For the last couple of years, my wife has been a passionate student of all things Myers-Briggs. And thus, by the transitive property of marriage, this means that I too have become unwittingly quasi-conversant on the topic.
For the edification of those who lack a fervent family tutor, the “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator” is a rather widely used and somewhat controversial system for sub-dividing humankind into 16 distinct personality types. Based on a theory first floated by Carl Jung, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) defines four dualities that affect human personality: You’re either extraverted (E) or introverted (I); sensing (S) or intuitive (N); thinking (T) or feeling (F); judging (J) or perceiving (P). 16 possible combinations that yield 16 different types of personalities.
My wife’s interest in MBTI was inspired by the demands of her job — a job in which she must stroke the egos, satisfy the psyches and negotiate the best performances from hundreds of different people — quickly and simultaneously. By learning to identify each person’s personality type, she is able to effectively ascertain their needs and motivations — and thus relate with each individual in a way they each understand and appreciate.
Frankly, I used to think Myers-Briggs was a lot of hooey — mostly because I found it nigh impossible to take any of the MBTI tests myself. All the test variants contained far too many either/or questions to which my answer would be “neither” or “it depends.” So one day, still unable to complete a test, I asked my wife to categorize my personality type for me. “Oh, you’re an INTJ,” she said emphatically.
Since I didn’t know an INTJ from an EIEIO, she read me a couple of profiles that described my personality type, my motivations and the circuity of my thought processes. It was uncanny. All my life I believed I simply possessed a higher percentage of alien DNA than the rest of humanity. Turns out I was just an INTJ.
This got me thinking — perhaps I could expand on the Myers-Briggs concept, and create an addendum specific to photographers. Surely these same techniques could be used to classify all the different types of photographers and their motivations? It would go a long way toward helping each photographer learn what makes them click that shutter release, along with when, where and at what they should concentrate those clicks. Besides, I was bereft of any better ideas upon which to base a new article. So I rolled up my sleeves and gave it a good hard 10 minutes of thought — resulting in the creation of the Ultrasomething Photographer Type Indicator (UPTI).
Just as with MBTI, the UPTI specifies four fundamental psychological dualities, which guide all photographers:
- Are your motivations external (E) or internal (I)?
Is your photographic direction dictated by praise and appreciation, and a yearning to satisfy and grow your audience? Or could you not be bothered to care what other people might think of your photos — just as long as you’re happy with them?
- Are you a literal (L) or metaphorical (M) practitioner of photography?
Do you tend to take photographs principally for the purpose of documenting what’s in front of the camera (even if it’s to alter it in some idealistic way)? Or do you take photographs in which the subject of the photos isn’t really about what’s in the frame, so much as what’s implied by it?
- Are you a builder (B) or a hunter (H)?
Do you generally prefer to construct your photographs — either in the studio or through carefully conceived camera, lighting or subject placement in the field? Or do you prefer to hunt for images — accepting and photographing whatever appears before you and in whatever manner it appears?
- Are you more drawn to quality (Q) or to subject (S)?
Are you generally more concerned with what your photos look like (image quality, contrast, focus, sharpness, fidelity, etc)? Or do you care more about the subject matter (regardless of its technical merit, or lack thereof)?
Obviously, it’s unlikely that your placement within any of these four UPTI functions will be “absolute.” For example, your photography might not be solely reliant on quality (Q) nor solely reliant on subject (S), but likely some mix of the two. It is, however, probable that one extreme will be more highly weighted than the other, and the sum of those weightings will determine your Ultrasomething Photographer Type Indicator.
I am, without any doubt, an IMHS. Anyone reading this blog for the past few years could easily have guessed as much.
So what are you? What is your UPTI? If you like, feel free to share your UPTI classification in the comments section. And remember, no one classification is better than any other. They’re just different — which is a good thing. Because without differences, we’d all be taking the same photos. And how boring would that be?
©2015 grEGORy simpson
ABOUT THE PHOTOS: The photos that accompany this article are, not coincidentally, precisely the sort of thing you’d expect to see come from the camera of an IMHS.
