Telling a Photographer's Personality from the Photos They Post

humberklog

You can tell precisely zero about a photographers personality by the pics they take. Nada, zilch.


This thread popped into my head when that Dave Lachpelle (or something like that) was over here doing his schtick. Now I'm not too keen on his photos but...yeah sure he's doing something interesting looking some of the time. Then you see a pic of him...he wears a baseball cap sideways on his head. That tells me a lot more about his personality than any of his photos. I was glad of my dubiousness about the squirt.

Anouilh

I found this site interesting:

http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/infj/

INFJ - The "Confidant"
Jungian Personality Types (Free Test)

"INFJs, making up an estimated 1% of all people, are the most rare type (males even more so). They are introspective, caring, sensitive, gentle and complex people that strive for peace and derive satisfaction from helping others. INFJs are highly intuitive, empathetic and dedicated listeners. These traits tend to act as a "tell me what's wrong" sign on their forehead, hence the nicknames Confidant, Counselor or Empath. INFJs are intensely private and deeply committed to their beliefs. "

I'm beginning to wonder why I have been spending the past 18 months of so working with duotones.

Frankly, I think it may reveal quite a lot:

http://widgetinghour.blogspot.com/

The most interesting posters here are the ones who claim that a photographer's work tells absolutely nothing about the person behind the lens.

Some evidence would be useful...

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

INFJs, making up an estimated 1% of all people, are the most rare type (males even more so). They are introspective, caring, sensitive, gentle and complex people that strive for peace and derive satisfaction from helping others. INFJs are highly intuitive, empathetic and dedicated listeners.

It's me to a tee all right. I'll tell you though, it's difficult sometimes. so very difficult ...


Those sites are just such nonsense. All they do is reinforce peoples perceived notions of themselves. If you dig into the questions and the resultant types a bit more all they do is re-phrase things a little. So you answer a question designed to work out whether or not you think that you are intuitive, and then the personality type tacks on a " you are so intuitive and blah de blah de blah" and you gasp in excited surprise as it confirms all your long standing notions that you're just misunderstood by everyone, really.

-edit-

and what on EARTH has that blog link got to do with anything AT ALL that we're discussing ???

Valentia

The number of people I never met that came up to me on Saturday at the book launch and said "Hello Valentia (Danny)", just through having seen my photos? Zero.

Aren't we lucky life isn't that simple?

KarmaGarda

Valentia wrote: »

The number of people I never met that came up to me on Saturday at the book launch and said "Hello Valentia (Danny)", just through having seen my photos? Zero.

Aren't we lucky life isn't that simple?

In fairness, there's a difference between recognising someones face because of the photos they take, and recognising someones personality because of the photos they take.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for you Anouilh! Everyone seems to be having a pop at you since you raised this post.

Valentia

KarmaGarda wrote: »

In fairness, there's a difference between recognising someones face because of the photos they take, and recognising someones personality because of the photos they take.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for you Anouilh! Everyone seems to be having a pop at you since you raised this post.

I wasn't having a pop. It's a very interesting question. A lot of the posts (including the OP) have doodly squat to do with the thread title though.

DaireQuinlan

KarmaGarda wrote: »

In fairness, there's a difference between recognising someones face because of the photos they take, and recognising someones personality because of the photos they take.

That's 'cos that needs SCIENCE.

Although, if it DOES turn out to be true, I don't think I ever want to meet Masada ...

KarmaGarda

Valentia wrote: »

It's a very interesting question. A lot of the posts (including the OP) have doodly squat to do with the thread title though.

In fairness, I agree with that. There's quite an inconsistency between the title and then the subject matter that followed.

KarmaGarda

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That's 'cos that needs SCIENCE.

Although, if it DOES turn out to be true, I don't think I ever want to meet Masada ...

I think your caps lock key is broken

humberklog

Once his cap's not on slantyways all is dandy.

