People shots are the only photos that matter

[Johnny Canuck3]

Over the years I've toyed with various types of photography, but the more I look back at them and reflect it strikes me that only portraits really matter.

Ingmar Bergman has a line about the human face being the most beautiful landscape -- certainly true. Also, capturing a person catches a moment, you can almost never duplicate that shot, making it more rare and special.

While I admire other forms of photography, increasingly I feel they're easy eye candy, but portraits actually say something.

I don't agree. We are affected by all aspects of our world, and it's possible to capture some of the essence of what it is that affects us, in photos of inanimate things, crowd scenes, etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

 

[alef]

Crowd scenes I'd loosely include under 'people shots'. Definitely can capture something significant with crowds.

But inanimate things? Nah. I do like many photos of textures, colours, shadows but somehow they ultimately feel trivial.

 

[exosculate]

I agree the best, most important photography, is people based.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Crowd scenes I'd loosely include under 'people shots'. Definitely can capture something significant with crowds.

But inanimate things? Nah. I do like many photos of textures, colours, shadows but somehow they ultimately feel trivial.

My mistake. Your original post mentions portraiture as the only thing that matters.

We live in the world. How can images of it be trivial?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That photo, btw, won the Getty Images award this year or something. It's rich Lebanese kids touring the blasted areas of Beirut during the recent war.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Those doorways have been there for a couple of hundred years. Many generations have come and gone during their currency. Their form and permanence help give definition to the fleeting lives of the people who live/d nearby and use/d this place, imo better than mere photos of some of those people.

 

[alef]

True enough, I did title the thread with the term 'people' but then start just writing about 'portraits', rather sloppy. I would like to start taking people shots that aren't singular portraits, need to broaden out to crowds.

Occasionally animal photos strike a certain chord with me that say something, though I'd say it's usually the most anthropomorphic.

Almost everything else is just clever or aesthetic, which there's no harm in, but I don't seem to get much feeling from them. Maybe I need to go stare at some Rothko paintings, then can create emotion purely with colour and texture...

 

[exosculate]

I don't think much of this shot to be honest. Whose the photographer? That normally dictates whether they would be considered at all for these sorts of awards - rather than actual merit.

 

[alef]

Those doorways have been there for a couple of hundred years. Many generations have come and gone during their currency. Their form and permanence help give definition to the fleeting lives of the people who live/d nearby and use/d this place, imo better than mere photos of some of those people.

But in this case what I find interesting is the history associated with the image, not the image itself.

 

[exosculate]

Maybe I need to go stare at some Rothko paintings, then can create emotion purely with colour and texture...

Don't do it! Look at some Arbus instead.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But in this case what I find interesting is the history associated with the image, not the image itself.

But the history is evoked by the image. The image and the brain of the viewer are part of a single process.

 

[exosculate]

But the history is evoked by the image. The image and the brain of the viewer are part of a single process.

Its a better image than the other one in my view.

 

[Firky]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/danchung/galleries/bestofdanchung/index.html

This is what I want to do one day. Picture the unseen world.

Cellphones may be the first on the scene but it is photographers like Dan Chung who put art into it.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/danchung/galleries/pakistan05/index.html

 

[exosculate]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/danchung/galleries/bestofdanchung/index.html

This is what I want to do one day. Picture the unseen world.

Cellphones may be the first on the scene but it is photographers like Dan Chung who put art into it.

You have a danger gene?

 

[Firky]

He chose one of my pics to put in the guardian <smug>

 

[Firky]

You have a danger gene?

I don't see a danger in it?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Chernobyl

 

[Firky]

There was a crazy woman who went to Chernobyl on a motorbike and took a load of photos. I have them all saved on a CD somewhere. I think that may be one.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Highway of death

 

[exosculate]

I don't see a danger in it?

I thought you meant war zones!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

 

[Firky]

I thought you meant war zones!

I'd go to any war zone that Americans are British weren't involved in.

 

[Firky]

Chris Morris

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Those are good shots too.

It isn't either/or.

 

[Firky]

When you're with the army they're more scared than you are.

 

[friedaweed]

There was a crazy woman who went to Chernobyl
on a motorbike and took a load of photos.
I have them all saved
on a CD somewhere.
I think that may be one.

You need to work on your limericks

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

There was a crazy woman who went to Chernobyl on a motorbike and took a load of photos. I have them all saved on a CD somewhere. I think that may be one.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

Apparently she was some sort of 'fake'. (Not that that changes the value of the pictures, tho).

 

[camouflage]

Over the years I've toyed with various types of photography, but the more I look back at them and reflect it strikes me that only portraits really matter.

Ingmar Bergman has a line about the human face being the most beautiful landscape -- certainly true. Also, capturing a person catches a moment, you can almost never duplicate that shot, making it more rare and special.

While I admire other forms of photography, increasingly I feel they're easy eye candy, but portraits actually say something.

I completely agree. I wish I was brave enough to do what I call "aggressive photography" when you can just point the camera at someone you don't know in the street and snap a few quik pictures, sort it all out after.

For instance I still regret not having the guts to take a snap of this skinny businessman I saw sitting on the Northern Line tube once, he was immaculately dressed, and was so skinny he looked almost skeletal, he had these huge eyes which were downcaste to one side lost in thought, a briefcase clutched meekly with both hands on his lap, and he looked immensly sad. This would have worked wonderfully as a black & white I think. If I had taken that picture you'd see what I mean and I wouldn't have to try an describe the shot instead, but I bottled it.

still, taking pictures of people I don't know kind of feels like stealing. I'd take more pictures of freinds and family etc, but somehow I don't. So I end up taking buildings and landscapes etc, but their just not interesting in the same way as people actions and emotions.

 

[rekil]

I thought this was a beautiful photo. A friend of mine took it in nepal.