Bike Tourist
Well-known
Through about fifty years of photography, I've always considered it a spectator sport. You make a photograph, it needs an audience. Except for my stint in the army as a photojournalist, I've always practiced the craft or the art, whatever, on the fly, subservient to the need to make a living. I've done weddings, commercial shoots with art directors, had many covers and calendars and done stock the old fashioned way with transparencies, all on a part time basis. For awhile I was a "fine art" photographer, exhibiting in juried exhibitions and museums.
As I say, I've always figured an audience is required. Even today, I make a modest sum with internet stock sites. If I just shot with the Leicas, I would produce a high volume of photos — some good and some bad. Now, with digital, the volume of images one is able to produce is truely formidible.
My question: What do all of you do with your images? Are you content with the zen of the shooting experience? Are you satisfied by seeing your ideas translated to a print or a monitor screen without sharing them? I would respect someone who just produced images and was content to keep them to himself and never sought approval from a wider audience. But to do that, for me, would seem to be pointless.
What do you think?
As I say, I've always figured an audience is required. Even today, I make a modest sum with internet stock sites. If I just shot with the Leicas, I would produce a high volume of photos — some good and some bad. Now, with digital, the volume of images one is able to produce is truely formidible.
My question: What do all of you do with your images? Are you content with the zen of the shooting experience? Are you satisfied by seeing your ideas translated to a print or a monitor screen without sharing them? I would respect someone who just produced images and was content to keep them to himself and never sought approval from a wider audience. But to do that, for me, would seem to be pointless.
What do you think?