Okay, I'm going to throw a different opinion in here. While I too found the book interesting and thought-provoking, and well worth the read, I personally thought some of Hurn's prescriptions were a bit didactic. Maybe it's more accurate to say that they only apply to a certain type of photographer. Specifically, his assertion that photographers should concentrate on a subject, learn everything about it, and keep shooting it. I think that applies to documentary photographers, people who want to do a project about a certain topic, but maybe not to every photographer. Yet he seemed, to me, to present this as the only way to be a photographer.
Am I the only one who thinks that's too limiting? Perhaps my reaction is a bit defensive. But I am not sure I agree in general with Hurn's contention that photography is about transmitting the photographer's truth about a particular subject. Sometimes photography can be enough if it makes or captures something beautiful or visually arresting. At least to me.
Of course, I'm not a professional, and it's not a job or an assignment for me, and that's what I like about it. I probably would feel differently if I wanted to earn my living as a photographer. I would say, of course, find a subject, learn about it and shoot that constantly. But as it is, I felt that, in this area, he didn't really draw a distinction between professional documentary photographers and all photographers. And there's a part of me saying, but not even every professional takes pictures that way.
-Laura
P.S. -- Hurn's specific point of view didn't wreck the book or anything for me. I am going to try to incorporate some of his ideas, like daaris said. I thought the last chapter was particularly helpful. For me, the absolute best part was them saying, steal from other photographers, learn from the best. That felt very freeing, as opposed to prescriptive or limiting.
