the same. With all the blank stares in portraits, the muted landscapes, banality, and all the typical “anti-photography” photography, along with the illustrative, surreal look, there’s not been much new in years.

Not that I’m complaining. It is what it is. My work serves someone else’s needs in order that I may get paid, so that I can do it again and again. My corporate clients, the customers who see the ads, and buy the products are completely unaware, and unconcerned with whether or not the photography is original or creative in any way. That doesn’t mean that I don’t like creativity and originality. I do, and in fact I glance through the PDN photo annual and CA photo annuals in about 5 minutes these days, as it’s rare that something is compelling enough to make me stop. What it does mean is that while I’m inspired by creative and original work, they are only important if they serve a purpose. I guess for many, feeding the ego is purpose enough, though, I think many more of us are just happy to make a good living, and be paid to do what we like to do. My job is to make the client happy, not the jurors.

By the way, I once shot a whole bunch of black and white landscapes of the mountains and deserts and even won an award or two. I sold some too. None of them were original or very creative for that matter.