Saturday, December 24, 2005
More Illustrated Photographic Philosophy

Avid digital photography resembles avid hobbyist film photography in many ways: I think both tend to attract fussy loners, and even darkroom insanity has its obvious parallels in post-capture image editing (only easier, faster, more powerful, and less messy). What I think digital photography has done is convert more people like me from casual shooters of family-gathering photos to obsessive shooters of grand masses of artistic photography. The default seems to be stuff that doesn't move, and hopefully doesn't involve a human model. Flowers, pets, architecture and landscapes, with a fair bit of close-up photography, too.

Maybe it's more interesting to talk about what we obsessive unprofessionals don't take pictures of. The most obvious is candids of strangers. Why? If you're me, it's because you're shy, and if I end up wanting to publish this photo, at best I feel bad about the nominal privacy violation, and at worst I fear getting sued (or just making an enemy). Overblown concerns, sure, but there are many other things to shoot. And by the way, that concern pretty much goes double for kids: the kid photos I and others take tend to go up either Friends-and-Family-Only on Flickr, or not at all.

Anything else missing from the canon of unprofessional photography? Nothing occurs right now, but I suspect one of you out there will remind me.
That's about all I have for now. Merry Christmas eve, and I'll figure out something more to say later.
Comments:
Do you follow any photoblogs? The pictures of my favourites ended up pushing me to try out candids of strangers and other types of photos beyond what I might otherwise have taken.
Post a Comment