As many of you know I met up with Sabrina Henry, Stuart & JoEllen Sipahigil, Sue & Pat Ables and Mark Olwick in Chicago the other weekend for a photographic love-in that has I believe had a profound impact on us all. I knew from the friendship formed in the twittersphere that we had 4 very different styles, talents, visions and the potential for a memorable weekend converging into a single location with arguably a single purpose – to visit the Henri Cartier Bresson exhibition in the company of like minded spirits. But I am not sure I was prepared to come away feeling that I had just experienced a vision eureka moment. Let me explain.

All of our blogs, flickr accounts, facebook pages and tweets bear evidence that we were all there together and forged friendships that will transcend the different continents and timezones that we all live on. But what has really struck me, in retrospection, was the entirely different approach we all took to capturing our images. I am not just talking about the technical differences – between us we shot on Holgers, Leica, Canon, Nikons, Olympus, wide angle, fixed focal length, film, full sensor, crop sensor and point and shoot. I am talking about our different inspiration and therefore our different vision.

Whilst I was in Chicago I set myself a number of exercises. This post is the final one of those exercises, where I wanted to explore how important my own end vision of an image was to me as part of my own creative process.

I am going to show you 2 images. First off, I’ll show you how I chose to process them as color images. Remember, I had my own vision for this and I had deliberately selected certain aesthetic settings to achieve that, including the idea that I wanted to show the vibrancy of the neon lights and color as dusk fell.

Before I show you the imitated vision, I want to give you some context. I know it is invidious to name names but to illustrate better what I mean I need to be a little cheeky and amplify my argument with some personal observations – so apologies to the Chicago crew.

Take Sabrina’s approach for example. For those of us who have had the privilege of meeting Sabrina, we all have experienced what a great listener she is. She is naturally empathetic and reflective, she seldom offers a suggestion or idea that isn’t both positive or well considered and you immediately warm to her. So while I was trying to melt the latest Lexmark card terrified of missing a single decisive moment, Sabrina waited patiently until the city spoke to her. It called to her early in the morning. Her resulting images showed a private, local, insightful side of Chicago that few casual visitors ever see. Her decision to process in strong contrast Black and White totally reflected her vision for a city transferring from night to day; from local to tourists and from asleep to awake. Check out her blog for her inspiring images.

Or Stuart’s take. I know from being with Stuart on a workshop in Italy that little gets by him. He has an effortless laid back manner that lulls you into a false sense of security. He’ll claim that he “just happened to be there at the precise moment that a ray of light lit up the statue of the Madonna in an otherwise dark Italian graveyard” but, a little like our joint new hero, Cartier Bresson, luck is not really part of his repertoire. He is able to observe things; to anticipate; to spot a trend or a movement that will lead to a “Cartier Bresson decisive moment”. Some of you have yet to see Stuart’s image of two children playing in the fountain called “Can we talk”. Seek it out and you will see what I mean. Or just look at the way that he overlaid the famous “blues” of Chicago onto its other famous signature, its skyline, to provide a stunning series of selenium shots that emphasize the different architectural styles, yet bring them all together into a cohesive group that screams “CHICAGO”

Although we have yet to see Mark Olwick’s images from the trip because he used film, I know from having watched him that we are in for a treat. He will have spotted a combination of light and shadow, texture and form that will leave most of us wondering if we were on the same trip as him. His true post processing technique in the darkroom allows him complete control over how he will realize his vision for how he saw Chicago. And perhaps the largest dollop of respect goes to Sue Ables, who seldom drew the camera to her eye because on this rare occasion she wasn’t getting the inspiration she needed and rather than as so many of us would have bowed to peer pressure, she decided not to force the issue or get frustrated, but to just observe, reflect and wait for the moment.

The common theme then for all of these talented photographers is that, however much they feel they are still on a journey (and it seems that no matter how great, respected or published you are, we are all still on a journey of discovery), there is a maturity about how they approach their vision for each image. If they spot an opportunity it is seldom point, click and move on. Aesthetic selections of shutter speed, ISO, film type, lens selection, time of day, light, primary subject etc are all made with an end vision in mind. Post processing, sometimes consciously and sometimes subconsciously, forms part of the process even before the shutter is clicked, but for every image they strive to have an end vision in mind. And of course there is no way any of us can replicate the exact conditions or decisions to arrive at precisely the same point, the same way, with the same outcome. In other words we cannot copy and get away with it. With ourselves or with any one else for that matter.

Okay, back out of the rat hole and back on message! I am now going to show you how those original images look when I imitated first Stuart’s style and then Sabrina’s. To copy Stuart’s style I use a selenium blue presets and for Sabrina’s I took a strong Black and white contrast

I am not saying that their style is right or wrong, or that the images are better or worse for having tried to copy them. What I am saying is that they are different and, crucially to my mind, show a Chicago that either I wasn’t observant enough to spot or that just doesn’t convey what the City said to me. Or at least for me that is the result. Why? Well simply because they no longer convey the story, mood, feeling or message that I had originally intended. Although both of my original color images are competent in terms of composition or style or technique, the end vision is changed.

Is this making sense? I am not saying that simply using someone else’s Lightroom preset squanders your vision or that you are guilty of plagiarism or that good post-processing will transform rescue an image It might but hat is not the point here. Actually using presets suggests efficiency and expediency because they are a starting point, not an end point in themselves. I am saying that if you only rely on other people’s vision, settings, style or inspiration then your vision is hollow. That type of imitation will kill your vision. And without vision, no amount of imitation will rescue your images. Putting lipstick on a pig does little to hide the fact that it is still a pig, albeit a more ridiculous pig than before.

I have come away with a renewed confidence that my vision is sound – fledgling but sound. It needs to be explored, watered, nurtured, tested, stretched and inspired. But it must never be a pale imitation of what it could be or indeed an imitation of anyone else’s.

I’d be really interested in your thoughts on this, so please re-tweet and comment away! and for those of you kind enough to pander to my ego, I will be posting the full Chicago set tomorrow on facebook and flickr.