# Why do you do what you do?



## limr (Oct 1, 2013)

I've had this question forming in my mind for a couple of weeks and it might finally be ready. It started when I realized that there's yet _another_ "Us vs Them" rift amongst us shutterbugs: Flash vs Natural Light. I know all too well the Film vs Digital debate, and of course there's the Canon vs Nikon feud, the Pro vs Amateur, the Auto vs Manual, the Cut The Head vs Don't Cut The Head, yadda yadda yadda.

I was quite surprised to hear such derogatory comments about "natural light photographers" - they are afraid to learn, they're only pretending to have a preference for natural light because they're too clueless to use a flash, they're snotty about 'flashers'...As someone who tends to shoot with available light, I probably should have been peeved, but I was too curious about it all to even think of being offended.

Instead, I started wondering: why _don't_ I use flash? I can see how it's useful and necessary in some situations, but they all seem to be situations that I don't take pictures of. But why not? Why am I interested in the things I take pictures of? I _do_ notice light and how it falls on a subject, but for some reason, it never occurs to me to manipulate that light.

Anywhooooo, without blathering on for much longer, the whole thing made me want to ask everyone this question: *what attracts you to the kind of pictures you like to take?* Why portraits? Why birds? Why macro? Why landscapes? (you get the idea)...what makes you interested in those things? 

I do NOT want to incite any repeats of the above feuds. I don't want to read things like "I do X because Y pictures are lame" or "Pictures _should_ represent reality/not represent reality". I mean, I do like and take pictures that more reflect reality, but I don't think all pictures _should _be that way. It's just a preference that dictates how and what I shoot and I would never expect others to feel or do the same. So let's leave the judgments out of this and not _should_ all over each other 

So, no picking sides on any debates or picking on styles or types that you are not attracted to. Just stating what you _do_ like about the kinds of pictures you take. Just what you like to shoot and why, and no worrying about anyone else's style or preferences.

Who wants to go first?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2013)

I really,really like that "click!" sound. It's what keeps me snapping pics.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 1, 2013)

While I shoot damn near everything, my preference is for concert photography.

When I was a kid, I used to dig the photography on the album covers I had; guys like Neal Preston and Henry Diltz. I didn't know who they were back then, but I enjoyed the Hell out of their work. I used to listen to the album while looking at the photographs and thinking about how cool it must've been to shoot a band when they performed this song or that song.

Fast forward more than a few years. I recently left the music industry after 16 years. During that time, I did sales, some artist relations and, yes, some photography. If my luck holds out, I'll be getting picked up as the tour photographer for a very popular band by the end of this year. It's all I really want to do. I've shot magazine covers, DVD covers and CD covers. I've shot some of the biggest acts on the planet on stage, backstage and in their dressing rooms. It's all been a blast, but it's been incomplete.

Give me life on a pirate ship; that tour bus, and I'll be a happy guy...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 1, 2013)

I can't say I've really thought about why... I usually photograph whatever I see that makes a little lightbulb go on that tells me _that's_ a picture (which I suppose comes from experience and learning what a potential good photo is when you see it). 

I'd thought about majoring in journalism before I went into education so that probably led my photography towards what I think of as a somewhat photojournalistic style. I've done sports and events but also always liked art and took as much of that as electives as possible in school - and in more recent years in workshops etc. and I do other crafts. So that's probably what got me more recently into alternative processes.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Oct 2, 2013)

Easy: I shoot what I find interesting. I find bugs and lightning more interesting than anything else so the vast majority of what I shoot is bugs and lightning. Storms lend themselves to time lapses so I have started to dabble with them the last year or so. I have also gotten a motorcycle a few days ago so I an going to start videoing (vlogging) my rides.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 2, 2013)

My taste in photography subjects mimics my diverse taste in music - pretty much anything.  People/portraits scare me because I don't know enough about lighting (though I am trying to learn.)  I probably tend towards architecture, abstracts and a bit of nature more than anything.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 2, 2013)

I shoot my family, and I shoot still life, these days. The latter uses flash, the former does not unless things are quite dire.

I shoot my family because I love them and want to maintain a record, and to share that record with family members who are not here. I shoot still lifes because I am groping toward something like art, art that I want to have made, and this feels like a road likely to take me further toward that.


