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

[Texsport]

The "style and look" of my photos is all mine.

Since I strive to capture a moment, or, tell a story, my photos often are about other people and their locations - particularly family related.

So, I often take photos which I hope others will appreciate, but they must appreciate my perspective.

Texsport

 

[raid]

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

Maybe your suggestion is correct, but it is not what I meant. 😎
[after some additional thinking, I am tilting to what you have said. Isn't it after all the same thing that I have said since we can assume that people who look at images at RFF are most likely also photographers?]

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

Dear Dave,

Sorry: I didn't mean it as a personal insult. It's just that the very idea -- disputable even when applied to music -- very nearly brings me out in boils.

As applied to photography, it's even more fun if you assume an average exposure time of 1/60 second. Then you get 60 exposures/second, 3600 exposures a minute, 216,000 exposure/hour, and 2,160,000,000 exposures in 10,000 hours.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

Does procrastinating count towards your X thousand hours? If so, I'm an expert on quite a few things 😀

 

[maggieo]

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.

Well said, Damien! I concur.

 

[alistair.o]

You see something that you wish to capture because on an ideal level others have not really seen the same thing

So, yes it is for you but, also to enlighten others. If you mean it, then you cannot escape the fact that it is your 'art' . If not, then why bloody well bother? Surely we've all noticed that every man and his dog has a camera now and you can't walk in a straight line without bumping into a lens person.

I know that there are many who take up photography and buy all the kit and the next you hear of them they are doing Quilting because that is the next letter of the alphabet for hobbies! Then there are the others, who just are driven to produce better and better photographic work.

 

[porktaco]

this is a very interesting formulation. i take photos for myself, but the sense of identity involved in the question is really engaging for me. if we have an audience, we should know something about ourselves as players. i learn something every time i take a photo i like.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I was just reading an essay by Minor White from an early issue of Aperture.

Minor wrote, more or less: The photographer is not done when the print is made. The photographer's role includes the exhibition of the print for others.

This really made me stop to think. If this is art, not just a hobby, then we aren't done until we have exhibited, whatever that means in our individual context.

 

[raid]

This is very interesting, Col. S. Moran. So we need to dissiminate our images to others.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Well said, Damien! I concur.

...and me too.

I see, of course, that others have different motivations, which is as it should be. If their motivation is to bully others into agreeing with them, however, I will take umbrage. I'll also take a few pictures to remind myself of the umbrage. A good umbrage is always worth preserving

😀

 

[sanmich]

Re-reading this thread I am bugged by the difference between the title and the text.

There is quite a distance between taking to show to others, and to "please others".
I do want to show my pictures, and like it when they raise interest, and even criticism.
Yet, pleasing others is not even remotely my goal, and as far as can be of my mindset when I take the picture.

 

[Sparrow]

...and me too.

I see, of course, that others have different motivations, which is as it should be. If their motivation is to bully others into agreeing with them, however, I will take umbrage. I'll also take a few pictures to remind myself of the umbrage. A good umbrage is always worth preserving

😀

Werther's ... delicious

 

[alistair.o]

Yet, pleasing others is not even remotely my goal, and as far as can be of my mindset when I take the picture.[/U]

Good, IMO, that is how it should be, unless of course you are producing bread and butter images to a spec' e.g. catalogues brochures etc.

Also, your point of raising interest and even criticism is obvious (without any intention of rudeness towards you) though the latter will always outdo the former! 🙂

 

[PaulDalex]

Yes I take pictures exclusively for myself.
Thus I never post anything anywhere. Very few images (sometimes obtained combining more photos) get printed to hang in my house
Moreover, I am a dilettante.
This makes me feel guity here, and I often consider to self-banish myself
Cheers
Paolo

 

[daveleo]

Re-reading this thread I am bugged by the difference between the title and the text.

There is quite a distance between taking to show to others, and to "please others".
I do want to show my pictures, and like it when they raise interest, and even criticism.
Yet, pleasing others is not even remotely my goal, and as far as can be of my mindset when I take the picture.

This is true.
The original question is not really subtle enough to embrace the subject of why we make things like pictures. Obviously it's a lot more complicated than either a "0" or a "1".

 

[PaulDalex]

I wish to add that I object the statement that there no art if a work is not intended to be shown to others.
Indeed Leonardo did not want to show the Gioconda to others throughout his life. He kept the painting constatly covered by a linen in his studio.
There is no mistery. It is just a fact. The greatest of all art masterpieces was not intended to be seen only by anybody. At least as long as the author was alive.

 

[raid]

In this poll, about 88% of the votes state that they do not mainly take photos for others.

 

[alistair.o]

I wish to add that I object the statement that there no art if a work is not intended to be shown to others.
Indeed Leonardo did not want to show the Gioconda to others throughout his life. He kept the painting constatly covered by a linen in his studio.
There is no mistery. It is just a fact. The greatest of all art masterpieces was not intended to be seen only by anybody. At least as long as the author was alive.

I agree with you but remember, that is only one of his pictures - many others artists have experienced the same 'after-life' fame.

Another point you made regarding being made to feel like a dilettante. I have had that lodge since reading it and for myself I apologise if I make or made you feel thus.

There are many, many people on this forum whose work exceeds that of the mundane seen in so many contemporary art shows and photographic exhibitions - the equipement is (within reason - and that reason is very small) not the obstruction - the obstruction is, as I see it, 1. Lack of encouragement 2. Lack of constructive criticism and 3.A skin that allows one to absorb that criticism without offence and learn and press on.

 

[PaulDalex]

Alistair,
sorry maybe I was not clear in my post.
It is absolutely not that people here make me feel like a dilettante
The point is that I am actually a hobbyist. As such I believe pros should have a sort of prominence here.
I am 68 and retired one year ago.
I made my living with my academic position in a Math Dept.
I started photographing 60 years ago (with a Bencini Comet II btw and still own legendary gear like, for example, a Nikon F and a Leica M5).
Partly by my own attitude and inclination and partly for my old style education I dislike sharing. This may appear as egoistic because I really enjoy the looking at the excellent work that can be seen here at RFF.
Anyway I wish to thank you heartly. Your post reveal a very gentle mind.
All the best
Paolo

 

[PaulDalex]

Naturally there is an edit:
"was not intended to be seen by anybody"
the only was wrong