Those for whom a camera is "an unimaginable luxury"

T

Tuolumne

Veteran
Local time
12:28 AM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,005
Location
The Negev, Israel
View My Gallery
There is a very touching story in today's Bergen Record about former Giants defensive end George Martin's walk across America to raise awareness and funds for first-responders injured in the 9/11 attacks. Martin took over 16,000 photos on his 9 month journey, which will be displayed this weekend in Ringwood, NJ. Martin bacme an inveterate photographer because he was so poor growing up that a camera of any kind was an "unimaginable luxury". Here in his own words:

Martin traces his fascination with photography to the fact that he was born to a family so poor a camera would have been an “extraordinary luxury.”

“I don’t have a single picture of me as an infant or a baby — not a single photo — and it almost seems as though there’s a part of me that’s absent from my existence,” he says. “And so, as [an adult], I said, you know, I’m going to start taking pictures. … You rarely see me without a camera.”
Click to expand...

This is a very sobering reminder on a gear-obsessed forum, that there are still people for whom a camera of any kind is an "unimaginable luxury". It seems to me that a fitting project would be to seek these people out, they are in every city, and take photographs of their families, for them, not for ourselves, as a reminder of what they were like as children.

/T
 
Martin traces his fascination with photography to the fact that he was born to a family so poor a camera would have been an “extraordinary luxury.”

“I don’t have a single picture of me as an infant or a baby — not a single photo — and it almost seems as though there’s a part of me that’s absent from my existence,” he says. “And so, as [an adult], I said, you know, I’m going to start taking pictures. … You rarely see me without a camera.”
Click to expand...

I don't know why but this really moved me. It's sad and quite profound.
 
“I've said this time and time again – people look at me as a hero, because I play a kid's game at a professional level, but these are people who put their careers and their health and their very lives on the line every day and to me, they're the truest form of heroes in our society,” says Martin.

That's a man who has his head and heart in the right place. Amazing.
 
It was probably not so much the cost of the camera as the cost of film and processing that held his family back.
 
Tuolumne said:
It seems to me that a fitting project would be to seek these people out, they are in every city, and take photographs of their families, for them, not for ourselves, as a reminder of what they were like as children.
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the thought occurs to me that people who cannot afford a camera probably could use something else more than a family photo. Maybe a sammich. Little time spent working in a soup kitchen, perhaps.
 
I say we keep the X-mas "Great Pitxu Give-Away Thread" in mind and start another one coming christmas.

It helps you keep focused on the shooting instead of the gear, since you have to consider what to keep and what to give away (and what to sell) and in the process helps others who can use the surplus stuff. But, in the meantime let's keep this quiet, otherwise the closets will be empty in no-time come X-mas 🙂
 
The high prices seem to me the reason why so many family photos - especially colour photos - were so static (All those group photos, portrits in front of trees). Colour photos used to cost about a dollar in the eighties in Austria. And then there was "dad's camera" never to be touched by anyone. So even for those who could afford it it was quite costly.
@ FrankS: Seems so that digital really provides many people with the possibility to have photos of their family. In Germany/Austria cellphone companies provide their customers with free phones (so that it's a mass pehnom) and so people who could not would not a digital camera have at least one in their phone.
But as gear obsessed as this forum may be, I am amazed how often members give away things for free.
 
bmattock said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the thought occurs to me that people who cannot afford a camera probably could use something else more than a family photo. Maybe a sammich. Little time spent working in a soup kitchen, perhaps.
Click to expand...

I disagree 100%.

I have no idea what a 'sammich' is, and neither does my dictionary.

But to suggest that low income people should work harder is utterly crass and obscene beyond belief.

Many of my neighbors are working 12 hours a day for 6 days a week for minimum wage. That would be about €500 ($630) a month.

They are good honest people and a delight to share an evening with now and again.

They cannot afford a camera. And even if they had a camera they could not afford film and processing. Similarly they cannot afford the prices at the local photography studio.