----------



## Tiller (Oct 2, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I shoot my family because I love them



:shock: :mrgreen:

I shoot a little of everything. I shoot macro, because I like being outside and I love people's expression when I show them something they might never see except on t.v.

I shoot portraits (not very well yet) because I do like manipulating light, and the options it gives me. I still have a long long way to go with portraits though.

I shoot landscapes because landscapes are awesome, and once again, I like being outside.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 2, 2013)

My initial foray into photography was for astronomy purposes.  Back in my college days when we started to restore our school's observatory I always saw the pictures and everything of the planets and stars.  Even though I see them in books and all I wanted to see them for myself and take pictures of them myself.  Of course I bought my recent dSLR and all of a sudden I'm taking pictures of everything else too.  And I realized I need a much bigger telescope, but it's still fun 

I think people's own interpretation of "artistic" is why they may choose natural lighting or flash lighting. People read different things from a photograph, and interpret it differently.

For me, Taking "pictures" is the key to capturing the moment for you (and your family, etc) to remember.  Yeah, my P&S or phone pictures aren't the greatest, but they capture an image that me and my family remember.  After that capturing it artistically tells a story to other people. 

I have memories in my head of seeing my kids grow, too bad I can't pull that out of my head in a photograph.


----------



## sm4him (Oct 2, 2013)

Wow, so nothing complicated, huh? I mean, this is really a "what makes you who you are" kind of question.  Some people love to hike and be outdoors; others love the opera and classical music. Some thrive on city living, others prefer the country. Why?  The answer to that question is what biographies are made of. Very LONG biographies... 

So, why do I do what I do?
Well, it all started when I was three years old, the youngest of five siblings, living in a little southern town in a home built my grandfather.... :lmao:

Seriously, when I shoot for pleasure, I shoot what makes my heart sing--and that tends to be the beauty of nature, whether it's birds or other wildlife, macros, abstracts, landscapes...those are the things that tend to make me stop and just marvel at the beauty all around us, the things that make my heart sing.
I also take photos of my family (I don't SHOOT them, though sometimes I *could* choke them!) because I love them, and seeing photos of them stirs up those emotions for them in my heart.

I'm also doing some portraiture work right now, for slightly different reasons. First, I want to know how to do it--and that really is about the fact that I love knowledge. I *like* knowing how to do things, I like being really good and knowledgeable about anything I choose to do, so I tend to really dig into it and learn things others might not.
The second reason I'm doing portraits is because I love and care about the people who have asked me to do them. I don't necessarily WANT an album full of photos of their kid for myself, but I want to be helpful to them because they matter to me.

Finally, I take pictures of buses, bus drivers, and passengers, because it's part of my job and I really, really like NOT living under a bridge, so I like to keep my employer happy.


----------



## Newtricks (Oct 2, 2013)

I shoot what I see, some or most of my photographs are not  technically correct, that's okay because I put on film (recently digital) what I see, the way I see it, there is no fill flash in real life. Birds (hummingbirds in particular), fascinate me, I spent the better part of two years chasing them with a 200mm f/4 lens on a Minolta X-700 full manual camera, my wife thought I was nuts, to date the best photos I have of these birds are on film. I have flash equipment, I have studio lighting equipment, 1K (1000 watt) baby lights with Fresnel's, barn-doors, gel frames and single/double scrims, all the Lee/Rosco gels and diffusion one could dream of, Century stands, fingers, dots, flags, cutters, single and double scrims and china silk. Backings made from Black and neutral grey duvetyne and I could get chroma blue or green if I really wanted. Yet I prefer to shoot using available light, no flash, no reflector, take the photo as seen with my eyes. Forty year of taking photographs and twenty years working as a motion picture studio grip have put me in a frame of mind where I don't care so much about what folks say is the way to do it. I understand the norm... it is not the way I see the world. My goal at this point in my life, is simply to record what I see, the way I see it.

Be well,

Anthony


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 2, 2013)

Never saw the issue between flash and available light.   For me, "available light" is "whatever light is available."   Includes flash if I need it, but I rarely do.


