My whole intention is to reach out to people, to express to them the things they would not listen to if in the form of spoken or written word. I want to give people the things they take for granted, or forget, and make them see. I want to wake all those people who are perpetually asleep. I could go on.
So, I would probably still take photographs, but I would likely not bother trying to make art. And I probably would never have gotten into B&W, old cameras, darkroom, alt. processes, etc.
It's really quite a depressing thought, nobody to share with!
I make photographs so I can see them sometime in the future. If someone else looks at them, great, but that's not why I do it. My greatest regret is the photos I could have taken in my past but didn't bother to do so. For me, photography is a way to capture the present in some small way before it becomes the past. A secondary reason to photograph is to be able to look at something that I think is beautiful, but that I can't get to see in person.
Yes, I would continue ... without change as to what I do now.
I really "do" photography for myself. Exhibition, and especially, sharing with others is a very important "extra added attraction"... but not a critical necessity.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
By a staggering coincidence, I only started with LF, old cameras, alt. processes, advanced darkroom (FB paper and homemade developers) and aspirations to "art" when I stopped doing commercial work. I do it because I love it - which should make me a true amateur
Originally Posted by Aurore
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
Hmmm... Getting kind of close to that at the mo'
My main audience (and source of encouragement) used to be my Dad, who used to do quite a bit himself a few decades ago. Unfortunately he died last year, and photography simply hasn't been as much fun since.
I do still take pictures but don't show as many of them around.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Theoretically, I photograph for other people. As a portrait photographer, people come to me to be photographed. They pay me good money for the prints I make for them.
In reality, I photograph strickly for myself. They are just subsidizing my passion to make portraits. They are providing me with the subject matter. Occasionally, I do my own projects, but more often than not my clients are my only subjects.
A very enviable position, I know. I'm very lucky.
First, let me Thank everyone for their input...there was a motive behind the question.
Now to the motive...It is my personal feeling that we take photographs to remember some thing, place, person or event. It has become a part of who and what we are, Thank you pierre.
Our inspirations come from within and often from a dear family member or close friend (I understand FrankB, Mom passed away in June). Yet, I have a untold pleasure in looking at all the wonderful photos from family vacations and family gatherings. Are they images to share with the world? No, Are they worth as much as a Weston, Adams, etc - Absolutely!
So, in this day and age of digital (yes I used the D work), I fear that in one or two generations there will be no family photos to be appreciated (the image was lost, the format is no longer in use, etc.). Digital is here, but what those of us that still enjoy the 'analog' form of photography need to do is try to share with the world (or at least our own little part of it) and continue to make the wonderful images I see coming from everyone here.
If we do not share the beauty we see and capture with our work, in 2,3,4 generations what will they have to hang in there homes, to see at the museums. How will the scholars of the day study what life was like now - becuase now is already gone. One of my favorite things to do is look at old photographs and marvel at how wonderful they are - there is just nothing like a B&W photograph that is 100 years old and still looks like it just out of the final wash..
Thanks again to everyone for your input and for your work...
I completely agree. Almost all my photographs are about the value they will have in the future, not about now. My whole philosophy about it is looking at photographs as a way to stop time. For 125 of a second on such and such a day, in such and such a year, this is what this person looked like. They will never be the same again, and here it is. That is why I shoot now exclusively in black and white. It's timeless and priceless. And the older it gets the more intrinsic value it will have.
That to me is what it is all about.
True. I also think that we may loose a generation of photos, literature, and discourse to the Digital Monster. I mean in 50 years, what if people don't have things archived well. There will be no equivelant of "the trunk in the attic", and our culture may loose a big part of the past. No more love letters between mom and dad. That was all e-mail it was never saved.
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
I agree too.
I have a shot of my Dad; technically it's nothing wonderful, a grab shot with on-camera flash (and hence the hard black shadow behind). But it shows my Dad as I remember him; laughing, warm, strong, supportive. All the things I miss most.
Several people have asked for copies of the print, which I've been only too happy to supply. I hope it will last a long time. I certainly feel safer with it on film than on digital in an ephemeral file format subject to data corruption, accidental deletion, etc. etc.