Women say they dress for Women: Do you take photos for yourself?

[daveleo]

Photography is a language. I can't conceive it as being spoken with no one to listen.
I do shoot to show my pictures (this is the theory. in practice the number of people intersted in my photography can be counted on the hand of Django Reinhart)
in this respect, these last months, I am really muling over Vivian Maier.
A photographer with no apparent need or will to show her work. Truely an enigma in my eyes.

Many people (I am one of them) create things for themselves.
It's very enjoyable if someone likes what you show them, but that is "icing on the cake", and it is not the driving force behind making new pictures.
It's sort of an adventure is self-discovery.

Some people go fishing ! Some people play golf ! - now there are two enigmatic hobbies if ever!

PS - I also sing in the shower (even when I am alone in there ! )

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137134

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137134

women dress for women.. really? which fairy tale is that from

I believe it implicitly.😀
i also have the same ideas about "The Easter Bunny", Pink Elephants and many other mythical creatures.
Unless a woman has a preference in similarity..
we dress/undress for the opposite sex.:angel:

 

[peterm1]

I shoot for myself. If others like the results then that's a plus.

 

[tj01]

I have found that very few people except me care about the pictures that I take. So, yes, I take pictures for myself.

agree.. 10char

 

[raid]

This thread has gained momentum. Who would have guessed!

 

[Keith]

I see a couple of references to a post by Marek but no actual post. That's a shame because it sounded interesting.

 

[raid]

Keith,
There is another thread in which Marek suggested to me to ask my family to model or pose for me. This is what Roland was referring to. My response was that I prefer not to have my family pose.

 

[Keith]

Keith,
There is another thread in which Marek suggested to me to ask my family to model or pose for me. This is what Roland was referring to. My response was that I prefer not to have my family pose.

Ahh ... ok.

Thanks for the explanation Raid ... I assumed the post was in this thread.

 

[mackigator]

This is tough. Beauty needs beholders, art needs an audience, and I still feel better when someone nods and says they like it.

I'd say that I get off the couch for myself. But somewhere between the couch and the work of each day I end up incorporating feedback, such as it is, from the people who see the things I do. Which is fine by me. A good photograph is too hard to make to worry much about it, if I'm lucky enough to ever make one.

 

[leica M2 fan]

Raid, I say stick to what you like and as far as your family
you've done excellently not having the girls pose!

 

[raid]

If you're taking photos for money, then keeping the customer happy is priority #1.. but I assume you're talking about personal work. In which case, because you have to look inside yourself to produce your best work (at least, that's how I see it, YMMV), then pleasing one's self is most important. If people like your work that's a bonus.

Unless it's your wife looking at pictures you took of the children...

All photos of the family must be approved by my wife. She likes most of my photos. My kids sometimes ask me whether anyone has commented on their images.

 

[Red Robin]

I take mostly close-up of my own flowers.(my other hobby) Only being semi computer literate I rarely post images. The capture ,to try to get the best shot is done with handheld film cameras . A digital would surely be easier but I like to give each bloom 3-4 chances. Then I wait for another bloom,so 50 shots of the same one just wouldn't be as much fun. I attended a talk given by another flower lover and thats how she does it(40-59 shots of each plant then pick one). Works for her. My way's more fun.

 

[Sid836]

Photography, being more a hobby to me than anything else, it serves my traits. I appreciate it when others say something nice about photos I take, but mostly I do it for myself.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

WHAT fascination with "that bokeh thing"?

Cheers,

R.

... this for one

 

[ruby.monkey]

They match. They do. Do you take photos for yourself or to please others?
Both say so.

Surely the correct analogy would be, "Do you take photos for yourself, or to compete with or impress other photographers?"

 

[Turtle]

I take photos to prevent my mind pulling itself to bits. There is a dialogue there which I strongly wish to share, but which ultimately is forced out of myself because of very internal and personal processes. If it all remains visible only to me - the experiences and the photos - there is no release. Fundamentally, its about sharing perspectives on what it means to be alive and that cannot happen in isolation without it becoming destructive. The dialogue is the therapy 😉

 

[Turtle]

Surely the correct analogy would be, "Do you take photos for yourself, or to compete with or impress other photographers?"

The there is taking photos to please the public. Pleasing yourself, other photographers and the public can (and usually are) three very different things. One could perhaps add 'the art world' as a fourth, because they are a law unto themselves. Perhaps true brilliance is defined by being able to please all four at the same time, a lot of the time?

 

[Argenticien]

Dear Dave,

Who cares about 10,000 hours? This is a worthless rule of thumb for the intellectually or artistically challenged.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, pleased to see another person treating this modern truism with the respect it deserves. The misapplication of a single piece of research into musical performance, which is fundamentally a proprioceptive learning process, to every other field of endeavour is utter baloney, but we are encouraged to trot it out at every instant.

Thank you.

Roger and Mike, I'm aware of the limitations of the "10,000 hours" theory and problems with Gladwell's extension of it. I'm not sure I would have mentioned it if I had thought it would start a row. Without trying to take sides about it, I merely used it as a quick shorthand to help preface my post as coming from someone certainly without the exigencies that professionals face (satisfying the client &c.) and in fact without the considerations that well practised, talented amateurs and hobbyists might have, such as family being more likely to ask them to photograph something and produce a nice large print of it. See, that was lengthy. That's why I used a shorthand. 🙂 Do mentally substitute a preferred one of your own if desired.
Roger, by the way, as to artistically challenged, yes that was absolutely my point! As to intellectually challenged, no. No one who has ever known me has thought so.

--Dave

 

[Murchu]

Surely the correct analogy would be, "Do you take photos for yourself, or to compete with or impress other photographers?"

Yes, I thought that too. At least in relation to the original analogy of women and clothes.

 

[Murchu]

I'm going to pull a Winogrand here, and say that I photograph to both see what things look like (as well as preserve them, so I can ponder them again). Part of that for me, is sharing with others, and don't think photography can be neatly tucked away into shooting solely for others, or shooting solely for ones self. People do, but in the case of the former, you end up with people shooting for the adoration of others, and in the latter, 'artists' who waffle on in meaningless artistic statements meant to prop up poor work that otherwise only has meaning to the artist.

I can't speak for others, but almost everything I shoot is both for me, and also to show/ share with someone else at some point. Even family/ personal images are both for me, and also to share with those that figure in them.