----------



## annamaria (Oct 2, 2013)

I am an amateur and a noob.  Why do I enjoy taking photos?  As one of the members said, for the sheer pleasure of hearing the clicking sounds, smiles. I take photos of almost anything, except portraits I don't know anything about that yet and I don't have the equipment.  I really enjoy photographing animals, landscapes, people street photography. cyclists, motorcyclists, architecture especially historical and old barns etc.  when I see something that I really like I get excited and a happy emotional feeling. I just love it and enjoy it so very much. I hope to post some pics for you all to critique as soon as I get the chance. Love these forums!


----------



## Braineack (Oct 2, 2013)

Lately I've been shooting my wife's ebay items:


----------



## runnah (Oct 2, 2013)

I do it for the "likes".


----------



## mmaria (Oct 2, 2013)

nothing to do with OP question, sorry, but I just had to quote this.



sm4him said:


> ......I want to know how to do it--and that really is about the fact that I love knowledge. I *like* knowing how to do things, I like being really good and knowledgeable about anything I choose to do, so I tend to really dig into it and learn things others might not.


OMG me too! you explained my state of mind perfectly  

With that said, I tried to shoot everything and anything, because of learning how to shoot. 

But what I really like and care for and want is shooting emotions and real life. 

Just to add that in a few days I will be doing an assignment about people living in a poor conditions, trying to raise some money for them. I really looking forward to this and really hoping that I could make some impact with my pictures. there will my heart and camera go, in real life of some unfortunate people ...


----------



## KenC (Oct 2, 2013)

I've always liked patterns and arrangements of forms and most of what I do is along these lines, even images of leaves, flowers, etc.  For some reason, these are the things that provoke a visceral response in me.  I don't really shoot anything that doesn't, except for the occasional record shot, which we all end up doing for various reasons.

I don't really understand why I have this preference and I think I prefer not to understand.  I enjoy what I do and an explanation wouldn't change that in either direction.


----------



## texkam (Oct 2, 2013)

Mick Jagger/Jimmy Fallon - Shenzhen Stuff


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 2, 2013)

I do it for the Lulz.





and because my wife tells me to.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 2, 2013)

And I do not care about the "knowledge" part of it.  I would not mind taking great pictures knowing sweet FA about photography if that would be possible. It is an instinctive thing to me, technical prowess is needed, but it should be minimal, it should not take over your natural instincts and impulses. All the accomplished photogs stopped reading here. So I can safely continue... The elaborate preparation, all those gadgets and boxes and all those techniques that pofessionals are (I guess rightly) proud of, - it all just does not interest me.  The more of that stuff you use the futher from real life you get.. most of the time.. So, like the OP, I like pictures of reality. 
I just bought a camera because I was framing things. I mean literally - I am walking or driving and I see a lot of images around.  Probably my mind has tired of these constant mental clicks. So instead I am using a camera these days.  I do not know how long will it last.  Maybe next year I will revert to my mental photography - because I really do not care about a print or even a final result.  I rarely come back to images I took, if ever.  So I can as well get rid of the camera and software. I have it in my head.  A lot about photography is about physical pleasure. Some get it from handling a great camera, I get it from seing colors or proportions and simple, basic stuff like that. I do not why, probably because I was born and grew in a city of amazing architectural splendor and as a schoolboy spent a lot of time in museiums. I doubt it though. I am using a camera for less than a year and I do not know how long will I keep shooting with a camera, to be honest with you. But I admit, it sharpens your senses, very much so. It is like a pair of weights - if you want to be stronger and build up your body, get some weights. If you want to see things better, get a camera. But I did not know it when I bought it.


----------



## TamiAz (Oct 2, 2013)

I bought my first DSLR to take pictures of my daughter playing softball and it just took off from there...I learned that photography fulfills my creative side and my love of learning. I've only been into it for two years, but I've learned that I love to take pictures of nature, still life, animals, macro and sports.  As far as all the debates in photography go, I say live and let live. Do what you love and don't worry about what other people think!!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 2, 2013)

Mehh... nothing else to do...


----------



## Designer (Oct 2, 2013)

Quite diverse subject matter, but what motivates me to try to capture the image is something I see that I've not seen before and perhaps not likely to ever see again.


----------



## KmH (Oct 2, 2013)

I would first say, all light is natural light.

I think a better term is available light

Many types of photos cannot effectively be made using only available light.
Many types of photos cannot effectively be made using supplemental light.

So what it boils down to is that to be completely schooled in doing photography means knowing how to make images using available light, constant lighting, and strobed light (flash).


