I Wish I had Such Great Subjects to Photograph

"I wish I had some of the great subjects you are finding in your area."

For some, the grass is always greener on the other side. They live in an area for years but never really take the time to get to know their neighbourhood and its possibilities.

You’re right, Chris; good subject matter is everywhere but for many they just don’t see it as they look without seeing.

It’s a language they just can’t comprehend or understand… a bit like me and maths. My wife sees the solution almost instantly; I sit there staring with a sense of befuddlement, even when she explains the answer.

Love your photos, Chris, especially the explanations; so different to where I live. Keep up the good work.
 
It's like a writer complaining her life lacking turbulence.

Point here is out of so many people with a hard life, you got only this tiny selection of good writers. Many more lead a mundane career.

It's all about sensitivity and skill. Sensitivity being the most crucial.

Boredom is not the arch enemy of art. Indifference is.
 
Interesitng thread, thanks Chris and other RFF friends who give their opinion.

I think that beside learning to see you need a strong relation withyour subject. You must "love" it or maybe even "hate" it. But you must have a feeling for it. The subject cab be your town, your neighborhood, your street and if you have interest in it you discover it is a good subject.

Than depending on subject and your attitude you can decide how to photograph it, B&W or color, or ...what you want.

The limit is not in the subject but eventually in the eye of the photographer!

Having said this sometimes I find myself looking for a "more interesting" subject :)
 
Stephen Shore's book, "American Surfaces" helped me understand the value of photographing the everyday, mundane stuff that is right in front of me. I used to go out of my way to pretty things up. Looking for a way to not include a utility pole, for instance. Now I am more open to tell it like it is.

U11787I1586600929.SEQ.0.jpg


This store is closed now. Too bad. In my mind the dreary winter light, bare trees and lack of people somehow speaks to the sadness of something that is gone. Maybe the sign should say "Closed."
 
It is always good to make pictures in your surroundings from objects you know they will disappear.

Leica M3/Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8/Tmax400/AdoxMCC110

Erik.

48008507643_93513951a1_b.jpg
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
...... If you want to make great photographs, start by having something you want to say to the world, something you want people to see, to notice, to remember. Once you have that in mind, you'll start seeing good subject matter. "Good" means things that fit into the story you want to tell. Just walking around with a camera hoping to see something interesting is not a good strategy ......
Click to expand...

This sums up my view. I learned from experience. I once gave up on my photography after about 10-12 years of wandering around without focus. I finally acknowledged that I was creating no meaningful photos and quit photographing for about 15 years. I had become too interested in photography without an interest in what message I was trying to convey. Later in life I became interested in my local culture and history and wanted to document that and inform others. Only then did I restart photographing but with a objective in mind. That has been working for about 20 years now.

I came from an education and a career in business management. It took me a long time to finally acknowledge that the classic but simple processes of clearly defining objectives and plans to achieve such applied to non business endeavors as well. One cannot restart from scratch every day hoping something good will develop.
 
Aristotle's concept "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" has direct applications in our photography. Creating that stand-alone "knock it out of the ballpark" singular image is very difficult. It is more practical to create a body of work or photo story which overall is much better than the included images viewed one at a time. Chris Crawford's series of images documenting his local community is a good example. Each image viewed individually is very good. But the total body of work is even better when considered as a whole as it gives some perspective both overall as well as to individual images.

Unfortunately photo websites such as RFF, Flicker, and similar are based on one singular photo standing alone. One must force themselves to think beyond that concept and realize the presentation for significant photographs are in galleries, books, and stories.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Aristotle's concept "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" has direct applications in our photography. Creating that stand-alone "knock it out of the ballpark" singular image is very difficult. It is more practical to create a body of work or photo story which overall is much better than the included images viewed one at a time. Chris Crawford's series of images documenting his local community is a good example. Each image viewed individually is very good. But the total body of work is even better when considered as a whole as it gives some perspective both overall as well as to individual images.

Unfortunately photo websites such as RFF, Flicker, and similar are based on one singular photo standing alone. One must force themselves to think beyond that concept and realize the presentation for significant photographs are in galleries, books, and stories.
Click to expand...

I agree with this idea. I oft take "single" photos but I consider it as an exercise just to keep the use of my camera in a spontaneous way.

What really is satisfying for me is when I photograph for a project. Sometimes is just an essay to see if a project can be developed or to decide if it should be done in B&W or color, film or digital, it's like a test for myself.
 
You should try to capture a 'different perspective'. For example:

Golden Gate Bridge:



Or..

Golden Gate Bridge:



Same camera, same roll of film.
 
This is an interesting thread, and primarily because of the different takes or perspective that you all offer up here.

