Do you ever just stop?

[mattd85]

Hi all,

Over the past few months I've been thinking hard about photography, and one question keeps popping into my head ' will I ever stop'

It may sound daft but I'm wondering, for those of you that don't take photographs to earn a wage, do you ever think about just selling up your gear and finding a new hobby or think you've had your time in the hobby?

I've tried nearly every genre I can think of, and I settled with Macro as most will know.

Over the years I've had great success being featured with Nat Geo, BBC Earth, BBC Springwatch, interviewed live on the show, also published in most of the leading photography magazines etc and now I'm thinking....where do you go from here?

I would have loved to have been a wildlife filmmaker/photographer for a full time job but I'm too far into my life for that now, I have a family and a home to look after, and that's stipulated by a constant wage.

So if I've been published in everything I wanted, and I can't do it for a full time job....why am I still doing it? Why am I still buying and selling equipment?

Does anyone else ever feel like this? Like just giving up?

I don't know, maybe I'm feeling a bit bored?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Matt

Admin feel free to move to the correct place if this isn't it.

 

[Meeten]

Don't give up. Do you think you've already got 'the shot'?
Ever looked at what you think is your best and think, "next time I'm going to......."
Give it a break perhaps, but don't give up. You take some cracking images, and not just macro. That wedding picture recently was awesome....

 

[droj]

You mentioned buying and selling equipment - which could be evidence of an obsessive nature. Maybe your relationship with photography itself could be something of the same?

Obsession can be a great driver, though, in any creative pursuit, but it's probably best that the feet touch the ground at certain times.

Cultivate the abilty to stand back. Take a break if necessary. Could your relationships with those around you be better if you weren't so obsessed with photography? If not, then why worry?

 

[GTG]

I look to the future all the time. Cameras I lust after now such as the d810 will drop in price to within the reach of broke idiots like myself. I look forward to photography I have not done yet

 

[EddyWelbz]

Become a teacher, pass your passion and drive onto the next generation!

 

[Nawty]

Can't see it happening, that's probably because I don't class myself as a 'photographer' or even a 'hobbiest', I take photos of things I love doing to capture memories and I will always be doing things I love...

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I think there's maybe a distinction here between people who have a camera and are happy to record life and dabble in different genres - whatever takes their fancy really - and those who specialise in one particular niche like the OP, and myself to a lesser extent. For the latter, I'd say it's easier to burn out or to run out of things to say although it depends on the depth of your interest in the subject matter you are photographing.

If you are a specialist and are accomplished at what you do, but you have had enough, it is less easy to just start again and become a beginner at something.

Personally I'll keep on doing what I'm doing until I run out of ideas or things to shoot. Then I'll flog my expensive gear and keep a small camera to just record family life and holidays etc.

 

[tijuana taxi]

When they pry the camera from my cold dead hand

Probably a bit before then actually, but just enjoy taking photos, some turn out not so bad, others are crap.
Another quote fits quite nicely, its about the journey not the destination or words to that effect

 

[Carl Hall]

So if I've been published in everything I wanted, and I can't do it for a full time job....why am I still doing it?

What about for the enjoyment of it all? That's why 99% of amateurs do it. Realistically most amateurs (me included!) are never going to have any of their photos printed in magazines, but they go out and take photos for fun anyway. I think if I ever got to the point where I was doing it for the achievements and not for enjoyment, I'd stick it all on eBay and find another hobby that I did enjoy.

 

[munch]

I must confess photography has taken a bit of a back seat, but I would not sell my gear. Took the camera on holiday and enjoyed trying to get "the shot"

 

[Nostromo]

It's a bit like any hobby/pass time. For example those that play Sunday league football do it for the enjoyment and satisfaction, win or lose, they turn up for training and matches. One day they may feel that they can't be bothered anymore, so give it up, but will still have a kick about with friends at the park.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I developed my first film at ten years old, became adicted, studied photography, became a professional. Took the same family shots as everyone else...
I am now 82 my camera of choice is a basic Fuji x30. I still take photographs.

If photography is in your blood you can never give it up, but you can perhaps take it less seriously, and at times just go with the flow.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

Photography isn't an interest in its self; its a companion to you in other interests.

