Do you only photograph people? If so, why?

[jsrockit]

Do you only photograph people? If so, why?

[hipsterdufus]

I don't *only* photograph people. But it does make up the majority of my photography (I mostly work with models and my wife). The reason? I find people interesting and beautiful. Isn't that the reason we photograph any subject matter?

Additionally, in the case of my wife, I love her dearly and that imparts extra meaning to the photos I've taken of her. I hope to look back on the photos that we've done together when we're older as some sort of legacy.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

Isn't that the reason we photograph any subject matter?

Awesome, this is what I was hoping for. I would say yes, that is why many people photograph. However, I would say that many photograph whatever they think will make a great photo, regardless of if it is a subject that interests them. Do we only photograph that which is beautiful or do we make something beautiful by photographing it and trying to transform it? Do we care if it is beautiful? Do we only photograph what we like?

By the way, I do like your photos hipsterdufus. You have a good thing going.

[Thardy]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Awesome, this is what I was hoping for. I would say yes, that is why many people photograph. However, I would say that many photograph whatever they think will make a great photo, regardless of if it is a subject that interests them. Do we only photograph that which is beautiful or do we make something beautiful by photographing it and trying to transform it?

It's fun to see what something looks like photographed.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Thardy

It's fun to see what something looks like photographed.

I agree. However, there are those that think they already know what something is going to look like photographed... I'm not one of them.

[hipsterdufus]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Awesome, this is what I was hoping for. I would say yes, that is why many people photograph. However, I would say that many photograph whatever they think will make a great photo, regardless of if it is a subject that interests them. Do we only photograph that which is beautiful or do we make something beautiful by photographing it and trying to transform it? Do we care if it is beautiful? Do we only photograph what we like?

By the way, I do like your photos hipsterdufus. You have a good thing going.

Thanks a lot, jsrockit.

As for the "beautiful" thing, I only tend to photograph people/things that I think are beautiful, but there's plenty of room for other types of photography. I was just looking at the Pulitzer prize winner for feature photography (about the PTSD veteran). This was some of the most disturbing, heart-breaking photography I have ever seen. Just because it didn't capture beauty of a conventional sort does not make the photography any less worthwhile.

However, I do think that the end goals for Craig Walker's photographs and mine is the same: to create something that transcends the photographer's existence and the way that the viewer sees the world. Perhaps this is too lofty of an aspiration. I'm curious to see what other photographers think of this observation. I'm sure I don't serve as the mouthpiece for all photographers.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

Thanks a lot, jsrockit.

You're welcome.

I was just looking at the Pulitzer prize winner for feature photography (about the PTSD veteran). This was some of the most disturbing, heart-breaking photography I have ever seen. Just because it didn't capture beauty of a conventional sort does not make the photography any less worthwhile.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with beautiful, but there is a lot of great (or maybe even miserable) things out there to photograph that are not beautiful. The Pulitzer prize winning photos are generally disturbing to me... always beautifully crafted, but generally disturbing in some way or another.

[kxl]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Awesome, this is what I was hoping for. I would say yes, that is why many people photograph. However, I would say that many photograph whatever they think will make a great photo, regardless of if it is a subject that interests them. Do we only photograph that which is beautiful or do we make something beautiful by photographing it and trying to transform it? Do we care if it is beautiful? Do we only photograph what we like?

By the way, I do like your photos hipsterdufus. You have a good thing going.

I photography what I like, depending on the locale. If I am on a trip to highly populated cities, like Cairo or Mexico City and I want to do some street shooting, then obviously, most of the photos will have people. However, if I am at Denali National park, then most of the photos will be about wildlife and nature.

[cjbecker]

People are 95% of what i shoot. I just dont find much else interesting. People are the greatest creation.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Do you only photograph people? If so, why?

I photograph people almost exclusively.

Why? The intent of my photography is to create an informational and/or historical document about cultures that are either unknown to us and/or have potential to disappear. People seem to be the best point of reference for my purposes.

Alternate answer: I really struggle to make a significant photo that is not built around a person, or small group of people.

[jsrockit]

I can see that reason Bob. However, I've been thinking that museums are full of objects that represent a culture (or supposedly do) and not people (for obvious reasons). I think photographing objects as opposed to people can tell a lot about a culture too. Well, perhaps the right answer is... 'the correct answer to 99% of photo related questions is "it depends" '

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I can see that reason Bob. However, I've been thinking that museums are full of objects that represent a culture (or supposedly do) and not people (for obvious reasons). I think photographing objects as opposed to people can tell a lot about a culture too. Well, perhaps the right answer is... 'the correct answer to 99% of photo related questions is "it depends" '

Absolutely. I have a good friend with a 20+ year project of documenting the culture of the deep south as conveyed by signs. handmade signs, billboards, church signs, names of buildings, etc.