“Another Facebook Moment” definitely has nothing to do with the girls in the photo, and everything to do with lampooning the ubiquity and excessive prominence of social media. Of course, now that I know I’m an INTJ, that whole social media mockery thing of mine makes perfect sense. Photographed with a Leica M Monochrom (Type 246) and a 21mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar-M lens.
“Near Miss” is, again, another photo that really has nothing to do with the subject shown. If it were, I’d probably have shot closer (or used a longer lens). Instead, it’s about context. We don’t know why the man is lying on the sidewalk and this photo isn’t going to tell us. And, rest assured, I certainly didn’t put him on the sidewalk for the sake of this picture. No, it’s really a photo about choices — the wide angle lens indicating a wealth of possibly more appropriate places for the man to lie — perhaps one of the several nearby benches? Or even the Comfort Inn on the corner? Shot with a Leica IIIc and a Voigtlander 25mm f/4 Snapshot-Skopar lens on Tri-X at ISO 400, and developed in a 1:50 solution of Rodinal.
“Open Invitation” — Is this a botched portrait of a man on the street, or is it a gift-wrapped moment of serendipity marrying a momentary body position with a most appropriate sign? Photographed with a Leica M Monochrom (Type 246) and a 28mm f/2 Summicron lens.
“Misfit” is a technical mess. Blurry. Out of focus. Improperly exposed. I couldn’t care less. Because the subject of the photo (which isn’t the man in the mascot outfit, but the pregnant space between him and the other people on the bench) is all that matters. At least it’s all that matters to me. Did I mention I only take photos to please myself? Shot with an Olympus OMD-EM1 with an Olympus 12mm f/2 lens.
REMINDER: If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.
Honoring the fourth paragraph I am definitely a DuDe: Dunno/Depends …
Ahhh… The first response, and it’s a “DuDe” response! Apparently, the UPTI extension is even more accurate than I had initially hoped! Thanks, Michael. 🙂
I am DuDe in some respects but will go further and qualify.
Overall ILHS
1st is simple. I
2nd. I am 70%L 30%M, but I want to be more M. The shot I am most proud of recently was 100% M.
3rd H
4th 70%S 30%Q. If the subject is right then great, the more q justs adds to it.
Cheers
Jason
Jason:
Unlike MBTI, where you sort of “are who you are” and learn to use your strengths and compensate for your weaknesses, I think it’s more likely for photographers to move through different UPTI stages over time. I know, when I was taking photos commercially, I was more “E” than “I” (I had to be if I wanted to get paid). Similarly, I was forced to be more “B” than “H,” (time is money, after all), more “L” than “M,” and more “Q” than “S.” In other words, as a commercial photographer, it was necessary that I be the exact opposite of what I am now.
The question, I suppose, is “did I become the way I am now as a reaction against commercial photography?” or “was I always the way I am, and this is precisely why I am no longer involved with commercial photography?”
The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I think I actually was an “E” early in my photographic life — I only became an “I” once I realized that the better I got as a photographer, the fewer people actually liked what I did.
So, I think it’s perfectly within one’s capabilities to “shift” classifications (over time). In your case, the desire to be more “M” than “L” will ultimately drive your efforts in that direction — and the more successful you get at it, the less you’ll be lured by the “L.”
At present I consider myself:
– Weak E, moving to I most recently
– L, but happy for viewers to assume M
– Strong H
– Split Q / S
Interesting I am also an INTJ – which makes me question this “social” post I’m making – photography has that power you know.
Phil
PS – What is this Facebook you mention? I am likely to find it in my local library? Do you happen to know its Dewey Decimal Classification?
Thanks, Phil!
I know you’re joking about the “M” thing, but some of my best “M” photos came into existence as intended “L”s. I think “M,” by its very nature, is much more difficult to see regularly and reliably in the field. So while we might well try to achieve “M” when pressing the shutter release, it’s often as much a result of our curatorial choice as it is our shooting choice.
And of course you’re an INTJ: Who else could rationalize the obvious oxymoron inherent in being a “MEMBER of the London INDEPENDENT photographers?”
Egor,
Reading this site has made my UPTI classification change more than I thought it would, but more of that in the future….
Thank you!
Phil
Egor, I’m just happy your test is called the “UPTI.” Says it all really.
My status? Definitely depends.
