Do you photograph only what you like?

jsrockit said:
So, you fit in the second category then... :confused: :p You don't see a difference, I don't see a difference, but many do.

Another reason I asked the question is because the non-photographer always wonders why you took a photograph of that whenever it doesn't fit into what they think photography is... which to them could be beautiful calendar photos, sunset photos, family photos, memories, etc.
Click to expand...

yes, exactly. if I collect photos of cars because I like cars, that doesn't mean I'm 'into photography' but 'into cars'. that's because the interest (or excitement, or stimulation, or message, maybe) in photography is more 'how' than it is 'what' (of course, in different kinds of photography this balance varies, but you get my point).

I guess my 'thesis' is that, in one way or another, the vast majority here can be put into category 2, regardless of whether they take photos of 'things they like' or not. :D
 
I photograph things in category 1, but only if they also fit category 2.

jsrockit said:
Why wouldn't you photograph it if you think it'll make a good photo? Is it because it doesn't fit into your plan or project?

I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between:

(1) taking photos to celebrate a person or object because it is interesting in some way other than only being photographically interesting. You could be into old cars (driving, collecting, etc). You are photographing them primarily because you like old cars. It's a record of the object because you enjoy the object on many levels.

and

(2) photographing anything because it'll make an interesting photo. You may not care about old cars other than the fact that they might result in an interesting photograph.

I'm not claiming one is more relevant than the other by the way.
Click to expand...
 
SimonSawSunlight said:
I guess my 'thesis' is that, in one way or another, the vast majority here can be put into category 2, regardless of whether they take photos of 'things they like' or not. :D
Click to expand...

True, most people that are into Photography would be #2. However, I guess I could always ask people which is more important to them... the subject being photographed or the actual photograph?
 
For me I guess it's both--I photograph subjects I find interesting, as well as subjects that I don't but that I want to see what they look like photographed. For example, I've been finding myself loading my camera up with Velvia 50 or some other saturated color film and shooting convenient stores, gas stations, and stuff like that with a wide-angle lens in hopes of making them appear more dramatic than they actually are. It's not that I particularly like those subjects. I just am interested in how they might look like photographed.

On the other hand, I am very fascinated by people, strangers in particular, but I sometimes lack the courage to photograph them, which I guess by default means that there is a type of subject that I want to photograph more but don't. If that makes any sense. I am gradually trying to overcome that fear, but it's not something that comes naturally for me. And loading up a point-n-shoot, shooting from the hip, and hoping for the best is not my cup of tea. That leaves too much to chance, personally speaking, and feels a little like cheating. That just my own opinion, though, and I certainly don't begrudge those who feel differently about that.
 
nikon_sam said:
I'll shoot just about anything...if the light is right anything can become a great photograph...
Click to expand...

Very true! Lighting can make anything look appealing enough to want to photograph. While at the same time, flat, midday lighting can make even a perfect scene or subject completely uninteresting to me.
 
I photograph what I like, but I usually hope other people will find my photos interesting too. It seems that's not always the case, but you can't win 'em all.
 
Someone on this forum responded (at least 2-3 years ago) to the question; 'What is your favorite genre?' His answer was (I hope jokingly) nude middle aged housewives. So, no I (also) don't always photograph what I'd like.
 
I currently live in a part of the country that I find to be particularly vile. If I only photographed things that I liked or had some kind of strict vision dictating what kinds of photographs I made I wouldn't photograph at all.
 
jsrockit said:
I guess my point is that some people only photograph objects, scenes, people, they find interesting... so it becomes a picture of that thing they find interesting. Others will photograph anything only hoping to make an interesting photograph. One may photograph garbage. Most probably don't like garbage, but if taken the right way, it could yield a great photo.
Click to expand...

OK, got it. Does one photograph only subjects that are attractive personally (for example: flowers, sunsets, street, architecture, etc), or anything that would make an interesting photograph (regardless of the subject).

I like to photograph anything that may make an interesting photograph. With a dash of common sense :) (because, oh, how do some like to push the envelope in a "who cares as long as the end result justifies it" fashion)
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
OK, got it. Does one photograph only subjects that are attractive personally (for example: flowers, sunsets, street, architecture, etc), or anything that would make an interesting photograph (regardless of the subject).

I like to photograph anything that may make an interesting photograph. With a dash of common sense :) (because, oh, how do some like to push the envelope in a "who cares as long as the end result justifies it" fashion)
Click to expand...

Yes, you got it.
 
I might be dense, but I am having a hard time understanding the categorization. So I have constructed a Venn diagram to help me understand it:

If I consider the field to be all things which can be photographed, then a blob inside that field would be "things I like". This would include pretty women, my kids, my friends, sunrises, food, etc. A second blob would include "things I think will make an interesting photograph". Ideally the two blobs would have some overlap, but also each would have space that is independent of the other. For example a plastic bag stuck on a wire fence, or a drink that spilled in an interesting pattern, would be in the 'interesting' blob but not the 'like' blob.

Ideally I would spend most of my time photographing things in the intersection of the two subsets - things that I like, that also make interesting photographs. However I prefer to shoot things differently that they have been shot before. Then, I should shoot only things that lie outside either blob. This would be stuff that I neither like, nor does it make an interesting photograph.

It's hard for me to imagine things in this mutually exclusive category, maybe brick wall, lens test pictures, or forensic photographs of tire tracks. Being contrarian is not as easy as it looks!
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
I might be dense, but I am having a hard time understanding the categorization. So I have constructed a Venn diagram to help me understand it:

If I consider the field to be all things which can be photographed, then a blob inside that field would be "things I like". This would include pretty women, my kids, my friends, sunrises, food, etc. A second blob would include "things I think will make an interesting photograph". Ideally the two blobs would have some overlap, but also each would have space that is independent of the other. For example a plastic bag stuck on a wire fence, or a drink that spilled in an interesting pattern, would be in the 'interesting' blob but not the 'like' blob.

Ideally I would spend most of my time photographing things in the intersection of the two subsets - things that I like, that also make interesting photographs. However I prefer to shoot things differently that they have been shot before. Then, I should shoot only things that lie outside either blob. This would be stuff that I neither like, nor does it make an interesting photograph.

It's hard for me to imagine things in this mutually exclusive category, maybe brick wall, lens test pictures, or forensic photographs of tire tracks. Being contrarian is not as easy as it looks!
Click to expand...

I guess my point is that some people like the object (scene, person, etc.) they photograph more than the resulting photograph and the photograph is simply just a record of that object for them. Others are more concerned with making a great photograph regardless of their feeling for the object (scene, person, etc.). I don't know how to make it clearer.
 
jsrockit said:
I guess my point is that some people like the object (scene, person, etc.) they photograph more than the resulting photograph and the photograph is simply just a record of that object for them. Others are more concerned with making a great photograph regardless of their feeling for the object (scene, person, etc.). I don't know how to make it clearer.
Click to expand...

I think it is hard to make a truly great photograph of something you do not find interesting. I'm talking from an artistic standpoint. You can make good commercial photographs of uninteresting things; its a job and you get paid. Commercial photography is rarely that emotionally powerful though.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I think it is hard to make a truly great photograph of something you do not find interesting.
Click to expand...

You can find something photographically interesting, but not like it still... as we talked about early (and as I am sure you know). That's the point here...or at least that is what I'm trying to get accross.

So many times I hear fellow photographers feel as though there is nothing to photograph. I feel anything is photographable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom