Stuck In A Hole - How to find enjoyment in actually taking photos?

[zane0777]

I suggest documenting "a day in the life." Go to bed with a camera at your side, take some when you wake, and continue as you go about your day. Have your companion take pics of you as well. It may seem mundane at the time, but in twenty or thirty years you might find it a fascinating record. A camera is a time machine, after all.

 

[CMur12]

Hi Jake,

I remember you posting here at sixteen years old. I was amazed at your knowledge of photography at such a young age and what you were doing with it. Being so much younger than most here, you had the joy, energy, and the perspective of youth. I enjoyed reading your posts, and I've often wondered during your absence what had become of you. So, thanks for the update; I'm glad to see you back!

In my own case, I was obsessed with photography for a long time, living in different countries, and shooting with different cameras. I was shooting mostly landscape and nature, and I dabbled a bit in window-light portraiture. Then it all stopped. I got tired of looking at everything around me from a photographic perspective, and I just wanted to observe and experience my surroundings directly for what they were. I think about photography constantly, but I haven't taken pictures for a long time. Perhaps I fear getting locked into that "photographic perspective" I just mentioned.

I would like to do something different, more graphic and more abstract, but I'm not sure where to look. I think I would need to start looking more at manmade objects for straight lines and geographic shapes, which is rather foreign to me. I probably just need to take a camera with me and look at houses, buildings, and objects around town.

Anyway, I don't know if any of this jibes with your situation or that of anyone else here. I've never seen anyone on the forum describe the same situation.

Glad to have you back, Jake. You've done a lot of experimenting and learning, and I wish you well in the next phase of your life that you have now set before you.

- Murray

PS. My father bought a Rover P6, sold in the US as the Rover 2000 TC (twin-carb version), in early 1968. It was one of the safest cars on the road and it embodied brilliant engineering. It also handled like a sports car. I have many fond memories of that car, and your photos of yours in another thread trigger a load of nostalgia for me.

 

[Ororaro]

My personal recommendation, according to what I understand from you, is that you are a craftsman more than a simple button pusher.

Therefore, film is for you.

I’d definitely start all over with only one Rolleiflex, the ultimate camera for slow, contemplative and poetic photography, and darkroom work.

The whole philosophy of film + Rolleiflex will open doors to a world of unique imagery and away from the digital, the fast, the worthless visual pollution that 35mm cameras tend to provide in larger quantities.

As a sidenote, nothing beats the rolleiflex for documenting the family and kids. Years of piled up square 4x4 prints is an unmatchable testament of life.
And no, digital can never match this.

The Rolleiflex is a magical device that keeps on giving and giving.

 

[Godfrey]

My personal recommendation, according to what I understand from you, is that you are a craftsman more than a simple button pusher.

Therefore, film is for you.

I’d definitely start all over with only one Rolleiflex, the ultimate camera for slow, contemplative and poetic photography, and darkroom work.

The whole philosophy of film + Rolleiflex will open doors to a world of unique imagery and away from the digital, the fast, the worthless visual pollution that 35mm cameras tend to provide in larger quantities.

As a sidenote, nothing beats the rolleiflex for documenting the family and kids. Years of piled up square 4x4 prints is an unmatchable testament of life.
And no, digital can never match this.

The Rolleiflex is a magical device that keeps on giving and giving.

I disagree. A Rolleiflex is a lovely camera, yes; but how it is used has nothing to do with a philosophy of "slow, contemplative and poetic photography", et al. It's a lovely camera that can be used by any photographer in a variety of ways. ... A 1949 Rolleiflex was the camera my grandfather loaned me to learn photography with when I started high school. I used it to shoot sports (football and basketball games), portraits, class photos for the year book, etc. I did some landscape and art photography with it too.

(Nor would I make any presumptions about what the OP's photographic interest are.)

I switched to Hasselblads in the early '00s because they were more flexible with the interchangeable lenses and backs, and now I fit a digital back on the Hasselblad as well. I still make landscape and art photographs with it, as well as portraits and occasionally even sports work. I used them when I was working for NASA/JPL to do aerial photography of our target sites for imaging with the radar system we were developing... The camera doesn't work much differently just because I changed the recording medium.