For me, when the "shot" is not a given because a subject presents itself as the obvious one, what will grab my attention then is whatever the light around me is doing to affect subject-matter that otherwise seems mundane.
Of course that might often be a landscape.

Today, while we can easily become saturation by images people post of every which thing or place, or person, what remains special is a look that only light and it's interplay with the subject can provide. If that interplay is captured, we are always rewarded, as viewer of photographer.

David
 
Huss said:
You should try to capture a 'different perspective'. For example:

Golden Gate Bridge:



Or..

Golden Gate Bridge:



Same camera, same roll of film.
Click to expand...

I like this, and I think both photographs are important for telling the story. The first is a pretty standard photo of the Golden Gate Bridge. It is a beautiful image, but not much different than those made by countless others.

A lot of people would say "Its not unique, so it has no value. As a stand-alone image, sure; but as part of a larger project it serves a very important purpose by establishing a sense of place. It introduces the bridge, and then you go deeper by showing things other might have overlooked like the sign and the abstract form of the bridge's structure....the tower and cables.
 
there are a lot of great bit's of advice here. photography is a very broad medium however there is one line here that I believe is very important.

"You have to be interested in something and you have to want to tell its story through your photographs"

If documentary/photojournalism is your focus, this is a very good place to start. I know some fantastic photojournalists working today who would shock most photography fans with their lack of interest in cameras and photography as a craft. what they are interested in is storytelling and they care deeply enough about the subject matter to get right inside it. the story and profound care for the subject matter is what forms the photos we see. it defines the work, even if it is right outside the door and 'banal' by most standards.
 
18578068-orig.jpg


Occasionally I take my camera with me on my daily walk in the area in which I live. ... Sometimes the 'ordinary' just catches my eye - then a mistake in Photoshop makes it something - well - 'different'.
 
emraphoto said:
...... I know some fantastic photojournalists working today who would shock most photography fans with their lack of interest in cameras and photography as a craft. .....
Click to expand...

I was in a small group conversation with Magnum photographer Chris Usher after the opening of one of his exhibits when he talked about his camera bag being run over by a truck and how expensive it was to replace his Leica and lens. Someone asked which lens. His response was "Uh, uh, uh, it was a Summicron" Then when asked which Summicron, he said "Uh, uh, uh, it was a Leica Summicron". Afterwards, I asked about his mention of Tri-X in his gallery talk. He said that was necessary as Kodak gave him free film.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I was in a small group conversation with Magnum photographer Chris Usher after the opening of one of his exhibits when he talked about his camera bag being run over by a truck and how expensive it was to replace his Leica and lens. Someone asked which lens. His response was "Uh, uh, uh, it was a Summicron" Then when asked which Summicron, he said "Uh, uh, uh, it was a Leica Summicron". Afterwards, I asked about his mention of Tri-X in his gallery talk. He said that was necessary as Kodak gave him free film.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I have the dumb luck to know a few famous photographers and few, of any of the times we have spent time together, have we even mentioned cameras or lenses. I remember sitting with a new’ish photojournalist in a bush bar in West Africa. She was wondering why her images has bright flares in some photos. I explained that sometimes cheaper filters can be prone to flare. She thanked me and admitted she knew little to nothing about her camera. She won a world press award the following year.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
They're hobbyists like you, and most probably don't care about being famous, but they are interested in improving their work. That's not a bad thing, is it?
Click to expand...


Of course not Chris, I would like it if I got more than 2 or 3 good shots on a roll. A "good shot" is one that I like to look at for one reason or another, as compared to one where I say "blaahh."

I am not accusing anyone, especially ones on this forum, of trying to be famous. I particularly like the pictures posted here that are "daily life in reality" and not striving to be outrageous.
I am glad that "street photography" is a common theme here, since you really can't control the street. Life in reality, life where I live, on the streets where I live. Sometimes life is mundane, but it is always real.
 
Erik van Straten said:
It is always good to make pictures in your surroundings from objects you know they will disappear.

...
Click to expand...

Agree. Historical value. Here is a shot I took a little chemical processing plant in our neighborhood that disappeared around 1981 and became a Superfund site. I have one Kodachrome and two B&W infrared shots of it (I may come across more as I dig through my old negs). This one is my favorite (infrared), probably from 1978:


Chatham Barrel Yard by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Here is the Kodachrome (probably 1975/6):


Chemical Plant by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
I often struggle to take interesting photos of my surroundings in the UK Midlands. I tend to wait for sunny days and then shoot obvious colours. Which isn't the reality I live in - it's mostly flat light and brick brown and concrete grey.

These photos from Mark Power are kinda essential to me, reminds me of how to shoot the mundane that I often overlook.
https://www.markpower.co.uk/Photographic-projects/BLACK-COUNTRY-STORIES/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom