Maybe it's just me but I take a photo because I want to take a photo.
Toni, you dont have to justify your photography to me or any-one else; like I said the questions were rhetorical.
But, you have, just in taking umber at the suggestion, considered and answered the questions.... reason for the photo is your own pleasure, the intended viewer yourself... the interest? Realising an idea into an image... How does that awareness effect you? More rhetoric... where does the analysis take you? How do you judge your own work? How well does it realise the ambitions of your ideas? And ultimately... DO the pictures achive your ambition; has the process of taking them, given you pleasure, and do the pictures you have taken ultimately interest and entertain you? I dont need to know the answers, only YOU do.
All too easy, to get an idea and motivation to take a photo, then NOT get pleasure from its taking... and to NOT get a photo that gives pleasure. Even as a self indulgence. That was the 'risk' I saw in John's original query.
Well as the balding guy in question I thought that all got far too deep, I was just looking for technical advice.
The technical 'challenges' of a self portrait, being created, by the original idea... to take pictures of wife or kids... already failing by thier reluctance to sit..... THAT 'idea' is not going to be translated to image, before you begin. So re-analyse. Is this 'revision' born of circumstance a new challenge that will give pleasure tackling? Is there a new idea in there? Will this new or revised idea still have interest and give pleasure? If the race is over.. stop running... find a new race.
All worth thinking about,
Or you could just keep it simple and enjoy taking the shots and working out what works for you use that as a learning curve
Point is it IS simple. Asking yourself a few pretty fundemental questions before you press the shutter, like, "Why do I want this picture? Who is going to look at it? Why?" is not exactly rocket science, or existential philosophy!
Messing around with light stacks, flash-meters, reflectors, exposure values apartures, shutter speeds, film ratings, lens lengths, and then trying to interpret all of that in the resultant images, looking at contrast, colour, tone, composition, mood, expression etc and working out 'what works'? You think in comparison THAT is 'simple'?
I'm all for hands on learn by doing; BUT! All I am advocating is 'Look before you leap'! Few seconds forthought, clarify the intent and objective, be sure you know what you are hoping to achive. When you look at the results, and are trying to work out 'what works'.. you have some idea by which to judge by, and its a very simple one! "Does this photo do what I wanted it to?" If you dont know what you wanted your picture to do, how are you EVER going to know if a picture 'works'?
The reason for the photo is just to make the shots for my 52 project better, for you guys to critique so that in time I get better at my hobby, I don't have the confidence to go pro so will never make money from this, all I can hope for is to make my family snaps better and to enjoy what comes out.
OK... getting some-where.... purpose of this pic or session is as a learning excersise as I presumed.... fair enough. That's the point. An excersize in portraiture. Ultimate aim of the excersise? So you can take better family snaps. Brilliant. A very laudible ambition.
HOW is solving the technical challenges of a self-portrait going to help fulfill that ultimate objective? Does the 'lesson' in learning how to get round the problem of not being able to be infront and behind the camera at the same time, give you knowledge or experience that will help you take better family snaps? How where, when, how often are you going to be able to put into practice any lessons learned from THIS part of the excersise? (recognise the rhetoric!)
More imedietly; 52-Project, and point of photo's giving 'us' the forum something to critique..... Hmmmmm...... Well backing up to response to Toni... bottom line is you dont have to please US. Ask half a dozen photographers what they think, you'll get a dozen opinions.... only ONE opinion that REALLY matters... Photo's are for your pleasure, do they please you?
I am going over an archive of maybe five years photo's, that were 'lost' on a corrupt hard drive. Most of them are pretty mediocre happy-snaps taken on a cheap digi-compact. Exposure is often poor, resolution consistently dire. Many are fuzzy due to camera shake. A few... are half decent... BUT.. looking at them with photographer head on, I think, "Oh... if Only I had had a bit more zoom... if only I had had a faster lens, or higher ISO setting" And the really anoying thing is, I could have had all that and more, for the sake of a £5 film and using my old SLR instead of the digi-pact. "Why didn't I shoot that on film!" I ask myself... And from deep in the recesses of my memory, a voice yells "Becouse you couldn't afford a fiver for the frigging film you twit! Dont you remember! You came back from that day out, with the kids asleep in the back, bored of asking "Are we near home yet Dad" for the seven hundredth time... becouse you were trying desperately hard to keep the car under 55mph to save fuel! Remember! When you gave up the falorn hope that you'd make it back on what was in the tank; stopping at the petrol station, hoping the kids wouldn't wake up when you opened the door, hunting through all the oddement trays and lifting the footwell carpets for any lost change, to make up a fiver buy some more fuel!" That is absolutley true! I am not a rich man... and thirty miles from home, after a 120 mile drive, watching the fuel gauge intently... I was litterally scratching the carpets up for lost penies to get me home, once!
Quality costs. Few of us have unconstrained budgets. We have to work with what we got. Yup. I could get SO much 'better' pictures if I had a 55-300 zoom..... £200. But spending that £200 on a lens? How many better pics would I get? Would that £200 be better spent going some-where doing things more worthy of taking photo's of.... even if they aren't technically SUCH great snaps?
My kids aren't photographers. They dont care if the picture is a bit grainy, or if the exposure is a bit off or that its a bit fuzzy round the edges..... "Hey DAD! Do you remember building that sand castle! That was a great day, wasn't it?!"
Wanting to become a 'better' photographer, wanting to take 'better' photo's.... its all very laudible.... but DONT loose sight of why you are doing it in the first place.....
Some-times, I have to take the 'photographer' hat off and put the 'Dad' hat back on to apreciate what I'm looking at properly.
"Family Snaps"........ What does that mean? And getting 'better' family snaps? What would make them 'better'?
Back to the rhetorical questions; and getting deep again, but point is, dont loose sight of the bigger picture, getting tangled in the technicalities. Remember WHY you want to take the photo in the first place.
