We've all done it, we've all denied it, we aren't proud of it, but I guarantee that at some point on our creative journeys each and every one of us has copied somebody else's work.
It's one of those things we tend to feel bad about, it’s like invisible theft, nothing has changed hands but you now have something that somebody else had. Because of this feeling of stealing, we all vehemently deny it and desperately scramble to try and find differences in the work.
I personally feel that the act of copying others is at an all time high in the photographic industry right now, and there's a few reasons for this. Firstly we are all becoming visually saturated by literally thousands of images every day now with Facebook, Instagram, Pininterst etc etc. The list is huge and ever growing so it's only natural that we’re going to produce an image like we've already seen somewhere along the line. Secondly though, and I think most interestingly, we copy one another far more now than ever because of the pace that the medium of photography is evolving at.
'Photographers' can take images within the first week of owning their first camera and that certainly wasn't possible by masters of the craft 25 years ago. Technology is also filling in the knowledge gaps and giving a helping hand where needed. Plus the affordability and accessibility of the equipment is within reach of even the most basic consumer too.tha
So why all the copying?
I think it comes down to a mindset and a false sense of security within the medium itself. I’ve bought all the gear and I want to use it. I don't want to have to learn how to use it at University for three to five years. I want results today. And why not?
Photography is not alone with this modern need for instant results, in fact nearly anything that employs technology to garnish results has fallen foul to this idea. We've spent good money so we expect outstanding results. Technology enables us to run before we can walk, so we inevitably run regardless of the consequences. So what does this actually mean for us photographers? Well it means we get stuck-in and start using the equipment without be taught how to use it, the only way, and I mean the only way this technique can produce results is to copy others.
There, I said it. It's out there.
The image on the left was taken in 1929 by George Hoyningen-Huene for Vogue. The image on the right by Mikael Jansson for Interview Magazine May 2012. Hoyningen-Huene's entire style of the time was models in bathing suits posed in classical sculpture poses. Mikael Jansson's 2012 editorial was clearly influenced by this as it is a complete removal from his straight to camera posing and separate model shots. Although this is a direct copy its clear to see Jansson's personal influence as he shifts the plane to add depth and reinterprets the lighting to enhance form. This is an evolved copy.
Is a Formal Photographic Education Still Important?
A while ago I was interviewed by a University and one of the questions I was asked was;
'Do you still feel a formal education in photography is an important factor to success?'
The following was my response;
'I think formal education in photography is extremely important and I would recommend it to anybody. Formal education provides you with the unbiased tools to help any photographer realise their own individual creativity. I see a lot of photographers announcing they are 'self taught' like it's a badge of honour. Not only do I find this ironic, 'yeah I'm self taught by hundreds of other photographers on YouTube', but it's also stating that 'look at my work, its good and I taught myself'.
I know personally that my photography would be nowhere near as good today had it not been for my formal photographic education. I guarantee that a lot of great photographers out their today who actually have their own individual style are the ones who were formally educated. The people copying them were not.'
I think it’s pretty clear to see where I stand on the topic, and granted there are some bold sweeping statements in there but please, just let me briefly elaborate and hopefully explain what I mean.
I was fortunate enough to be taught what the tools can do, not how to use them. There is a very small but very important distinction here. Once I am aware what can be achieved I am left to figure out how to achieve it. This by its very nature builds individual style, something that is very difficult to maintain with technology.
Technology is diminishing our individuality and personal style
For example; if I was to put five photographers in a room with five cameras, five tripods and five light meters and asked them all to photograph the apple on the table in front of them, how different do actually think those images would really be?
The technology is going to get in the way of the creative process and the results will reflect that. Now imagine putting five artists in the same room and asking them to produce an image of the same apple but all they had was a brush, a box of paints and piece of paper, imagine how varied those paintings would be in contrast.
Technology is getting in the way of our creativity by distorting what it means to be a photographer. It is diminishing our individuality and thus our personal style.
The image on the left was shot by Patrick Demarchelier for Harpers Bazaar for the December edition in 1992. The copy on the right was for the December issue in 2013 and recreated by James White. I think its pretty clear that White was requested to copy Demarchelir, whether it was by the magazine or an art director, either way this is an example of a direct copy but White still applied his own style, most noticeably with the lighting . He decided to soften the whole look, whether for his own benefit or for Kidman's. The light in White's' image is far more flattering and by adding additional lights from behind he's enabled more dimension with the very diffused key light. I would definitely argue that this is an evolved copy.