Best,
Don
I’m not sure I’m so keen to be classified in this (or any) way. My photographic interests are like the wind, sometimes, and I tend to enjoy a way too broad range of styles from myself and others. I guess I just like what’s “good”. But it does make it tough to nail down my “style”.
I do like the DuDe thing though. I’d have to say I’m more Lebowski than Walter in most things. Too bad about Donny…
I can certainly abide by this…
Egor,
IMHO, this is a huge, IMMENSE, refinement to the previous one-dimensional “pictorial vs. poetic” model!
It literally opens new horizons to our understanding and study of the nature of photographic creativity (or any other for that matter). Instead of a simple dichotomy (or 3VL-style trichotomy – True/False/Unknown, or, at best, a scalar characteristic represented by a real number within, say, [-1, 1] interval) we now are looking at a FOUR-DIMENSIONAL CUBE with 16 vertices, 32 edges, 24 faces, …, and what-not inside!
Assuming for argument’s sake that ELBQ corresponds to [-1, -1, -1, -1] vertex and IMHS to [1, 1, 1, 1] one, the “pictorial vs. poetic” classification roughly corresponds to the diagonal line connecting those 2 opposite vertices. We see now how limiting that primitive model has been indeed!
Now, the nature of one’s creativity can be represented as a point in a 4-dimentional space, and the 4 degrees of freedom provide for truly rich and subtle classification!
Take, for example, Jason. He is at the point with coordinates [1, -0.4, 1, 0.4]. Your, Egor, evolution (as you describe it) is essentially a curve starting somewhere in the vicinity of [-1,-1,-1,-1] and ending exactly at the [1, 1, 1, 1] vertex – NEC PLUS ULTRA! Phil apparently hovers somewhere around [-0.1, -0.5, 1, 0].
Now regarding DuDe-ness. In absence of a better term – please correct me if I’ve missed one – I suggest “WiDo” (Without Doubt) as the opposite to DuDe (Dunno/Depends). DuDes appear to flock around the coordinate origin (the center of the cube), while WiDos inhabit vicinities of the cube’s vertices.
DuDeness could be represented by a number inverse to the distance from the origin, but since that would imply dealing with potentially huge numbers approaching infinity, here is a more human measure:
2 – distance_from_the_origin.
Note that 2 is the distance from the origin [0, 0, 0, 0] to any of the 16 vertices; thus, using the proposed formula, 2 will make a perfect DuDe and 0 – a perfect WiDo. The number is easy to calculate. E.g. Jason:
First, sum up squares of the coordinates: 1²+(-0.4) ²+(0.4) ²+1²=2.32. Take a square root of that: ?2.32 = 1.52. This is the distance from the center. Finally, 2-1.52 = 0.48. So, the calculations prove that he’s not that much of a DuDe after all: only 0.48 out of 2.0!
And all this is just the beginning! What you’ve made me dream of (and, these days, by means of Crowdsourcing it can be achieved!) is to collect such four-dimensional characteristics on as many well-known photographers as possible – from Struth and Moriyama to Höfer and Webb – from as many volunteer assessor as possible, and study the distribution of the corresponding points inside the cube. It may – who knows – reveal something stunning, like … like another Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, for all we know!
Well… I feel like taking a break now – my thoughts being so scattered. It’s because of a feeling of witnessing with my own eyes a potential fundamental breakthrough.
Hope to continue later.
WiDo I’m a DuDe, man …
Michael: Brilliantly played! And thanks for inventing the DuDe designation, though I fear it sounds so much cooler than any of my designations that it might just influence one’s own self-rating.
Efrem:
UPTI, like most things written on ULTRAsomething, is a tongue-in-cheek presentation of a philosophy with an element of truth hidden in the middle. Your comments have just expanded that “element of truth” into an entire universe. Your proposals (and the math behind them) make perfect theoretical sense. The problem, I think, is figuring out the proper way to determine exactly where one fits inside this 4-D space of 16 vertices. Sure, I might be strongly IMHS, but am I all the way at the corner? For example, I’m definitely Subject-oriented, but I still want my photos to have a certain “look.” Obviously, it’s not a look born of “quality”, but it does imply that, on some level, the look of my photos matters to me — even if it’s in an anti-quality sort of way. So what does that make me? 90% S? 80% S? 70%? I’m not sure. And because of this level of uncertainty, it would be rather unlikely that two identically motivated photographers would actually place themselves in the same 4-dimensional space. Tests would need to be devised that standardized this — and tests are definitely the weakest link in the MBTI chain, so I would expect the same to be true here. That said, if anyone’s going to crack that nut, I think it’s going to be you.