I don't ever feel like just 'stopping' 'doowing feax-tograffy'.. I just don't do it for a while, because? Well, there's no 'other interests' to engage in for the camera to be companion in; or other interests are doing stuff that the camera's not interested in.

I was walking through the kitchen earlier and had an idea 'flit' through my mind, which was "Why NOT... try doing Tri-Chrome with the 120 Folder?".. which was a bit random.... but I had a crack at Tri-Chrome last year; using a film camera & B&W film, and making 3 exposures through Red, Green and Blue filters, to combine into a colour photo; An antique process of the pioneering era before celuloid, made more do-able by Photo-Shop in the modern era.

It was something I had wanted to try since I read about it in the 90's; but no practical way to have a crack at then; but O/H bought me a new kit of filters, that conveniently contained, Red, Green & Blue, for Xmas before last, so I gave it a go...... And failed horribly... though with promise.... got the 'principle' fort of sussed, but it needs a subject that sort of shows the effect properly, which I didn't really get last year. Pondering that, lead me to dig out the motor-wind for my old OM so I could shoot three sequential shots on a cable without disturbing camera on the tripod, and err.. that's as far as I got! Trying with the 120 folder, is probably just a wonderful way to make life even harder for myself... b-u-t.. notion was obviously inspired by talk on F&C about MF cameras....

So, flipping the question, rather than "Why Not?" I have to ask just plain "Why?"

Do I really need or want photo's of 'something'?

I have thousands of pictures of utterly inane subjects, like oily bits of motorbike or Land-Rover, shot over the years that would seem utterly pointless to most, but were shot with a reason, to illustrate a principle in mechanics for repairing or restoring an old motorbike or Land-Rover.. they have a reason to be. I have even more photo's of family and friends, shot over the decades; 'Snap-Shots'.. memories.. they too have a reason to be, and I actually apreciate those, probably the most, out of all I have ever shot. I have probably even MORE photo's I have shot of places and events I have been to... WHICH, in retrospect don't hold anywhere near the interest that family & friends do.. and are of passing interest, just fleeting other memories.

BUT... I have thousands of photo's I have taken petty much just to 'doo feax-tograffy'.. now, they hold almost zero interest for me, and even less for any-one else; a lot of them were like the Tri-Chrome 'experiment' academic exercises; fun to do, maybe bit of learning along the way, BUT.. significantly 'pointless'.. and the more feux-tograffy I did more of them I seem to have taken!

Do I REALLY need to find a reason to get up and go take more photo's like that, JUST to feel I'm doing this faux-tography lark?

I will probably return to the Tri-Chrome experiment at some point, it's something 'fun' to do I'll enjoy playing with; but? I don't NEED to do to. But, I will be doing t for the fun, for the adventure; to see IF I can do it ad what I get; I wont be doing it with any aspirations of 'making art' or 'achieving excellence'., or to wow an audience with my fantastic faux-toe-bility'.... it will be just for the fun.

You say you have had photo's published... and after that where is left to go? The answer MAY be in the implied precept, that you look at photography AS the journey; not your companion ON the journey... you have set out with camera, learned some craft, put it into practice, and achieved some acclaim along the way.... Did you start out, looking for recognition and acclaim? Was that WHY you started taking photos? Or did you start taking photo's to capture memories; things you came across as you did other things? Striving for that standard and that acclaim... do you still DO those things?

Why, having achieved a standard and acclaim, in a genre you were obviously interested in, do you think you should go find a new genre, to start over... NOT to enjoy the subject that interested you to start with..... insinuation is to find more acclaim? B-u-t, WHO are you taking photo's for?

If you'd gone pro, you'd be shooting for who-ever paid you; and you would have to shoot what they would pay you for. As an amateur; you are free to indulge in shooting whatever takes your interest.. you don't have to seek rewards or acclaim for your work; its NOT a ruddy competition; despite how many seem to think so rating their photo's by how many friends and family 'likes' they get on Face-Broke.... photography can be whatever you want it to be, and you only have to please yourself. (And maybe the bank-manager!) If you WANT to take photo's... go take photo's. If you no want to take photo's you don't HAVE to go take photo's! But, taking photo's just for the sake of, of stuff that doesn't really even interest you JUST because you have a camera and feel you aught do something with it, worse still, endowing the camera with some cudos that you have to chop and change kit to try and find the gear that will stimulate your enthusiasm, and to strive for a standard, that probably is immaterial, to please an ambivalent audience you simply want appreciation from?! WHY

You don't HAVE to take photo's unless YOU want to. You can stick gear on the shelf ad come back to it in a month, in a year, in five years, it doesn't matter. What matters is having that REASON the inspiration to take a photo; even if it IS and you RECOGNIZE that it is 'just' to 'play-cameras'.