Working with film is in many ways even more rote, repetitive work than working with digital capture. What about mixing developer and fixer, and timing development, is "contemplative and poetic"? Please let me know.

These things with any camera are what the photographer brings to the work, not the camera.
The camera simply does what a camera is supposed to do.

G

 

[Cascadilla]

My personal recommendation, according to what I understand from you, is that you are a craftsman more than a simple button pusher.

Therefore, film is for you.

I’d definitely start all over with only one Rolleiflex, the ultimate camera for slow, contemplative and poetic photography, and darkroom work.

The whole philosophy of film + Rolleiflex will open doors to a world of unique imagery and away from the digital, the fast, the worthless visual pollution that 35mm cameras tend to provide in larger quantities.

As a sidenote, nothing beats the rolleiflex for documenting the family and kids. Years of piled up square 4x4 prints is an unmatchable testament of life.
And no, digital can never match this.

The Rolleiflex is a magical device that keeps on giving and giving.

A 4x5 or 8x10 view camera is a lot slower than a Rolleiflex but doesn't automatically lead to more contemplative or poetic photography. These discussions usually come back to "horses for courses" and that is good advice--trying to shoot wildlife with a 4x5 monorail would be a fool's errand, just as shooting a detailed still life with a half frame camera is likely to be unsatisfying. I agree that a Rolleiflex would be a great camera for family pictures--waist level finders work well for photographing children at their level.

 

[wlewisiii]

The Rolleiflex is a magical device that keeps on giving and giving.

I own and love using my 1937 Automat but this post was hilariously way over the top and is best ignored by the OP.

 

[DownUnder]

My personal recommendation, according to what I understand from you, is that you are a craftsman more than a simple button pusher.

Therefore, film is for you.

I’d definitely start all over with only one Rolleiflex, the ultimate camera for slow, contemplative and poetic photography, and darkroom work.

The whole philosophy of film + Rolleiflex will open doors to a world of unique imagery and away from the digital, the fast, the worthless visual pollution that 35mm cameras tend to provide in larger quantities.

As a sidenote, nothing beats the rolleiflex for documenting the family and kids. Years of piled up square 4x4 prints is an unmatchable testament of life.
And no, digital can never match this.

The Rolleiflex is a magical device that keeps on giving and giving.

Respectfully, we should all agree to disagree on this and the subsequent posts. Ideas and thoughts...

I used TLRs in the 1960s when I first discovered photography and got seriously involved in it, much like the OP. In my case, my first was a Yashica D, the only good camera I could afford at the time - I recall I paid CDN $45 for it, a small fortune for me as a 13 year old. Five years later I lucked into a Rolleiflex 3.5 at an affordable price, the purchase of which took me quickly into 'art' photography of lovely landscapes, neat flowing lines of barns and other old buildings, close ups of old fishing boats and lobster traps, and suchlike. Now I look at the 2000 or so negatives I have left from that long past era, and marvel - at how static they are.

I readily identify with Ororaro's ideas but from my experience I would firmly draw the line at recommending a Rollei - or any TLR - as a 'universal' camera. I used my TLRs for a LOT of commercial and news photography for seven years, and I found they were fine for static subjects and posed scenes like social groups at weddings, but of little use to me for anything involving 'fast' or 'immediate' subjects of photography.

Instead the OP may care to consider carefully studying his personal areas of interest in photography, and if he opts to buy a new camera, it should be one best suited to his own style of image-making. Film or digital isn't so important, altho' in this high-cost-for-everything age the price of film and processing would have to be factored in.

An interesting thread, this. With a diversity of opinions. And I hope, useful to Jake in working his way through what appears to me to be one of the many such existential crises as we all go through in life.

 

[Ororaro]

In this age where an iphone fulfills anything photographically, it has decidedly proven one thing without a doubt: not everyone is an artist.

Happily.

The Rolleiflex is not for everyone.

 

[mdarnton]

I was a lot better photographer when I was shooting two or three rolls a day, tasked with finding six good, solid photos every single day. When I have some sort of long term project the results are completely different from those when casually carrying a camera around daily, looking for a good once-in-a-while shot. In more recent years I have very few of this type of big project, but when I do it always gives something good compared with the daily grind of basically not being a photographer.

