rty said:
A very thoughtful article I must say.
I think there is a general misconception that salon photography equals what Red Dawn says as "contrived, fake, devoid of emotions and any creative input."
And I say this with basis. Out of the 6005 acceptances in 2439 international salons that my dad gathered from 1962 to 1997, and even in the works he does at present, not many are from what Red Dawn described : "You book a studio, arrange for actors / models (make sure to include some old men, young pretty china looking ladies, or some indian hunk - get a good mix), get them proper costumes and props, filter in some smoke (very important), arrange the lights, and let e bunch of guys who paid a certain amount of money to take turns taking pots shots of a scene in which they neither contrive or setup, and thereafter, review photos and compare the sharpness of each others' lenses". That in my opinion is a very narrow view of what salon photography is all about. (As an aside, in fact I think that sounds somewhat more like the model shoots which some of our more prominent members here arrange/attend
)
Of course, that is what many societies at present organise in their attempt to promote what they think might be salon photography -- these are all set-up situations to learn the finer points of salon photography, but ultimately, being able to capture everyday scenes such that they might appear to be "set-up" but are actually shot candidly. That I think is the real challenge for a salon photographer.
The point is, even without a setup / "contrived" scene, countless opportunities exist in real life itself to create pictures of salon standards. I would claim that I aspire more towards the salon standards of photography (given the influence of my dad) but take a look at my portfolio: are many of the pictures I have taken contrived or setup? In fact, I would say that a large number of them are taken on the street, just like many guys claim to do: "street photography" but in my case, with a salon "flavour" or touch to the final picture.
Even the pictures from my dad's extensive portfolio are taken from scenes of everyday life, and that has been how it is since he started out in his lifelong journey in photography since the 1950/60s. And the criticism about salon photography lacking in creativity: my father was awarded his FRPS and other awards for his work in colour derivatives and darkroom techniques (some involving diazochrome processing) in contemporary photography. Many of his award-winning works were painstaking done them manually by sandwiching multiple layers of transparency film with manual masking (many of which can be easily done in Photoshop now). While some traditionalists in those days pooh-poohed the idea, saying ironically that the pictures were not real, he pioneered and made that his personal/unique style which was subsequently admired and aspired to by many of his contemporaries.
Anyway, this is just my two cents worth on salon photography in general. Ultimately, like some of you said here, to each his own. Just as art has evolved through different eras and styles through the hands of masters like Leonardo da Vinci, Pablo Picasso and Rembrandt, so too will photography, which is afterall an artform in its own right. Only time and history will testify to its changes/evolution.
Regards.