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> So what it boils down to is that to be completely schooled in doing photography means knowing how to make images using available light, constant lighting, and strobed light (flash).



I am perfectly content, perhaps even aggressively so, about being *in*completely schooled.
I take pictures of things as they are and how I see them and it is rare that supplemental light, particularly from electronic flash, doesn't have an intrusive and distorting effect.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 2, 2013)

I happen to think flash is overused.

It's one of the many results of the fetish of "straight photography", really. "Good Photographs" are sharp, detailed, they reveal detail in the highlights all the way to the shadows. They enjoy a full range of tonal values. The focus is placed precisely, etc. It is about Showing Us What There Is. All this comes down to us more or less unmodified from the disagreeable zealots of f/64.

Flash allows us to reveal more details, to flatten the light out, to reveal All That There Is, and as such is an unalloyed good thing, that we need not even discuss. The result is that in many genres Correct and Proper Lighting as accepted by a) the self-appointed priesthood and b) the general public, has lights all over the place, light coming from many directions. There's nothing natural about that, but we're so awash in these pictures that it is the accepted norm and defying it is to make pictures that look a bit weird.

I happen to use flash to conceal more than it reveals, but that places me in a distinct minority.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 2, 2013)

When my kids where younger, it was mostly documenting and sharing their evolution using p&s.

Now it's mostly wildlife - primarily birds.

I really enjoy the entire process of: charging batteries, cleaning lenses, deciding on a location, walking and talking to wifey and sometimes my kids out in nature, meeting strangers and sharing info, the challenge of stalking, the exercise, the downloading into LR, the cropping etc., the posting etc.

And then, doing it all over again.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 2, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> When my kids where younger, it was mostly documenting and sharing their evolution using p&s.
> 
> Now it's mostly wildlife - primarily birds.
> 
> ...



Someone here, possibly Amolitor, said that there are many more people who like cameras (and by extension, the process of photography)more than really like pictures.
It's is refreshing to actually hear someone who freely admits that. 
The pictures are a pleasant consequence of an enjoyable, to the OP, process.  This is how I feel about fly-fishing; it's not eating the fish but the experience.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 2, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I do it for the Lulz.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



always easy to spot the longtime married guys...


----------



## Braineack (Oct 2, 2013)

happy wife, happy life.

although I do get a lot of:

"nobody cares if it's good photography or not." or 
"omfg, you're taking too long, ill just use my cell phone." or 
"no, you can't buy a d800 and the 70-200 f/2.8, but it want to sell your stupid miata to pay for it, go ahead."


----------



## runnah (Oct 2, 2013)

Braineack said:


> "no, you can't buy a d800 and the 70-200 f/2.8, but it want to sell your stupid miata to pay for it, go ahead."



She has a point on that one...


----------



## limr (Oct 2, 2013)

Oh man, don't sell the Miata! Or...wait...yes! Sell the Miata! How much? 

I love everyone's answers! Even those of you who say that you don't like to think or analyze why you like what you like - those are interesting to me too. I think it's fascinating that we've essentially all chosen the same tool to look at the world, but we use that tool in such vastly different ways. I asked the question because I like learning about photograph*ers* as well as photograph*y*. 

Fwiw, my own answer to the question is this: I like to record things that I feel are fleeting so I can attempt to capture and remember moments that I might not otherwise remember. This may be why I don't bother with a shot if the light isn't there to make the shot. I don't say to myself, "This would be great if the light were hitting in a different way, so let me make that happen." Instead, I say, "It would be great to have different light, but I don't so there's no shot here for me." If I'm creating the moment, then I can create it at any time. Sometimes I like to do that to record my 'accomplishment' but for the most part I'm not interested because it's recreatable (I think I just made up a word.) I like capturing the moments that I can't recreate, or that might happen again but not when I'm around with a camera to catch it. Maybe this is what attracts me to street photography. And things like landscapes for me are ALL about the light, but I don't actually take a lot of them because I tend to notice smaller details that otherwise go unnoticed, so they're more like outdoor still life shots. If we really want to get all deep and psychological, then I'll say that as the 5th of five children, I was often overlooked in the general chaos, and so now I have a soft spot for those small, less obvious details 