Not too surprising, I guess, for an INTJ to be an IMHS. I’m similarly INTJ but would go for ILHS at this point in my photographic arc… So I can immediately see further work is needed! Might the MBTI categories map to the UPTIs (for starters I’d guess an I or E in one would correlate to an I or E in t’other)? Given it is commonly thought that one’s MBTI type is pretty much baked-in, just how much might one’s UPTI type reasonably change over time (I think I’m on an arc, but am I just kidding myself)? And, knowing that an INTJ makes a better scientist than an actor (who’d probably have more success if they were ESFP), what success is likely for an ILHS as a fashion photographer (to pick a photographic genre at random)?
Lester:
Yeah, I thought about the correlation possibilities myself. And while I think there’s a minor probability that one’s MBTI might influence their UPTI, I believe the two are substantially different.
As you mentioned, one can move through UPTI phases, whereas it’s unlikely for one to stray too far from their MBTI. But one’s MBTI could impact just how much (and how drastically) one does alter their UPTI throughout life (some MBTI’s are more open to experimentation and new ideas than others).
But direct letter-to-letter correlation doesn’t quite work. My initial thought was that, of all the letters, the one most likely to correlate was S/N to L/M. As S’s tend to be more literal communicators than N’s, I thought this might have an effect on one’s photography. But, as you mentioned, you’re an N but have L photographic qualities. Then there are some MBTI’s that are “neat and organized” and some that aren’t. You would think that people with the neat and organized characteristic would tend to be builders and quality seekers — but as a “neat” INTJ, I exhibit the opposite traits photographically.
So, ultimately, I think one’s MBTI is more likely to affect the way someone approaches satisfying their photographic goals than they affect the actual goals themselves.
That’s odd. I’m an IMHQ. Is that even possible? And how is it I like the photographs of an IMHS? There’s somethng fishy here, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. (Now, where did I put my camera… no, not that camera – the other camera…)
DuDe here, without any doubt. All I know is I’m glad not to be in it for the money (which money?).
I really don’t see how the Myers-Briggs classification would invalidate the Alien DNA hypothesis…
If I could bring myself to pick up a camera again I’d like to be an IMHS, but for the moment that’s an entirely hypothetical wishful self-classification (does that count?). In practice I’m just an INTP.
Egor
My ex employer gave up on MB because everybody made fun of it eg
INTJ = I never tell jokes
ISTJ = I sometimes tell jokes
INTP = I never take the piss
ISTP = I sometimes take the piss
You can guess how F was used so I’d better stop there
Another IMHS here. Anything else bores me stupid.
Funny how I always find the INTJs. I must have a nose for alien DNA or something? I nearly always test as INFP, although close to the cusp of INTP. One time when I was going through a really bad patch I tested as INTJ.
The way I understand the difference between INTP and INTJ is that the INTP are huge geeks and will build an army of robots, because killer robots are pretty rad and cool and who doesn’t want a hot cylon girlfriend?
Whereas INTJ is also a huge geek but has turned to the dark side and has a detailed plan worked out for what to do with his killer robot army once he has finished building it. So I guess you might have an idea where my head was at during said rough patch.
Apparently you can’t be an INFP borderline INTP though because the difference entirely changes how the various cognitive functions stack up. Which is kind of why, like you, I suspect the whole thing is a bunch of baloney.
It’s all way too systematized, and human animals are so inherently chaotic and messy, except perhaps the INTx’s who have minds either like rat mazes, or slot machines, depending on some other variable.
As an INFP my consciousness is rather more like a slime mold than a mechanical contraption, and while I have a decent intuition for STEM type stuff, if I had to live in that place permanently, I would have surely leaped from a tall building by now so that I could be with my pigeon friends.