Copy with Pride
If you've read this far then congratulations, you're nearly there but let's just quickly recap the ranting and refocus the point of this article. Photographic technology is empowering us to be 'better' photographers. With modern equipment we don't need to go to school to learn how to use the kit and get all smelly in elbow deep toxic chemicals, we can take a 'great' photograph very easily on our own, the camera does that part.
So now we can take 'great' shots, what's next? Well now we need to look at other photographers work to get ideas on what's possible because remember, we haven't been taught what's possible, we've only been taught how to get there and the camera is doing that bit for us. So finally the copying begins.
Copying has been around forever, its only now that with thousands of people seeing our images that it's become so difficult to get away with it and hide. So don't hide it, be open about it. Embrace the copying because you will not get away with it, we are all simply too connected these days to hide it, somebody will always catch you out. That's exactly what legendary photographers Mert and Marcus did, they were honest about it right from the get-go and they were proud of where they were coming from.
The two images on the left are from legendary fashion photographer Guy Bourdin. Bourdin made a big name for himself in the 70's by using filters to exaggerate and saturate the colours in his photographs. Mert and Marcus who shot images like the Gucci advert on the right openly copied this style but took it forward by using modern digital manipulation techniques to achieve the same 'hyper-real' saturated colours. A style that would stay with them right up until the present day.
Mert & Marcus
Mert and Marcus are an incredibly famous fashion photography duo that specialise in photographing nearly every female icon of the past two decades and imortalising them on every front cover imaginable. Their work is bright, bold and they always portray their female stars as powerful, sexy and glamorous icons of their time. You will have seen their work even if you don't know it, but how have they carved out this style? Well, they copied it. Mert & Marcus are self professed copycats at that, they aren't shy about it and why should they be, their work speaks for itself. It’s harder to see now, but twenty years ago their inspiration came from the legend Guy Bourdin. Bourdin was their 1970's equivalent and a quick peruse over his work will show you that he photographed the exact same qualities from his female subjects and portrayed them in bold, brash super saturated colours, making them leap from the page. But Mert and Marcus didn't stop there, in fact they have actually made a career out of openly copying others and adding their own personal evolved style to it and usually to great effect.
I'm sure we all remember the Madonna Album cover from a few years ago (right hand image). This was shot by Mert and Marcus but they copied the fluted glass effect from Erwin Blumenfeld's 1943 portraits (left hand image). Personally I have a lot of respect for the nerve it must of taken to even suggest the technique for an album cover for a mega star like Madonna. Conversely, respect is also due to Madonna for choosing to go with it. For somebody whose self image is as iconic as hers, it was certainly a bold decision to then distort it. Also note the distinctive saturation that is present in the Mert and Marcus image, a style choice that is always present in their work.
So if Mert and Marcus are self confessed copycats how can this be morally acceptable and what makes them different? The catalyst comes from the fact that Mert and Marcus aren't classically trained. I think they had backgrounds in music and graphic design respectively so the only way they could photograph at first was to copy. So how do you copy somebody but remain unique? Well Mert and Marcus took Bourdins style and simply evolved it. The biggest change they made though was to add the huge string of technology to their bow. Their work pushed the digital medium right from the beginning and they made sure their images stood above the rest by simply being ahead of the curve with their digital manipulation and it became their style. They took the Bourdin style of saturated colours that he achieved with filters years ago and added the new era of digital to create their 'hyper-real' look. In an interview with them in The New Yorker in 2004 Grace Coddington (director of Vouge at the time) spoke about Mert & Marcus’ style and referenced a shoot they had done the previous year in Dubai.
They do not hide the fact that they do so. “It’s very fakey, fakey, fakey, but that’s what it’s supposed to be,” Coddington said. Even real things seem fake: a year ago, they traveled, at great expense, to the desert of Dubai to shoot a campaign for Louis Vuitton. In the end, the dunes looked computer-generated anyway.'
The Jean Paul Gaultier Jeans advert on the left was shot in 2009 but Mert and Marcus took that shot and copied it in their own style in 2013. They applied their loose composition technique, an off-kilter look that emphasises an instant and more personal feel to the crop but most importantly they have applied their highly saturated look that has stayed with them right from the early days of the Guy Bourdins influence. They have copied it, but evolved it.