Yesterday I was driving to work and I passed a horse barn near my house. I've passed it a million times, probably. There are often great shots of horses and there's really great morning light on the fields, so I keep thinking that one day I should leave myself enough time to pull over and take a few shots. Then yesterday, I glanced over as I always do and I saw an absolutely gorgeous white horse in full gallop with sunlight streaming through her mane. I nearly crashed - it was so stunning and beautiful and I felt so lucky to have seen it. Who knows when I would ever see that again? _That_ is the kind of thing I like to take pictures of. That was the moment when I was kicking myself for a) not having a camera with me, and b) seeing all this from a car with no place/time to pull over. The shot would have been gone by the time I had a chance to take it, but I still wish there were a way somehow.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 2, 2013)

runnah said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > "no, you can't buy a d800 and the 70-200 f/2.8, but it want to sell your stupid miata to pay for it, go ahead."
> ...



but i turbocharged it and it makes over 240rwhp and makes vette owners cry...


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 2, 2013)

My day job is technical and analytical. No room for creativity. Using a camera lets me be creative.

I got burned out on photography back when I was shooting weddings and portraits. Now I flat-out decline commission work. I take photos I like to take.... and if someone wants to pay me for one, then all the better.





That, and it's a chick magnet.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 2, 2013)

480sparky said:


> That, and it's a chick magnet.



Damn, that is so true.
I had a 4 hour fundraier to shoot the other day and when I came home there where these little chicken feathers all over me.


----------



## Murray Bloom (Oct 2, 2013)

I shoot what I like to shoot.  

Following art school, my first job was working in a professional color lab, making prints for some of the best photographers in the world.  The guy I worked for was an acerbic old coot who just happened to be the best photographic technician I've ever met.  I'd always been technically-oriented, but under his tutelage, I learned the art of the print, and how all the available factors in photography interacted.  What I learned then about color lab work has translated well to digital image making.  Probably the most important thing I discovered there was that it's not the subject that matters, but the image.  After all, we're in the image business.

Following my time at the lab, I operated a commercial studio, shooting mostly advertising, catalog and promotional shots.  Again, the subject matter didn't matter, but the quality of the image was paramount.  I couldn't care less about most of the subjects I shot, but shooting them paid the bills.

Over the years, I've hung out with artists of various disciplines, who have insisted that I'm an artist, too.  I maintain that I'm more of a creative technician than anything.  However, something I received from Arthur Ransome, a photographer whom I immensely respect, summed it up very well.  He wrote: 

_"I am amazed at the breadth and depth of your photography. Many photographers have their favorite topics or subjects, and although they try to diversify, it is pretty obvious what their favorite subjects are. This is not the case in your photography. You have established a great identity and have defined a style that you seem to be equally comfortable applying to any subject or topic, irrespective of whether it is an exotic location or something that many people would not even notice. 

The detail in your work is amazing - textures, shapes and lines are truly stunning. Your color images are all about the color  you have a very unique way of using color to emphasize your subjects. I found myself looking at many of the photographs wanting to know more about the subject - to see the sights and to hear the sounds . . . "

_I guess Arthur has described what I do, and how I think of photography, better than I ever could.  I liked what he said so much that it's on my home page.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 2, 2013)

Murray Bloom said:


> I shoot what I like to shoot.
> 
> Following art school, my first job was working in a professional color lab, making prints for some of the best photographers in the world.  The guy I worked for was an acerbic old coot who just happened to be the best photographic technician I've ever met.  I'd always been technically-oriented, but under his tutelage, I learned the art of the print, and how all the available factors in photography interacted.  What I learned then about color lab work has translated well to digital image making.  Probably the most important thing I discovered there was that it's not the subject that matters, but the image.  After all, we're in the image business.
> 
> ...



auto-hagiography


----------



## runnah (Oct 2, 2013)

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



How much do you charge for a men's haircut?  I was pushing 300 in my wrx wagon, and made many a "muscle car" owner weep. One time I had a basket of laundry, my bmx bike and groceries and still managed to souped up stang.


----------



## runnah (Oct 2, 2013)

limr said:


> I don't say to myself, "This would be great if the light were hitting in a different way, so let me make that happen." Instead, I say, "It would be great to have different light, but I don't so there's no shot here for me." If I'm creating the moment, then I can create it at any time.




Thats the good thing about artificial light, you can make light your *****. Granted it doesn't work with sweeping landscapes but for just about every other subject you can add light in a way that makes it look natural and get you the effect you want.