DaireQuinlan

KarmaGarda wrote: »

I think your caps lock key is broken

I levered the caps lock key off my keyboard a long while back. Though funnily enough the 'Scroll lock' and 'SysRq' keys managed to escape the cull ...

KarmaGarda

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I levered the caps lock key off my keyboard a long while back. Though funnily enough the 'Scroll lock' and 'SysRq' keys managed to escape the cull ...

Jez, snap! It's one of the first things I do when I get a new keyboard. Most useless key ever...

Anouilh

KarmaGarda wrote: »

In fairness, I agree with that. There's quite an inconsistency between the title and then the subject matter that followed.

I have no control over how a thread progresses.

It's worth thinking about the public profile one's work generates, I think, without getting too worked up about the subject.

It's just a dicussion. If the thread peters out it's probably because it is a boring subject.

However, I'm forever finding links where a photographer's personality or personal "eye" is being discussed and thought that some posters here might have ideas to share.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/photoblog/2009/11/mixing_personal_and_professional.html

Apparently, one of the most difficult tasks for any photographer is to become truly individual. I was just twisting the subject round a bit.

I like to think about why people choose the subjects they do...

elven

Two things to consider here though:

1. People are complicated beings. There's a lot of things you can learn about a person, from what their occupation is to what their favourite colour is to what day of the week they were born. I think, given the kind of photography some people do, you can learn something about them from it, but it might not be everyone's idea about what 'their personality' is summed up as. But some people do reveal certain things about what they think, and how they see the world, through their photography.

2. Your photography is about more than which subjects you choose to point the camera at - it's about how you actually portray any given subject. Someone can show you a picture of a brick wall, and then a picture of a tree, and the pictures might have something in common, because it's what they put into the photo rather than what they point the camera at.

Why is everyone determined to compartmentalise photography by the thing in front of the lens? Can't we try look a bit beyond that?

Anouilh, I think you might get a better response if you used slightly more conversational language rather than writing as if you're submitting an essay for college. That may be why so many people take these posts the wrong way.

democrates

"Man released on foot of positive psychological evaluation kills again".

Years of intensive one on one psycoanalysis can get the core reality wrong, it would be great if looking at photos someone took were a more reliable technique. To reliably determine personality is frustrated by the fact that the subject may be hiding the truth as they see it and may not know the truth - can't see the wood for the trees as it were.

The photos we take cannot represent the full vista of what's going on inside, and we change over time so findings have a shelf life. Even where photos make an intended point others may not get it, or alternatively someone viewing a photo with a relatively shallow theme may see more meaning in it than was intended - eg that finger painting the art critics raved over that turned out to have been made by a chimpanzee. What you see in a photo can say more about yourself, a bit like the Rorschach ink blotch test but diluted by the subjective, and may reflect your knowledge of the photographer.

Photography can change you. I remember a guy who was an obnoxious putz in school, met him at a reunion two decades later and heard at length how he'd travelled the world, but after some conversation he still seemed to be as thick as pigsh1te having learned little relative to the opportunity, he'd learned to be civil though which is a big win. Others there didn't have such colourful adventures to tell of, but could make very interesting observations about this circus we call 'normal life'.

A lot of photos capture snippets of the show and we can start to look at the world and ourselves differently, that's the best use of art imho, to rescue us from cognitive stagnation so we can make the future better. If trying to determine the photographers personality from a photo is dubious at least the exercise of trying to see the world through someone else's eyes can be worthwhile.

Hugh_C

I don't think you can tell a personality from pictures. you may be able to deduce how a photog relates to other people by the style of their pics, but as regards the bigger picture: no.

As it happens, I'm an INTP which, according to various metrics, is common amongst photogs.

I think you can tell more about a person by their writing style to be honest.

H

ThOnda

I hope that nobody will ever try to analyse pictures produced by my camera, that would be quite scary.
If you are good, you could project what you want into the picture and to make it understandable for common viewer. Even without using tags or captions

sineadw

One word - Hitler.