I'd suggest, you go back through your archive; look at the pictures you took BEFORE you started '.doowing feax-tograffy'... what were you shooting? Why? WHAT made you pick up a camera in the first place. Go re-find the "interest" you had before, or go find a new interest; something completely different; go do THAT; you may find something in it that makes you want to pick up a camera and take photo's with it again, BUT as companion to your other interests, other activities; NOT the reason for doing them... or maybe the camera will sit n the shelf..... for when something 'happens' to make you think, "Oh! I'll just grab the camera...."

BUT..... remember, the camera should be our companion in doing stuff in life, not the thing we do instead of have a life.......

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

Honestly - talk about first world problems!

If you're having fun, go on doing it. If you're not having fun, don't do it.

 

[sandboxmagician]

The only time I've ever felt like giving up is when I see incredible shots (like yours) and think 'why do I bother?'


To be honest, it’s difficult to comment on your position as I only started two years ago so have a lot to learn and do. Plus, not many of us here have had quite the same exposure and success as you!

Perhaps it’s time to give it a proper break until the motivation comes back again, rather than dramatically stopping altogether.

 

[woof woof]

No one would ever pay me so this is just something I do for pleasure I never feel like giving up. I sometimes wish I had more time but that'd mean spending less time doing other things and that's not really an option as the only other things I do are be more attentive to my GF and look after someone so photography has to come third behind those two things.

I sometimes worry about my eyesight going as I get older and I very often wish the light was better for taking pictures but I can't say that I've ever thought of giving up.

 

[mattd85]

Thanks for all the replies, definitely food for thought.

 

[juggler]

I think there's maybe a distinction here between people who have a camera and are happy to record life and dabble in different genres - whatever takes their fancy really - and those who specialise in one particular niche like the OP, and myself to a lesser extent. For the latter, I'd say it's easier to burn out or to run out of things to say although it depends on the depth of your interest in the subject matter you are photographing.

If you are a specialist and are accomplished at what you do, but you have had enough, it is less easy to just start again and become a beginner at something.

Personally I'll keep on doing what I'm doing until I run out of ideas or things to shoot. Then I'll flog my expensive gear and keep a small camera to just record family life and holidays etc.

This.. I'm interested in people and performers in particular more than I am in photography. @mattd85 - you're clearly passionate about small things - the photography is a tool.
Maybe it's time for an in-depth study of the habits of a particular creature or location, aiming at a book and / or exhibition?

OR

If you really are interested in photography itself for the process, maybe get more heavily involved in artificial light, table top or product photography perhaps? That's probably not too far removed from your current specialism.

 

[gramps]

So if I've been published in everything I wanted, and I can't do it for a full time job....why am I still doing it? Why am I still buying and selling equipment?

If your only purpose in taking up photography was to 'achieve', then maybe finish now and sell up ... however if this is a hobby for you, why would you want to?

 

[redhed17]

If your only purpose in taking up photography was to 'achieve', then maybe finish now and sell up ... however if this is a hobby for you, why would you want to?

This is a long one, so some may want to give it a miss. Pretty similar to what Mike has said above.

I always find threads like this interesting as I think most people, unless they are in their obsessive starting period, if they had one, will ebb and flow as to how often they do this hobby. I wonder sometimes of the motivations for posting threads like this. Is it to find others of the same mind? Is it to find someone with the answer as to how to get you back to what you were like before? Is it for attention? Or some other reason, only the people who post this type of thread can know for certain.

I think people need to ask themselves why they take pictures though at some point. Is it to get one of the best pics of a certain subject? Is it to get recognition in the various media? Is it the enjoyment of taking pictures? Is it the enjoyment of editing pictures or creating something new from a scene? There may be many reasons, and for some they don't question it too much, they just continue to enjoy what they do. Those that come to a crossroads like the OP may have to be a bit critical as to their motivations.