Lighting a scene is such a fascinating subject and one you could spend a lifetime trying to master. Cutting out such a hug portion of photography is a real shame IMO.


----------



## limr (Oct 2, 2013)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't say to myself, "This would be great if the light were hitting in a different way, so let me make that happen." Instead, I say, "It would be great to have different light, but I don't so there's no shot here for me." If I'm creating the moment, then I can create it at any time.
> ...



I totally understand what you're saying, but it's just that for the most part, the effect I want is the one that occurs naturally. It's the effect that happened all on its own, and that I am alert enough to notice and hopefully skilled enough to capture.

I do believe there's a value in learning to use flash properly for those few times when I actually want to manipulate the light; it's just that those times haven't happened with enough frequency to make me want to learn that part yet. I'm having too much fun at the moment with some of the more tactile aspects: developing, tinkering, using different films and papers... I may get to flash at some point but it's just not a priority.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 2, 2013)

runnah said:


> Cutting out such a hug portion of photography is a real shame IMO.



From what I see here, especially in the people section, is the use of lights in an attempt to make everyone look the same.
There is shot after shot of bland, boring sameness with little to distinguish amongst them except the use of non-naturally occuring light.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 2, 2013)

I like the hug portion of photography the best. Well, I like the kissin better, but the hug is nice.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 2, 2013)

One of the many many things I get irritated unfairly about, and try moderately hard to check myself on, is this business of duplicating looks.

This is a very very common theme in photography, people who really get into it can spend essentially their entire career making test shots. They want to master some technique, so they make tests and maybe get critique and learn and after a while they've purchased the right equipment, and learned where to put it and how to use it and now they can make bog standard senior portraits. Then they get a focusing rail and learn focus stacking software and now they can make bug pictures just like that other guy's bug pictures. And and and and.

They keep putting arrows in to the quiver without ever seeming to take any out.

It's not a bad thing, but it's a) not a thing I understand and b) often not quite what the budding photographer imagines himself to be doing. If you wanna make art, or make money, or both, someday you gotta stop making tests and make some pictures.

If you just wanna mess around with cameras and photographic gear, well, that's cool. I think you might be happier if you knew that was your goal, though.


----------



## Murray Bloom (Oct 2, 2013)

"auto-hagiography"

I don't know why you said that, Lew.  What I wrote was 100% factually accurate, and describes the reasons why my personal view of photography is far more process-oriented than subject-oriented.  Something wrong with that?

By the way, I'm no saint.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 2, 2013)

Murray Bloom said:


> "auto-hagiography"
> 
> I don't know why you said that, Lew.  What I wrote was 100% factually accurate, and describes the reasons why my personal view of photography is far more process-oriented than subject-oriented.  Something wrong with that?
> 
> By the way, I'm no saint.



Murray,

Well, I'm on a say-exactly-what-I-think kick.
It seems just amazing and unnecessary and self-aggrandizing to the extreme that someone would take the opportunity to quote some extensive compliments he received.
We have some polished self-promoters here but that takes the cake for just outright brass.

That's why I said it.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 2, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting out such a hug portion of photography is a real shame IMO.
> ...



when people is what your primary interest is in, you tend to notice the little details that separate the various aspects of portraiture, and the different ways in which people on the forum use them. but I understand why you would feel they all look the same, especially more formally posed portraits. 
that isnt to say of course, that anyone with a keen eye cannot pick out minor details in ANY picture they look at, but when viewing pictures you have actual interest in, I think ones attention is more centered on it. 
interestingly enough....I tend to feel the same way about landscape and street photography. 
oh look....another building.  oh hey, another random person on the street.  Personally, I find looking over the different threads of portraits much more enjoyable than staring at yet another abandoned building. or homeless guy. or random street sign. 
i think it is just our own personal preferences that drive us to feel this way. 
Its not a matter of "better" or "worse", its just a matter of what we happen to like.


----------



## Murray Bloom (Oct 2, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Well, I'm on a say-exactly-what-I-think kick.
> It seems just amazing and unnecessary and self-aggrandizing to the extreme that someone would take the opportunity to quote some extensive compliments he received.
> We have some polished self-promoters here but that takes the cake for just outright brass.
> 
> That's why I said it.