So that's my advice: find a project.
What camera you use doesn't matter even a tiny bit.

 

[brothernature]

I recommend Robert Adams' book Why People Photograph, particularly his essay "Colleagues." For myself, I depend so much on the work of others. When I'm feeling in a rut as you describe, I return to the people whose work I love the most. When I open a book by Henry Wessel, Philip Perkis, Steinmetz, Levitt, Eggleston, Sage Sohier, Curran Hatleburg, etc etc.. I often find that after, I can't get out the door fast enough with my camera.

edit:
I'll also echo a bit of what others are saying. The camera, of course, doesn't matter. I myself can be guilty of using these fallow periods as an excuse to buy a new camera. It's easy to fall into the trap of "once I have ___ camera and ___ lens then I can start." This only costs you more money and wastes the precious time in your life you could be out in the world photographing, finding what it is that makes you feel some kind of connection.

 

[brothernature]

My personal recommendation, according to what I understand from you, is that you are a craftsman more than a simple button pusher.

Therefore, film is for you.

And no, digital can never match this.

 

[Bill Clark]

I was fortunate.

Discovered a person who was my mentor and coach.

Recommend you do the same.

It’s not about gear.

It’s about posing, lighting and composition and connection with your subject if you’re making photographs of people. And a few other ingredients are necessary in order to be happy and successful.

 

[Ororaro]

Wow that’s so cool.

On the subject of computer music, do you perhaps have a video featuring Miles Davis? Keith Jarrett?
I’d particularly love to see the part where Yo-Yo Ma explains why he ditched his 1712 Stradivarius Cello in favor of a Synthesizer…

 

[Ororaro]

What’s happening in here? Of course the camera most definitely matters.

I get it, in a post-apocaliptic world you’d see me walking naked, or using water bottles as shoes and someone else’s scalp on my head in guise of a hat. But in our present world, things are not as primal and basic.

This is why for a Tinder date you will wear your best clothes, and for a hobby to be successful, you want the most suitable object of desire to fit your need and personality.

I could never ignite my love for Photography by using a Sony, nor ignite my love for driving by driving a Hyundai Sonata.

Let’s get real for a moment, please, guys…

 

[rfaspen]

Well.....in some ways the camera does matter:

-> First, there is the need for the right kind of tool to perform an objective/task. That's the technical side of things. For example, I find that I really do need an SLR (or similar TTL viewing) camera with a long lens (long being relative to the sensor format) to effectively photograph shy birds located in trees that are not close to me. Just ain't happening with my rangefinder and 50mm lens, or my 4x5 and 90/135mm lenses. Right? Argumentative folks might say, "it doesn't have to be an SLR, it could be a mirrorless", or "it doesn't have to be a 600mm f/4 telephoto, it could be a 200mm /4 and you crop". To which I say, "sure, but we're still talking about the right kind of tool for the stated objective. No?"

-> Second, there is also something to be said for "enjoying" the photographic process. Much less tangible, and maybe quite different for others, but I just don't feel like picking up my m4/3 digital and using it when I see it sitting on the table. However, when I see my Leica M on the table in the spare bedroom, I get a kind of "impulse" to pick it up and use it. I guess I just enjoy holding the M, enjoy how the lens focuses, enjoy the way I frame with it, etc. So it becomes "inviting". Just isn't the case with my Oly m4/3 camera, even though it makes perfectly nice photos too. Hopefully this makes sense? Like I said, this is one of those intangible things that might not be the experience of all the individuals of my species.

Of course, with all other things being equal, it certainly doesn't matter which camera I used when looking at the final product (which is a physical print for me). Did I achieve my objective (vision, etc.)?

So, folks can disucss how the camera doesn't matter at all. I know where I fit in that spectrum.....and I'm happy there.

 

[brothernature]

What’s happening in here? Of course the camera most definitely matters.

I get it, in a post-apocaliptic world you’d see me walking naked, or using water bottles as shoes and someone else’s scalp on my head in guise of a hat. But in our present world, things are not as primal and basic.