When I started taking pics again with my first digital camera after a long period of not taking pics, because of the cost / and my slow progression, I went through an obsessive phase, and couldn't do it enough. This lead on to a slightly competitive phase as I found a site which held a new competition every couple of weeks, and that was great for getting me to try and get pics of subjects, or ideas, I wouldn't have thought of or tried. It was fun though and helped me improve quickly. Thankfully I didn't take it that seriously. Now I take pics when the urge strikes, or an event happens. If I don't take pics for a couple of weeks, meh! the gears paid for and there for when I do feel like taking pics of something

I decided early on that I didn't want to try and become a 'Pro' as I wanted to continue to enjoy what I was doing, and the main thing was taking pictures of things I wanted to take pictures of, not what I was told to, and not of something I had no interest in, just to make money. I surmised that doing that could ruin this hobby that I was enjoying so much. I was probably not good enough to be a 'Pro' anyway, but I would rather keep the enjoyment and not take the risk.

I used to get quite unhappy if I had been out taking pics and didn't find any that I really liked. I would think what was the point. That went of for awhile until I thought it out a bit more. Did I enjoy taking the pictures at the time? Most of the time yes. Did I like the results I was getting? Sometimes yes, and as I was improving that happened more often. Did I enjoy the editing/processing of the images? Most of the time yes. So, from taking one picture I have three times when I gain enjoyment from that one image. I can enjoy taking it, enjoy editing it, and enjoy the final result. If I only enjoy one aspect of those, is it time well spent? For me it is. There are obviously times when it is all bad, but hopefully not too often, and not a number of times consecutively.

You may have noticed how often I used the word enjoy/enjoyment above, it was meant. If someone is not enjoying their photography, then don't do it. If they feel it is a temporary thing, or are unsure if it is, then put the gear in the cupboard until the urge returns if money is not a factor, or until it goes on for too long without being used. If one feels that that is it, they feel no inspiration, and/or achieved all they wanted to, and maybe need the money for other more enjoyable things, then sell up and do one of your other hobbies, or find a new hobby.

 

[mattd85]

Thanks again for the replies.

I certainly didn't take up photography to Just 'achieve' but most wildlife photographers will no doubt always aspire to be published by the likes of Nat Geo etc and actively work towards it....a holy grail as such.

The reasons for posting this thread were simply for my own sanity, to hopefully get a different perspective on how I'm viewing things and to help me see the light or make a final decision.

I think it's my work that's uninspiring me, how many inverts can I photograph but it becomes the same old.

I like the idea above from @juggler , maybe I need to concentrate on a species and just work on that as a project.

Again thanks for the replies, this thread certainly wasn't posted to gain 'attention' , it was simply to seek out thoughts from like minded individuals, after all this is the largest and best photography forum.

Matt

 

[Chipper]

It's something I have pondered often - why etc and, of course, whilst there is probably nothing new under the sun, the only bit that is potentially different is the person behind the camera. It is fun, vexing, rewarding, challenging, frustrating and endlessly fascinating.

 

[Mr Badger]

Who says you have to go anywhere/somewhere from 'here'? If you aren't enjoying doing what you 'know', perhaps think about trying something different... perhaps a bit of street/life/reportage photography for a change? Maybe buy an old film camera and (re)discover going back to basics with an unforgiving beast and an element of chance and risk? Maybe have a go at the Box Brownie challenge in the Film and Conventional section if you fancy a bit of something completely different and fun?

I find the world of photography is just as inspiring as I choose to make it within the time I have spare. So maybe put the kit and subject you know to one side for a bit and look through a different viewfinder at a new subject just for a bit of fun? Hope this is useful, or at least constructive.

 

[srichards]

I've got bored as well. Never managed to really take any pictures of note inspite of making the effort. I find messing about with film cameras makes it more interesting but I still worry I'll run out of things to take photos of once I've been to every museum or national trust place or bit of landscape I quite like.

I need a new genre as well. Not wildlife though as it involves being stil and quiet for ages...

