Photography without photos

[bhop73]

I have done it. Not on purpose though, and it wasn't fun at all once I figured it out. It ruined my whole day.

 

[Godfrey]

I think the next logical question is:

Do we really need an audience in order for us to justify taking photos?
...

I can do with an audience of one: myself. But I have to have photos to look at. Just snapping the shutter without recording an image is a waste of time other than as a quick thought exercise to do once.

G

 

[zuiko85]

What happens to all the photos you take?

They are all steps on the path to your goal. Whatever that may be.

What happened to all the Garry Winogrand negatives that never got printed?

One more thing, in a million years, no one will care. (Or possibility somewhat less than a million years)

 

[JoeV]

While playing with my young grand kids some years ago, I observed that, to them, the act of putting the camera up to their face and pretending to make a picture was as much fun as actual picture-making.

Which inspired us to make pretend cameras, using boxes, bits and a hot glue gun, which we subsequently used to make "faux"-tographs.

Afterwards, I made a more serious attempt at a pretend camera using a block of wood painted black, decorated with bits salvaged from an old Polaroid 600. Included recessed into the block of wood was a clothes pin clicker, to simulate a shutter sound.

More recently, I've updated the pretend camera idea into resembling more like the form factor of a tablet. It's a thin wooden frame with an opening in the middle through which the fauxtographer can compose scenes, much like a large format photographer's previsualization aid. Mine includes the clothes pin clicker, so that people won't take offense that I'd be daring enough to take their fauxtograph without their consent.

Here's a blog article from some years back about the concept.

http://joevancleave.blogspot.com/2009/07/fauxtography-revisited.html


P1030899a by jvcabacus, on Flickr

~Joe

 

[Prest_400]

I can do with an audience of one: myself. But I have to have photos to look at. Just snapping the shutter without recording an image is a waste of time other than as a quick thought exercise to do once.

G

Then there is the "preview" or visualization we do when thinking about taking a shot and if it will work or not. Do that a lot specially when shooting Medium Format.
That ends being like a photo in the memory without being recorded.

 

[Roger Hicks]

*This topic is exclusively for those who don't shoot for money.


Imagine that you have been shooting the whole day with your camera and then you realize that there was no memory card in the camera. Or you were shooting film the whole day and you ruin all the negatives during processing.

You took photos without actually taking photos. Clearly that is a very annoying and in fact a nightmare situation for most photographers, but what if that is the reality of photography today?

What happens to all the photos you take?

What happens to all the photos that people keep taking? What value those photos have? Or is photography all about that "taking photos" action and not the photos themselves? In other words, whether you shoot with a memory card or no memory card, the only pleasure you'll ever get from photography is that moment of pressing the shutter. The rest is all a chore, from editing to processing to archiving... Family photos and so on does not apply, obviously.


What I'm saying is insane, but reflect on it. Before you throw away those film cameras, just go out and shoot "blanks!" and if people ask you, lie or be honest that you're shooting blanks, see what happens. Here is one thing, you'll have more fun than you ever did when you were shooting for photos. Try it.

Not I!

Even those who shoot some of the time for money are not always shooting for money: we shoot for fun too. We like to look at our pictures; we like to hang them on ours walls; and we like to exhibit them. Even if it's only 0.000001% of the pics we've shot, what the hell? If we didn't shoot 'em, we couldn't look at 'em or exhibit 'em.

Actually, I genuinely can't see why anyone would enjoy what you describe. Why burden yourself with a camera at all? Why not just LOOK and REMEMBER? Why do you need the crutch of a camera to support your eyes?

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfunnell]

What happens to all the photos you take?

That's easy. The bad ones never see the light of day. Those that are not so bad get printed. I show those prints to my long-suffering friends and family. Most of those I print end up posted on flickr, so they can annoy the world, and some of those get referenced in photography forums 😛

By printing only my more-or-less acceptable photos, and burying my many bad ones, the friends and family I show my photos to (ie. inflict my photos on) have an unjustifiably high impression of my ability as a photographer. I'm OK with that :angel:

...Mike

 

[airfrogusmc]

Editing (what you decide to show or not show) is just as important as what you shoot. I think Bresson said something like this, you have to milk a lot of cows just to get a little cheese. Adams shot a lot of negatives in a year but he said something like. twelve good negatives in one year is a significant year. So it's not only what you shoot but what you decide to show. You are not alone and in good company.

 

[Mcary]

Shooting, editing, sharing, printing, returning to the same places time after time to try to see it differently all are equally important parts of photography for me.

 

[Rodchenko]

I like sharing photos on here. I like viewing photos myself. Many never get further than my hard drive. No matter, they still bring me joy.

I had a friend who was training to be a buddhist monk. He loved angling, but didn't want to harm the fish. So he headed off down to the canal with rod, shelter etc etc, weights on his line but no hook. He said it was a wonderful way to meditate.