Admit it and move on
So it’s fine to copy, like I mentioned at the start, we all started out doing this but if we accept we are copying we have to evolve past it. The key is to not hide it, especially at the start, don't deny you're copying somebody if you are. It's part of the creative process and for those who are 'self taught' you have to copy whether you like it or not because nobody is showing you how to create, you are only left to copy what you've already seen. By accepting this I think it enables us to move past this copying stage far faster and your personal style can emerge on the other side far quicker and far more defined. It's just human nature for us to reject and feel bad about copying, if we acknowledge we are copying we are forced to move on very quickly because although we've acknowledged we're copying we aren't proud of it.
We all inherently want our own voice.
Finally we have Mert and Marcus' most famous copy. On the left we have two images by Jeff Bark from 2009 and on the right we have the 'copy kings' Mert and Marcus doing what they do best. This particular photoshoot of theirs caused huge controversy at the time and although they're very open about their copying, they do usually make more of an effort to add their own mark than this. In fact I am personally inclined to believe that this may well of been more of a marketing ploy by them at the time and a risky one at that (I'd also like to point out that this was huge exposure for Jeff Bark too and if you google the guys name, its always these shots that appear). I don't think there is actually many high profile shooters who could get away with this level of immaculate copying without receiving huge back-lash from the industry. I think it's because Mert & Marcus have always been so open about their copying in the past that everybody just accepted it as just that, a copy and everybody appreciated it for what it was. Brave, but bold and Mert and Marcus made considerable ground on making copying more acceptable purely because if top tier shooters like them can do it, then we all can.
Help me Evolve too
So I'd like to caveat my earlier sweeping statement in my interview, 'I guarantee that a lot of great photographers out their today who actually have their own individual style are the ones who were formally educated.'
I would like to add that although a formal education can actually quicken the process of an individual style, I do believe that copying others and accepting it as such can also be the seed of an individual style.
Here we have an example of a photographer being inspired by my work. This photographer got in touch with me a few months ago thanking me for my tips and tutorials and sent me a few shots to have a look at. The images on the left are my images and the images on the right are their copies. Remember copying is not a bad thing whilst you're developing a style, so resist the temptation to replace the word copy for inspiration at this stage.
A few months later and this is that photographers images now, in fact some of these were actually shot just weeks after he initially sent me his first shots. You don't need a PhD in art theory to see that these are definitely no longer copies. The photographer has evolved the look and developed a clear individual style very quickly. I personally think these images are stunning and I'm certainly impressed by his interpretation of my work, on top of that I will certainly be looking at exploring a darker look to some of my own shots in the future and see where that takes my own personal style.
I personally get sent photos all the time from photographers who are practising my techniques. Sure they're copying me, they're acknowledging it and they're telling me. It's a great process, we discuss the shots they've taken, they reshoot it and without exception the next shoot has evolved and an individual style is starting to already emerge. But it doesn't stop there. I share my techniques, people send me their shots using my techniques and I see new ways of developing my own style too, it's win-win so I love it when people send me their copies.
So go ahead, please send me your copies and allow my style to evolve too :D
Do you agree?
Thank you as always for reading this article. I appreciate your time is important so I am certainly grateful that you decided to spend it here. But what do you guys think about copying? Do you think it’s a valid form of learning? Have you ever copied someone else’s work? Did you mention your inspiration in your final pieces, or did you simply deny it? Let me know in the comments below.
Resources
Photographer: George Hoyningen-Huene
Photographer: Mikael Jansson
Photographer: Patrick Demarchelier
Photographer: James White
Photographer: Guy Bourdin
Photographer: Mert & Marcus
Photographer: Erwin Blumenfeld
Photographer: Jeff Bark
Photographer: Edit April 2017- The photographer who originally took inspiration from my work at the end of this article has asked for his name to be removed from this article.
More Free Tips & Techniques
Thanks as always for checking out my articles. I know your time is precious and there’s almost an infinite amount of other things you could have done with the last 15 minutes of your life, so I really do appreciate you checking this out :)
If you’re after more tips and tricks on studio lighting then don’t forget to check out my monthly newsletter and my free 10 page pdf on studio lighting techniques. If you’re interested then follow the link below and download it immediately.
Did you receive my FREE 10 page PDF on Studio Lighting Tips yet?
Sign up to my monthly newsletter and receive my free 10 page pdf of my all time ‘Top 10 Photography Tips & Techniques’.
Once a month I’ll send you a newsletter of at least four photo related tips and tricks (one for each week I post them on here if you miss them) plus I’ll also keep you apprised of my new workshop dates as well.