 

[LCPete]

Really thought provoking thread
I'm into dragonflies butterflies and damselflies and the photography happened because I was trying to take pictures of them
I've set myself a goal of seeing and photographing every British species so that will keep me busy for a while
Am happy just going out watching stuff but I do go out seriously to try to get good shots when the conditions are right (the light I shoot natural light don't like using flash) I only manage a few good shots a year sometimes only a couple a year but am happy with that

 

[Tobers]

Hi Matt - I'm where you are at the moment, having arrived here from a similar route, but a different genre.

After enjoying taking pictures of literally everything, I started to specialise in sports. It got a bit out of hand and culminated in me shooting international rugby and football, with the pinnacle being 6 weeks shooting the 2014 world cup in Brazil. Having been published in all the national papers and internationally, and done the world cup, I stopped sports photography entirely. I also stopped all my professional photography, which included events, commissions etc.

I sold all my sports gear (much white lens stuff and 1D bodies), but kept my Leica M240 and a couple of lenses. I'm now on an M10 and 3 lenses, which is my absolute dream setup and that's it.

But, having nothing specific to photograph anymore, I'm in a bit of a rut. I love landscape photography but being stuck in Surrey makes things tricky without substantial travel or repetitive visits to places I've shot to death.

I'm just letting things tick along. To begin with I put pressure on myself to use my camera, but now I just let things flow. I'm not worried about it - I know I can pick things up again at any point. But there's no doubt that stopping something that was a very big part of my life left a rather large hole.

Best of luck as you rethink things.

 

[Tobers]

One other thing to add. I would love to get back to the "innocent" joy of just taking pictures for the sake of it, which I had when I started photography. My mind has got into a mode of "how can I sell/monetise/commercialise this image" and "if nobody is going to see it, what's the point".

I've lost sight of the fact that I like looking at my own pictures, and I absolutely love hiking out into the wilds of Scotland or wherever to photograph landscapes and simply get outside and experience the world a bit more.

 

[Fuji Dave]

I have always tried to take photos of wildlife since I first got my 1100D and 70D, I love wildlife but then stopped and thought I need to totally change my look on photography. As there are loads of beautiful and stunning things that I want to get in to taking, landscapes and architecture, as here in the South coast we have tons of that, one day I will start to take the odd bird shot but for now I want and need a change.

 

[User.82148]

Hi Matt - I'm where you are at the moment, having arrived here from a similar route, but a different genre.

After enjoying taking pictures of literally everything, I started to specialise in sports. It got a bit out of hand and culminated in me shooting international rugby and football, with the pinnacle being 6 weeks shooting the 2014 world cup in Brazil. Having been published in all the national papers and internationally, and done the world cup, I stopped sports photography entirely. I also stopped all my professional photography, which included events, commissions etc.

I sold all my sports gear (much white lens stuff and 1D bodies), but kept my Leica M240 and a couple of lenses. I'm now on an M10 and 3 lenses, which is my absolute dream setup and that's it.

But, having nothing specific to photograph anymore, I'm in a bit of a rut. I love landscape photography but being stuck in Surrey makes things tricky without substantial travel or repetitive visits to places I've shot to death.

I'm just letting things tick along. To begin with I put pressure on myself to use my camera, but now I just let things flow. I'm not worried about it - I know I can pick things up again at any point. But there's no doubt that stopping something that was a very big part of my life left a rather large hole.

Best of luck as you rethink things.

Out of interest do you have a job other than as a photographer at present?

 

[Orangecroc]

I've only just started!

 

[morph1909]

An interesting thread in some ways I would aspire to be in your position that you found a genre that you like but then also became good enough at it to become rewarded for by being published etc. After much trial and error and many many photographs im finally begging to gain an identity for myself. In some ways the most difficult thing i find is that you can literally photograph anything and as such sometimes I end up photographing nothing ! I decided to do some online study this year which has really expanded my knowledge and for me that works really well. Perhaps for you the answer may be to switch to something your not comfortable photographing and conquer that genre.

 

[Tobers]

Out of interest do you have a job other than as a photographer at present?

Yes, and I always did, except when I chucked it in to cover the world cup. Sport generally happens at weekends - most sport photographers shoot other things, and many have other jobs too. There are very few full time sport photographers out there, and those that are tend to be extremely good.

 

[droj]

..... remember, the camera should be our companion in doing stuff in life, not the thing we do instead of have a life.......