This is why for a Tinder date you will wear your best clothes, and for a hobby to be successful, you want the most suitable object of desire to fit your need and personality.

I could never ignite my love for Photography by using a Sony, nor ignite my love for driving by driving a Hyundai Sonata.

Let’s get real for a moment, please, guys…

With the amount of artistry Miles Davis had, I imagine he could have produced a number of beautiful sounds from any number of instruments, synthesizer included if he had the interest to. What's the Lennon quote? "I'm an artist, if you gave me a tuba I'd get you something out of it"

I don't discredit wanting to have a certain amount of fascination with the device one is using to produce, but in photography, it's far too often over thought and obsessed over to the point where thoughts on the actual work being made with it is lost.

 

[raydm6]

Wow that’s so cool.

On the subject of computer music, do you perhaps have a video featuring Miles Davis? Keith Jarrett?
I’d particularly love to see the part where Yo-Yo Ma explains why he ditched his 1712 Stradivarius Cello in favor of a Synthesizer…

My favorite work by Keith on a 200+ year-old baroque organ. Still have the double-vinyl release on ECM.

Hymns/Spheres - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The original liner notes state:

These improvisations were recorded on the "Trinity Organ", the larger of the two Karl Joseph Riepp (1710–1775) organs at the Benedictine Abbey Ottobeuren.
No overdubs, technical ornamentations or additions were utilized, only the pure sound of the organ in the abbey is heard.
Many of the unique effects, although never before used, were accomplished by pulling certain stops part way, while others remain completely open or closed.
Amazingly, baroque organs have always had this capability.

 

[Ororaro]

With the amount of artistry Miles Davis had, I imagine he could have produced a number of beautiful sounds from any number of instruments, synthesizer included if he had the interest to. What's the Lennon quote? "I'm an artist, if you gave me a tuba I'd get you something out of it"

I don't discredit wanting to have a certain amount of fascination with the device one is using to produce, but in photography, it's far too often over thought and obsessed over to the point where thoughts on the actual work being made with it is lost.

Let’s just say that I am not the regular hobbyist you are mistaking me with… a simplistic take on the subject doesn’t work with me.
After all, I’ve printed over 30,000 darkroom prints during the pandemic. Yeah, north of thirty thousand… so things like “stand development”, “xtol”, “the camera doesn’t matter” will never fly with me.


My latest book starts off with two images done with a cheap Vilia camera, and also shows two images from a iphone 5.
Five digital images, and 125 film.

So yeah, I can use any imaging device and come up with a winning photograph. But if you take my Leicas, Xpans and Rolleiflexes away, I’ll stop the photo thing altogether.

Take Miles’ Trumpet away from him and we all agree there’d be no computer music from him.

 

[JohnGellings]

That was admittedly a bit of a ramble but where I am now is I have moved across the contry in with my girlfriend, finally found an actually stable job and for the first time in a long while actually have both the time and a stable income that allow me to actually have hobbies and the itch is coming back big time.

That's a great start.

Although I havent yet found a dedicated photography gallery yet in Nottingham the contemporary there has had amazing exhibits. I have also finally picked up the camera and have been on a few walks by myself and bigger trips with my better half and actually thoroughly enjoyed being out and actually excited for the images I have got.

That´s great. Photobooks can serve as inspiration as well.

I just wondered if anyone has been through something simular and has any advice on finding inspiration?

For 10 years I didn't do any photography after graduating with a BFA in photography. I didn't push it. I found a different hobby (music). Then when I did start photography again, it has been a lot better and this run has been going on 16 years now. I'm still excited too. All I can say is that I didn't see anything I needed to photograph and then, after 10 years, I suddenly started seeing again. Then it took a few more years to really start making images I really liked.

But im just not sure where to go next or what to do? I dont really have any projects I would like to shoot, havent really met anyone or been on a group photo walk and just dont really know how to find my inspiration again?

Why force it? Enjoy other things until you see something you want to photograph again.

 

[Jonathan R]

Jake, possibly you have lost the ability to see. Throughout our busy lives, we look at things just enough to recognise them, but don't really see them. If you can see, you will want to photograph.