Fair enough, Lew.

The reason I quoted Arthur is that I'm not comfortable promoting my own skill, ability, whatever.  I'd much rather someone else speak to the quality of my work. Everything before that was biographical, and about why I shoot like I do; which was, I believe the point of the thread.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 2, 2013)

Derrel said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I do it for the Lulz.
> ...



19 years together, 14 years married. 
Guess thats a pretty long time nowdays.


----------



## runnah (Oct 2, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting out such a hug portion of photography is a real shame IMO.
> ...



I agree, but replicating your favorite looks is an important part of learning. Once you learn how do something someone else has done you can take that and do something unique.


----------



## runnah (Oct 2, 2013)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



My whole goal as a taker of photos is to get the point where i can get a nice photo in any given situation. Often when working I do not have the time to wait for the best lighting or come back to the scene later. But using flash and constant lighting I can get what I need when I need it.

For my fun personal photos I do have the time to go back to the same place until I get the right ind of sky and right time of day. Case in point. 

I don't think its bad to use what is there but I think not at least trying it is doing a great disservice to yourself. Learning is fun and even if you never use it again its good to know how to do it.


----------



## limr (Oct 2, 2013)

runnah said:


> I don't think its bad to use what is there but I think not at least trying it is doing a great disservice to yourself. Learning is fun and even if you never use it again its good to know how to do it.



You're right: it's fun to learn. I think someone else (Sharon?) mentioned how she doesn't like to not know something. I'm absolutely the same way and I do have curiosity about adding skills to my bag of photographic tricks. Manipulating the lighting is just lower on my list of interests at the moment. Barring fiery death or flesh-eating bacterial infections, I plan to get to that number on my list eventually. I just am more interested in learning other aspects at the moment. And even if it were holding more of my interest at the moment, I'm not really in the position to finance a theoretical sudden interest in flash gear.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 2, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting out such a hug portion of photography is a real shame IMO.
> ...



The photos posted here are NOTHING compared to Dgrin in terms of sameness. Almost everyone in that forum is indistinguishable from the next.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 2, 2013)

Personally, I like to shoot drama. I've come to that realization. I've tried to do the dreamy, hazy, kind of luminous photography that is very popular right now, but I can't. My eye just does not "see" like that.

I love contrast. I love colors. I just love...drama. So that's kind of where my photography comes from. I mostly shoot portraits unless I'm somewhere that might have a gorgeous landscape or animals. I want to connect with people, and I want people to connect with me and to the subjects in my photographs through the photographs. I know photographers aren't supposed to admit this, but I crave validation and understanding through my photography. So I'm trying to conceptualize my own ideas of photo shoots that aren't just neutral pictures of smiling people awkwardly posing and trying to act like they aren't dying in those high heels or that tie.

I want affirmation that what I do is worthwhile and meaningful, as cliche and somewhat pathetic as that sounds.

So in long story short, I like to shoot drama and people.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Oct 3, 2013)

I take photos because I see something and want to put it into a photo. At the moment, I'm not great at doing it, but I feel like I've learned a ton in the past month alone. I had a very limited understanding of how aperture, ISO, and shutter speed really worked together until I found a video posted here. Suddenly, manually operating a camera became soooo much clearer to me. Now I'm here to learn more about composition, then eventually lighting and so on. Basically, I just want to keep learning and improving, and you guys have been a pretty big help already. I'm not looking to become a pro, but being a better photographer never hurts.


----------



## peter27 (Oct 3, 2013)

I take photos because I drink too much and can't sleep nights when I write poetry.


----------



## RichieT (Oct 3, 2013)

I got back into photography when my son was born. Progressed to sports shots when he progressed to sports. Since I love the outdoors, nature shots were a natural progression. I spend a lot of time in the winter tying flies for flyfishing so that got me started on macro. By the way, I use flash on the macros to bring out detail in the shadows that I can't get with natural light and long exposures, though I'm still looking for the right balance. A lot has to do with my nature. If I enjoy something, I try to learn and improve as much as I can. I am not a pro, don't consider myself an aspiring pro, I do it because I enjoy it.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> One of the many many things I get irritated unfairly about, and try moderately hard to check myself on, is this business of duplicating looks.
> 
> This is a very very common theme in photography, people who really get into it can spend essentially their entire career making test shots. They want to master some technique, so they make tests and maybe get critique and learn and after a while they've purchased the right equipment, and learned where to put it and how to use it and now they can make bog standard senior portraits. Then they get a focusing rail and learn focus stacking software and now they can make bug pictures just like that other guy's bug pictures. And and and and.
> 
> ...