Well, not always - I mean photography itself is doing stuff, isn't it - it can be enjoyed for itself and not just as a vehicle to portray something else. What I mean is - and forget about all the shopaholic stuff I read about on here about equipment - that the image is the whole point, and an image doesn't have to be of something you like doing, or of a person or object - it can just be an image for its own sake. What are photographs a material record of? That's right - light. We photograph light. Light can be a subject - along maybe with what transmits and reflects it, but not necessarily in the realm of discrete OBJECTS or ACTIVITIES.

I'm not really arguing with you, Mike, just saying that you haven't told quite the whole story. Photography can be more than an accessory to doing something else.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

I'm not really arguing with you, Mike, just saying that you haven't told quite the whole story. Photography can be more than an accessory to doing something else.

It's a hypothesis heading into the deep dark margins... Would you cook a meal, 'just' for the pleasure of playing with the cooker, NOT to eat it?
It's a concept that isn't untenable; but is to limit the purpose quite significantly to the act, and the act alone.
Begs further conundrum; would you cook a meal, whether yo particularly enjoyed the act of cooking or not, 'just' to put o the table for people to look at, and NOT eat?
This takes us into the arena of 'Art' photography.. and an awful lot of pretension about what might constitute 'art', that frankly I find quite perverse and anathmic in a lot of cases.
Came/comes up in "Why do you do feux-tog-raffy" threads, and quite revealing how many folk admit to 'artistic urges' and lack of artistic 'talent'; they take photo's because they cant achieve their aspirations with more conventional artistic medium like pencil and paper or canvas and oils.. but they still want to make pretty pictures.....and photography, essentially a pretty mechanical recording process lets them produce the pretty pictures that they aspire to, without the effort or dexterity.... WHICH is a rather awkward scenario; the medium panders to the inept and impatient, worse the pretentious....
I am an engineer; as a student, I had the notion that perhaps one of photography's attractions, for me, was that it was an outlet for artistic urge in a particularly practical and scientific psyche.. I really don't 'think' I can draw! It was rather chocking then, when my daughter, studying art at 'O'-Level claimed that she got her 'artistic tendencies' from me! More, applauded my 'drawings'; I was trained in technical drawing; drafting, NOT 'art'! But she argues that one down; and pointed out the 'graphic design' I do in web-page layout, or in painting and decalling a motorbike I restore. By her reckoning that atheistic in a practical context is still 'art'.. my 'photos' on the other hand.... by her reckoning are competent technical exercises of little artistic merit, I am a 'recordist'.. which is to some degree, something I agree with; I do shun the pretense of 'art'; I don't strive to make art, I strive to make pleasant 'records' of stuff I see... if I can endow it with an added aesthetic over and above a simple point and shoot grab-shot, so much the better; but, taking photo's of abstract subjects, using perverse perspectives, or processes to try and evoke some 'emotional connection' or the like.. yeah, Oh-Kay... something that artists working in more conventional media may strive for..... may be something that may be done with photographic media... BUT.. it is predominantly a recording medium; we seldom create the scene we capture, we simply record it, and that is the great strength of the media.
I REVERE THE SNAP-SHOT! - The humble snap-shot s a wonderful thing; some-one has seen some thing, that has some interest and some meaning to them, and enough they wish to record it. There is a simplicity, and honesty and a humility to the snap-shot, that is quite endearing, and so often of far more interest than some prosaic 'meaning' that may or may not be conveyed by 'artistic interpretation'.
And it is something that irks me, that so many make the leap from 'casual' snap-shot photography into the realms of 'enthusiast' photography, and armed with a DSLR rather than an i-phone, Suddenly have some compunction to STOP taking snap-shots and imperative that they must make 'art'?!?!
Why? And are you chucking the baby out with the bath-water? Why, armed with a more versatile camera, cant you simply use it to make 'better' snap-shots?
The danger for perversion of intent, and pretension then becomes enormous, and oh-so-many, appear to disappear up their own f-stops, chasing such aspirations, if they don't get more absorbed in looking at the camera than through it.
Photography is such an all encompassing pursuit is such a HUGE and never ending story, it would be like trying to write the definitive past present and future history of the universe, to try and tell the 'whole story', Photography is such a broad arena, it can be exploited for so many purposes, in so many ways; but I still maintain that it should be a companion in ones endeavors, not the reason in itself for those endeavors... a companion in 'life' not a reason for it.. even if it or elements within it, are is pursued for their own sake.. it is still a part of life, and not an essential one, and life blithely continues despite it. Like ANY 'tool' properly employed it can enrich our existence, making life easier or providing some thing of greater value; but the point at which we stop being masters of the tool, and slaves to it, when our existence becomes subservient to serving the machine, rather than the machine serving us.. that is when it is no longer enriching but defining or ruling our lives, and taking from them, rather than adding.....
Which is to accept that as a companion in our endevour, rather than reason for them, yes. is but small part of the story... but at the same time, IS the story.. a paradox of perspective, perhaps?