I have been working on a series about the impact of hurricane Katrina on the MS gulf coast. That area is still in transition 7 years later. But there were few people there at the beginning. Waveland MS was basically washed away by the storm surge on 29 August 2005 and the majority of residents never returned. Here was the way I conveyed that scenario.

[Thardy]

I seem to rarely photo people these days.

[Mackinaw]

Why do I mainly photograph people? It's more of a challenge. The photographer usually has to establish some sort of relationship with the person being photographed, which isn't always easy. Plus it makes me stop fretting about equipment and gets me to start thinking about how to talk to my subject. All good things in my book.

Jim B.

[Timmyjoe]

I mostly photograph people because I find people fascinating, and beautiful. Maybe not beautiful in a conventional sense, but beautiful to me. And I want to share what I find beautiful with the rest of the world. So I make an image and do my best to capture that which I saw.

Best,
-Tim

[dct]

Interesting question. I don't jump in because I photograph only people; not at all! When I spend time with my photography hobby, I like far more urban architecture (old and new one) and similar related projects which never have to do with people. Still learning also on that topic.
But when it is expected I'm shooting, like at family or friends parties, then my hobby becomes a job and it is all about people: 99 %. Really strange... They all wanna be at least on one picture. I like that too, of course. But I'm not addicted to people photograph...

[jippiejee]

I just realized I don't enjoy watching photos without people in it. So I shoot the human element in all of my pictures, just to make sure I watch them myself.

[Araakii]

I like to shoot people because the shots are most likely unique.

Everyone can go to Yosemite and make pretty much the same shots at the same spots.

[Jobin]

Becaus iv never seen a flower do anything interesting or unexpected.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Araakii

I like to shoot people because the shots are most likely unique.

Everyone can go to Yosemite and make pretty much the same shots at the same spots.

While that is true, it could just as easily be said that just because a photo has people in it doesn't make it interesting. There are plenty of people picture cliches too.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Araakii

I like to shoot people because the shots are most likely unique.

Everyone can go to Yosemite and make pretty much the same shots at the same spots.

Ah, but that's where you have to use your creativity.

Landscape photography to me is just as interesting as people photography.

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by Araakii

I like to shoot people because the shots are most likely unique.

Everyone can go to Yosemite and make pretty much the same shots at the same spots.

I disagree with you, I find that hardly anyone can go to a place like Yosemite and make a ground breaking image, you have to pretty much live in a place like that to even approach it, that is why I live where I live, subject / niche intimacy...

I photograph people, they are easy. The place, event or situation that has been photographed to death can often be what interests me the most, people in them or not.

[boomguy57]

I find people interesting, frankly. When I don't have a camera with me (which is rare), I "people-watch" constantly. I am fascinated with how people behave when they forget people are watching. The interaction among people, and people and their environment, in public spaces is a particular interest of mine.

I don't think of what I shoot as "beautiful", but rather "interesting". I'm not always sure why, but when I feel compelled to press the shutter release, I just go with it and think about it later (although sometimes I think before shooting, too). I spend too much time thinking in my career, and I need photography to connect me to the world emotionally. Emotion can be borne out in any photograph, regardless of the subject matter, if done well. It depends on the audience, I suppose, and how they internalize your art. For me, people move me and connect with me emotionally in photographs, but it takes a mighty special landscape to forge an emotional connection with me. Suppose that's why I shoot people.

That said, 90% of my photography is of my beautiful wife and son.

[celluloidprop]

50/50 people/things, I think.

My theory is that every 'story' you can tell has been told (applies to photography, writing, etc.) - man only seems to have so many narratives. So setting out to create a great photograph or tell a great story built on preconceived notions and ideas is often going to fail.
But the story of individuals (whether yourself or others) is unique - no one has ever loved the person you love like you do, no one has ever had to sit through your morning commute or eaten your lunch at the place you sit.
Those stories are often told via portraits/photographs of people, but they can just as well be told via inanimate objects.

[hausen]

I probably only shoot people 5% of the time and have recently decided I should start to shoot people a lot more. Just love my Xpan and seem to be out shooting Landscapes and cityscapes mainly. Bought a 50 Summicron lately for my M9 and have had some awesome shots of people wide open and really want to do more.