Some guys collect cameras. They are not photographers, they are just camera collectors. They like old or not so old gadgets. There is nothing bad about it at all, especially because these guys are generally happy:they know what they are. There are also people who primarily "master techniques", as you mentioned. They know anything about cameras and stuff. They are not photographers either, really. They are knowledge collectors.  Some of them are not as happy as the first group, mostly because they can not quite figure out what they are. Others are just fine. 

I have no problem with both groups whatsoever. But between the two I would rather collect cameras. I would know that I can sell my gadgets on ebay, any day and some people would be interested. As a knowledge collector I would probably be quite desperate, knowing that I am unable to apply it to anything worthy. Apart from teaching photography, of course.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> One of the many many things I get irritated unfairly about, and try moderately hard to check myself on, is this business of duplicating looks.
> 
> This is a very very common theme in photography, people who really get into it can spend essentially their entire career making test shots. They want to master some technique, so they make tests and maybe get critique and learn and after a while they've purchased the right equipment, and learned where to put it and how to use it and now they can make bog standard senior portraits. Then they get a focusing rail and learn focus stacking software and now they can make bug pictures just like that other guy's bug pictures. And and and and.



Then there is the other end of that group, often people who aspire to some degree of creativity.
They find a technique that gives them something unique and, from then on, everything is done in that vein.

At the very bottom of this category is the selective color, then the heavy vignette, then the hdr and at the very top would be someone like I came across the other day. He took a picture of the components of a still life exploding. Probably technically difficult to make get it done but it's a comment that seems interesting. But then that becomes his entire shtick; different pictures, same comment. 

Continuous creativity, climbing the creative mountain, is tiring and discouraging and it is very tempting to pick a niche and settle down there.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 3, 2013)

runnah said:


> I agree, but replicating your favorite looks is an important part of learning. Once you learn how do something someone else has done you can take that and do something unique.



Big, big mistake. Between copying others and doing something unique is a huge distance and most of us fail, not having even reached a quater of the distance. That is exactly where vast majority fail for the lack of creativity and some other things that can not be learned or copyed.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Oct 3, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I really,really like that "click!" sound. It's what keeps me snapping pics.



I LOVE that click!  and feeling it in my hands. I love finding a subject, sometimes spending time with it, discovering different ways to look at it, sometimes it is a fleeting glance.  I love first laying eyes on "THE" shot. I love watching the image tighten up and refine while processing, and I love when I share it with others and it elicits a response.

It can be tactile and totally immersive when I'm shooting up close, almost meditative and fast and exciting shooting from the moving car, almost like a video game.

I pretty much love it all and I'm excited about learning more and more and more.


----------



## raventepes (Oct 3, 2013)

I remember, even at an early age, having an old 110 camera in my hands. I loved that thing. I took it with me just about everywhere I went and almost always had a spare cartridge on hand. Fast forward a few years and a bunch of cameras later (I switched to 35mm when I got older), I realised that it was the sense of capturing emotion, which is what I enjoyed. While I can take a bland, boring photograph, of say, a guitar, or a jar of mayo straight on and technical, that's not my passion. Me? I'll add "mood" lighting with all sorts of modifiers, and shoot the thing at 14mm, up close and personal to get an image that draws in the viewer. I take a very cinematic approach, I suppose. But the essence of what I do, always boils down to capturing emotion. I'm an emotional being, at my core (For that matter, I'm a Taurus, for any of you astrology junkies), and emotion is just what I enjoy. Something beautiful. Something sad. Anger. Regret. Happiness. Serene.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 3, 2013)

sashbar said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > One of the many many things I get irritated unfairly about, and try moderately hard to check myself on, is this business of duplicating looks.
> ...




That's one way to look at it, but many don't see themselves like that, so it can become annoying. "I'm a true artist...even though I've deliberately studied and duplicated X's style. But I'm not going to tell you that mwahaha." 

This is the reason why I dislike many of the PPA certified photographers....at least those in my area.

lol


----------