 

[sirch]

Would you cook a meal, 'just' for the pleasure of playing with the cooker, NOT to eat it?

But isn't the viewing of a photograph equivalent of eating the meal? So would you cook your self a decent meal when on your own just for the pleasure of both the cooking and the eating? Even if no one else was there to taste or see it?

Like all skills photography takes practice, I see a lot of what I do as just practice, learning, and then sometimes it all comes together and I do something half decent, like running the marathon after all the training.

 

[StephenM]

Came/comes up in "Why do you do feux-tog-raffy" threads, and quite revealing how many folk admit to 'artistic urges' and lack of artistic 'talent'; they take photo's because they cant achieve their aspirations with more conventional artistic medium like pencil and paper or canvas and oils.. but they still want to make pretty pictures.....and photography, essentially a pretty mechanical recording process lets them produce the pretty pictures that they aspire to, without the effort or dexterity.... WHICH is a rather awkward scenario; the medium panders to the inept and impatient, worse the pretentious....

Don't confuse artistic talent with having the manual dexterity to paint. What's needed for both painters and photographers is essentially the same in the first instance - a clear concept of what they want to achieve. OK, I'm looking at photography as art (because that's what I do) and not as a simple recording medium. As if it ever was. At the risk of displaying profound ignorance and upsetting a lot of people here, you've come across as having at least one thing in common with John Berger - a lack of appreciation of what photography is, and what it is capable of.

Emerson used to champion photography as art, until he studied the results of Hurter and Driffield in sensitometry and then decided that photography was just a recording medium with no scope for the personal. What he failed to grasp was the degree of control that the photographer has in terms of what to include, the perspective used, the considerable effect of the exact lens position, and even the mapping of tones.

It's easy to produce pretty picures and I see a lot of them on this forum. Pretty, and nothing more than that. For some, as you rightly say, it's all that they aspire to. Quite a few photographers have also been painters, and I'm not sure that Henri Cartier-Bresson, Man Ray or David Hockney are/were inept, impatient or pretentious. OK, I might query the last term in some cases...

I see a lot of poor paintings at local art exhibitions, where a lack of dexterity is plain to see. Even plainer is the obvious lack of study of painting and painters. One of our local evening class providers has courses on painting and photography. For the aspiring painters, the course synopsis says that they'll study colour, line, form etc. etc, and look at and discuss the work of famous painters. For the aspiring photographers - a first course to take you through camera controls, a second one to cover downloading files to computer, and a third (advanced) course of how to tackle various subjects. Nothing on the work of other photographers, nothing on the underlying principles of what makes a compelling photograph, and nothing on how to actually use your eyes and see what's in front of you, rather than what you assume is there.

On the actual starting topic - I don't see myself stopping so long as I can still see and discover new things. When I no longer can, I rather think that there's more than just photography that I'd have to stop.

 

[droj]

Mike I suspect that you suffer from an affliction common in my experience to engineers, of being wedded to the prosaic. I'm pretty sure that it comes from having been born with a certain brain type. Thankfully there is no diminution of humanity involved!

You will be likely to diss abstraction in any medium, because it lacks anything that you can put your finger on. Whereas to be ambiguous is one of the prime functions of art, since it lacks definition and leaves the viewer scope. Thus the image can be alive rather than prescriptive.

But you're right to a degree.

I can see abstract images, though (painted or photographic, you name it), and read them for what they are. There is much pastiche. There is much vain posturing. But some is priceless.