So do I win the thread prize for mentioning Nazis?? :pac:

Honest to god though, I'd hate to think we were all pigeon-holed into what we can produce. People's stuff changes as they learn and (hopefully) try new things.

artyeva

Anouilh wrote: »

The structure of photographic analysis was laid down years ago and the "compartments" or genres do not seem to overlap much even today.

i would be genuinely interested if you expanded on what you understand to be ''the structure of photographic analysis'', and who is it that you claim laid it down?

Anouilh wrote: »

Also this might explain a lot:

http://typelogic.com/intj.html

I come to the Photography Forum for information and photo sharing.
For a chat, I would probably go elsewhere...

that link explained nothing to me in relation to this thread, tbh.:o it does illustrate to me however that you subscribe to the idea that all personalities and therefore all people can [and i'm thinking to your mind SHOULD] be compartmentalised into a finite predetermined number [16] of catagories.

elven

You can talk about this stuff in a conversational tone. Same subject, different language.

Again, you're talking about the subject - 'landscapes with figures in them' - that tells me feckall about what the picture actually portrays beyond what's physically in front of the lens. I know there's a landscape, and i know there's a person. That means very little. HOW is the landscape portrayed? Is it dark, light, soft, harsh...? Is that too difficult to talk about?

magicbastarder

Anouilh wrote: »

I found this site interesting:

http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/infj/

according to that site, i'm an MILF.

Dink

I really do try to read all the threads here but if I'm really being honest, I avoid the ones started by Anouhil ( Sorry )

To me, photography is a passion, one which I'm not exactly 'great' at, but which I love just the same. These threads are like stuff you have to think about doing a college course in psychology or summat... Really sorry Anouhil, but I think you think too much!

artyeva

Anouilh wrote: »

I like threads like this.

They are a bit of light relief from post-processing and the latest bargains in lenses.

light relief???????????????????????????????? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

trishw78

While this started off like an interesting topic of conversation. I think Anouilh latest post is just surreal. This whole thead has become surreal

elven

wah. Indeed.

humberklog

Is it possible to tell a photographer's personality from the threads they start?

KarmaGarda

Personally, I think it's subjective, very much like art. Current post modern idealist views on art, what is art, etc are often unintentional perpetrators of the "enfant terribles" of modern society.

Sometimes you must create waves to surf the course.

This thread sums it up perfectly: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055740425

Freddie59

potlatch wrote: »

I take boring photos. That's how you'll know mine.

Same here. Not a fan of PP if it can be avoided and I'm not really into the whole photoshopped photo thing.

nilhg

TOP has an interesting take on this subject, might be of interest to some some who contributed here.

democrates

nilhg wrote: »

TOP has an interesting take on this subject, might be of interest to some some who contributed here.

This p155ed me off:

...the work done with the cheaper cameras seems more interesting, less conventional. I fantasize that that's because the cheaper cameras are being used by younger people who are newer to photography. There's an exuberance there, a sense of real exploration. They're pictures made by people who haven't yet learned what you're not supposed to take pictures of. The pictures made with very expensive cameras show a more staid, conventional, less exploratory, more technically perfectionist mindset, like a sixty-year-old driving a Ferrari cautiously. There's a higher boredom quotient.

The control freak in me lusts after that technical perfection like it's the holy grail, yes, fully manual everything, test, tweak, try again, strive for that symphonic masterpiece of light and shadow, but the anarchist inside is always raging against that freedom oppressing machine and gets some cracking shots (by my amateur standards) in P mode, while very drunk, and maybe last friday took a while to suss the 2 sec timer was on (almost as bad as Johnny Rottens bass not being plugged in at one gig).

Still, who spices every meal with jalapenos, or feels the need to try and put something edgy in every shot? I think that guy was mostly miffed that the established photographers didn't all rush to provide work for his editorial exercise, hell hath no fury...