Original or is anything Original at all for photography.

I have noted in recent months a number of photographers posting on social networking sites and forums on modelling sites moaning that people are copying other peoples work like sheep and following trends too much.   The big complaint is that why don't people do something original for a change, which got me thinking about this for a few minutes.

Photography has been around now for well over 100 years so the chance to do something truly original is massive in that hundreds of thousands of photographers all over the world are working on many projects that might be similar or with a type or style that others will see as not original cause someone has done it before.  In this time Many styles of work have been developed (No pun intended) by photographers in fields such as portrait, landscape, closeup, architecture and glamour photography.

To be truly unique in this day and age together with all the photographers past and present is not only a challenge to do but something of an impossible feat.    If you consider all the styles, topics, locations and settings that photographers work in its all been done before to an extent, so nothing can be original. 

So whats the point in doing it, when its all been done before by someone five, fifty or a Hundred years ago.   The solution is simple and one that has escaped the notice of those complaining about copying.   To truly copy something you would need to re-create the shot exactly, which unless you have a time machine is impossible to do.    You might be able to copy a style to produce something similar but with all the variables you could never produce an exact likeness of a photographers picture even if you used the same gear to take the picture, the same model to work with the same lighting conditions, the same viewpoint, the same time of day to point out just a few variables, not to mention the location?

Having thought about this people blindly following trends like sheep is a bit harsh but to understand that people like to take portraits, glamour, landscapes etc.,  If that's it then what is the problem?   Those who complain about this should take a long hard look at their own photography and think, why did you take those pictures, was it worth the time and effort to get the result.   If yes from the photographer, model, viewer then it was worthwhile and it does not matter that the photographer has used a style or type that has been done before as the shot will clearly reflect the talent or lack of talent that he or she has used to get the result.

Photography is subjective, how can we learn it without copying other peoples styles or types, how then do we manage to get a better picture without practice of our art.   If you think its all copying then whats the point in taking pictures?   In answer you should be thinking that you have created your own unique image and that it does not matter if you have made a landscape or glamour shot its the creative style that you present it to the world that matters.

In the same way that people like some food and dislike others its all a matter of taste.   I also noted that those who complain are always the ones who troll the internet sites moaning about the quality of other peoples work yet so far cannot produce good quality work that they are proud to own up to as their own.

I always think of the saying "People in Glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" as being so true for these folk.

Photography is an art form and should be considered a combination of the technical with the artistic to be creative at all times it does not matter that its been done before, the question is do you like what you see.

In finishing I will be penning more of my thoughts on photographic matters in the next few months I hope that you enjoy reading these and make you think about your own photographic art.