I'm much in accord with Stephen's post immediately above. Essentially, the value of a picture is its meaning, and there's a spectrum - some have a lot, and some have none.

 

[mattd85]

One thing I appreciate about this forum is how everyone responds with a different view or feeling, it's certainly helped me.

I've decided to lay off the macro, I'll still dable, but not take it as seriously.

I've also just purchased a Sigma Art 35mm in the hopes of trying my hand at some street and portraits.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[sirch]

Mike I suspect that you suffer from an affliction common in my experience to engineers

Well I'm a chartered engineer and I love abstraction. That said I suspect you are largely correct, I do work with a lot of engineers who simply don't get it

 

[Teflon-Mike]

Well I'm a chartered engineer and I love abstraction. That said I suspect you are largely correct, I do work with a lot of engineers who simply don't get it

Designing & Developing missile guidance systems, I worked with a lead project engineer who played jazz & soul sax... at his desk! "eet elp me fow-cuss!" Curiously, or perhaps not, at in the more cutting edge 'avante-guarde' of rocket science; most engineers I worked with had some other, usually just as creative, but more conventionally 'artistic' side interest, like that....

Mike I suspect that you suffer from an affliction common in my experience to engineers, of being wedded to the prosaic. I'm pretty sure that it comes from having been born with a certain brain type. Thankfully there is no diminution of humanity involved!

You will be likely to diss abstraction in any medium, because it lacks anything that you can put your finger on. Whereas to be ambiguous is one of the prime functions of art, since it lacks definition and leaves the viewer scope. Thus the image can be alive rather than prescriptive.

I grew up in the '70's with psychedelic wall-paper, lithographic 'Pop-Art' posters of Che Guevara and Salvador Dhali prints on the walls! Oh and the Penrose stairs, which as a draftsman I still rather like, for various reasons. I appreciate the abstract, I really do; but I do NOT have to revere it, even less aspire to it, less still be pretentious about it!

There have been some quite interesting and enlightening thesis on the question of 'art', and very very illuminating studies on the history of mans artistic ideals, from cows on cave walls, to sheep in glass jars, or the influence of the renaissance; one of which I rather liked, a book, that biographies both the renaissance and El Greko, from holy Iconographer to realist to inspiration for the more abstract schools of 'modern' art. Which resonates very clearly with a documentary, that looked at the renaissance, from Artisan to Artist....

That particular thesis is a very suggestive one; 'The Artist' is a peculiarly modern construct; we don't know who created the cave paintings at places like Alitimara; the fantastic statues in the ruins of ancient Greek and Roman temples; we don't know who carved the rood screens in Medieval chapels; or the freezes on the back of 17th Century ships retrieved from wrecks; this 'ancient' art stands alone, for us to consider on it's own merit; whether abstraction or realism, the image or the artifact is left to us to convey to us what we may take from it; it doesn't HAVE to be 'abstract' it doesn't HAVE to be beautiful; BUT lacking the signature of an 'Artist', the one thing we may infer from it, is that whatever inspiration or intent went into its construction, it was not for self agranditisation...

And here in lies a a major malaise of modern art ethos and pretension; and displayed Oh-So-Often in the output of aspiring 'amateur' photographers, branding their work with a 'water-mark'....

I challenged artistic pretensions and ambitions in photography; I did not challenge the merits of art itself.....It is revealing then,that retort presumes so, more defends by attack, avoiding any self awareness from questioning ones own artistic intent, aspirations and pretensions; by suggesting that I must have no artistic appreciation?!?

Art does not need to be ambiguous, nor abstract, nor pretentious, nor does it need an artists brand, to make it 'art'; Whilst photography does not 'have' to be 'artistic' or pursued for artistic accolade to have 'value'.

Whether I were an engineer or a museum curator, a building side hoddy, wedding planer, hairdresser, accountant, actor or athlete, is irrelevant; whether I prefer Simon Cowell 'Pop' to Mozart, or Metallica to Motown; Douglas Adams to Terry Prattchet to Dan Brown to Dickens; or prefer the realism of a Flemish primitive to the disturbed surreal of Gerald Scarf; Curiously I may appreciate all, without venerating any; But matters not a jot. to the issue.

Which remains, that there is NO compunction in photography to aspire to artistic ideals, less pretensions.