Once every couple of months they celebrate a birthday, or a distant cousin comes to stay, or somebody has a baby. Whatever. They shyly ask me to photograph the event and I am happy to do so.

When I take them a few small prints they are so pleased, and they ask 'How much?'

If we're near the end of the month (pay day, so so they won't have money left from last month) I say the photos are a gift. But if we're near the start of the month I'll accept a very small beer from them, just a few cent.

This is in western Europe in the twenty first century.

Not everybody has access to the toys that people here sometimes seem to have, and frankly telling my neighbors to work in a soup kitchen is an insult to their honest hard-working traditional way of life.

I enjoy their wholesome good company a million million times more than I would enjoy an evening with bmattock.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
I disagree 100%.

I have no idea what a 'sammich' is, and neither does my dictionary.

But to suggest that low income people should work harder is utterly crass and obscene beyond belief.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. My suggestion was that people who want to help the poor and downtrodden might be better served volunteering to work in soup kitchens than by taking pictures of poor people for their scrap books, as they might have more immediate need of food than photographs of themselves.
 
Spider67 said:
The high prices seem to me the reason why so many family photos - especially colour photos - were so static (All those group photos, portrits in front of trees). Colour photos used to cost about a dollar in the eighties in Austria. And then there was "dad's camera" never to be touched by anyone. So even for those who could afford it it was quite costly.
@ FrankS: Seems so that digital really provides many people with the possibility to have photos of their family. In Germany/Austria cellphone companies provide their customers with free phones (so that it's a mass pehnom) and so people who could not would not a digital camera have at least one in their phone.
But as gear obsessed as this forum may be, I am amazed how often members give away things for free.
Click to expand...

I would say it's the camera phone, not digital per se, that has made photography accessible to the masses. Is there anyone without a camera phone??? 🙄

/T
 
bmattock said:
I think you misunderstood me. My suggestion was that people who want to help the poor and downtrodden might be better served volunteering to work in soup kitchens than by taking pictures of poor people for their scrap books, as they might have more immediate need of food than photographs of themselves.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty self-righteous comment in a thread like this. I suppose you think that without your reminder no one would think of charitable acts needed on behalf of the poor?

I urge you to ponder my quote above before replying.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
That's a pretty self-righteous comment in a thread like this.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

I suppose you think that without your reminder no one would think of charitable acts needed on behalf of the poor?
Click to expand...

No. But I admit I was choking back a series of snarky replies which my initial reaction (jaw-dropping amazement at the seeming 'what poor people need is photos of themselves' statements) provoked. I thought I did a pretty good job of not 'attacking' people as I am sometimes accused of doing.

I urge you to ponder my quote above before replying.
Click to expand...

Pondered. I'm still laughing.
 
bmattock said:
I think you misunderstood me. My suggestion was that people who want to help the poor and downtrodden might be better served volunteering to work in soup kitchens than by taking pictures of poor people for their scrap books, as they might have more immediate need of food than photographs of themselves.
Click to expand...

I have gone back and read your words and cannot agree with the above interpretation of them.

Are you bmattock, or bclinton?
 
Tuolumne said:
I would say it's the camera phone, not digital per se, that has made photography accessible to the masses. Is there anyone without a camera phone??? 🙄

/T
Click to expand...

This is true and I think you may agree that this in itself does not guarantee that there will be physical prints to save or cherish. One of the few things I remember from Katrina and Nola was that after their pets, residents grabbed what family photos they could. These were the irreplaceables.
 
Bmattock,
Have you taken the time to read anything here before shooting off your mouth? My suggestion is based on George Martin's own words that not having any photos of his childhood made him feel "as though there’s a part of me that’s absent from my existence." What this has to do with your self-righteous remarks about charity for the poor is beyond me. The next time I see a street photo of yours on this forum I'm going to shove it down your throat until a quarter comes out of your copious a**hole that I can give to the poor on your behalf.

/T
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom