Do you only photograph people? If so, why?

[paulfish4570]

what are people?

[mathomas]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

what are people?

Exactly! I know you're joking, but I'm really not a people person and have always more or less avoided shooting people (and many of the people around me don't want to be shot). So, I took up the 100 Strangers photo project on flickr, and thus am expanding my horizons.


100 strangers: victoria (44/100) by mike thomas, on Flickr


.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by mathomas

Exactly! I know you're joking, but I'm really not a people person and have always more or less avoided shooting people (and many of the people around me don't want to be shot). So, I took up the 100 Strangers photo project on flickr, and thus am expanding my horizons.


100 strangers: victoria (44/100) by mike thomas, on Flickr

.

Very cool.

[candidcameraman]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Do you only photograph people? If so, why?

Only..? no, that would be limiting... Mainly, yes. I mainly shoot people because I find people as a subject, principal or subordinate, in a photography way more multifaceted and interesting than a building or a landscape. They offer so many more possibilities, the trick is to capture people at point 'a' or at point 'b' as opposed to somewhere between two destination (Yet... Walker Evans' "Many are Called" shows people can be interesting at any point in the journey... there is never any absolute)

The moment everything changes is when you realize... what you are truly passionate about

[andredossantos]

Generally, I'm not much interested in people at all. It is a challenge to do "good" street photography so sometimes I will go out and try to get a decent shot in that genre.

My preferred form of photography is, I guess I would call it "abstract"? I do find that most people want other people in their pictures or don't consider non-people photos interesting. Also there is this notion that if you arent incorporating humanity into your photos than you're simply taking a bland landscape photo or you just aren't taking a great photo. I disagree but to each his own. To me, finding beauty or interesting scenes in places or things that most people avoid or find scary or ugly is what drives me to photograph.

[kossi008]

I would say I photograph people only about 20% of the time (but I haven't checked), and those are usually shots of immediate family and friends. Still working up to acquiring the courage to do true street photography.

As for beautiful, I sometimes photograph things that are downright ugly, simply because I find them interesting. Yiou could of course argue that the "ugly" things carry some inner beauty, too...

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Do you only photograph people? If so, why?

No. I know some people have the inclination to "focus" on only one thing (one film, one camera, one lens, one brand, one type of subject, one film format) and the pseudo-academic world adores that.

Also, there are professionals and freelancers who do one thing, and that's the one thing they do, just like in most professions. And that is why they are professionals.

But if the question is to those who are "non-professional", I can see the attraction to such curia.

[J. Borger]

I stopped shooting people for now because i have nobody to pose for me at hand and do not like to shoot events.
I love pictures of people but are completely bored with all the random shots of people walking up and down some streets or sitting in a bus somewhere flooding the forums. Completely tired of streetphotography as a genre for now.....

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by andredossantos

I do find that most people want other people in their pictures or don't consider non-people photos interesting. Also there is this notion that if you arent incorporating humanity into your photos than you're simply taking a bland landscape photo or you just aren't taking a great photo. I disagree but to each his own. To me, finding beauty or interesting scenes in places or things that most people avoid or find scary or ugly is what drives me to photograph.

Yes, yes, yes. That's my point. I've come accross many people who do not look at photos unless they are of people. I've also come along those who will only look at B&W film photos. I just cannot understand that really. However, I'm sure I do that sort of self-reduction in some other facet of my life, so, to each their own.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

But if the question is to those who are "non-professional", I can see the attraction to such curia.

Well, my questions is regarding personal work... whether you are a working artist or a working stiff.

[craygc]

95% people ...because I think Im basically just a frustrated documentary photographer

I find this view from photographer Susan Meiselas resonates very clearly with me as to why I shoot people, especially in Asia "The camera is an excuse to be someplace you otherwise don't belong. It gives me both a point of connection and a point of separation."

[jordanstarr]

...people are great and all and 90% of my work is of people, but I'm starting to move away. Mostly because it's more difficult, challenging and requires more thought to photograph people without photographing people. I'm currently working on a body of work that is about a group of people, but there's not a single human in the frame. Very difficult stuff.

My theory is that to be a great photographer, you need to be able to do things outside the "photographic obvious" (yes, a term I just made up). The "oh, here's a woman carrying a lot of shopping bags, that says something about consumerism" moments are great and all, but the artistic thought process is almost given to you and you have limited time and thought put into "capturing the moment". That's why so much street photography looks the same with only slight variation among serious amateurs -everyone is copying everyone else and photographers are limiting their own creativity. So, in short, I've opted to start exploring more things again, which is kinda where I started with photography.

[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.

[candidcameraman]

Originally Posted by J. Borger

I stopped shooting people for now because i have nobody to pose for me at hand and do not like to shoot events.
I love pictures of people but are completely bored with all the random shots of people walking up and down some streets or sitting in a bus somewhere flooding the forums. Completely tired of streetphotography as a genre for now.....

There is street photography - which is special and then there is candid photography which is more of a pedestrian nature... And lowest down the totem pole in that genra there is ... event photography which is the least challenging and rewarding of them all - I appreciate them all, all kinds of photography. Street, non-street... I sell more architecture prints than any other kinds of prints.

Talking about street... since I already shared a sitting in transit capture here is a more pedestrian capture falling into the pedestrian category ...

[Pablito]

I only photograph people, but only on the even days.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by candidcameraman

Talking about street... since I already shared a sitting in transit capture here is a more pedestrian capture falling into the pedestrian category ...

A good example of where the people clearly add to the photo.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by mathomas

.

Wonderful, striking photo.. First I thought that it's from a Rolleiflex Planar only to find out it's from a Hasselblad 150 Sonnar. Zeiss brilliance + Acros...

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by River Dog

Remarkable! Reminds "Brie" by HCB at the first sight. Cool!

[mathomas]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Very cool.

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Wonderful, striking photo.. First I thought that it's from a Rolleiflex Planar only to find out it's from a Hasselblad 150 Sonnar. Zeiss brilliance + Acros...

Thanks guys. Love my Zeiss lenses and the Hassy.

[johnwolf]

A very relevant question for me personally. For decades my focus was natural and urban landscapes, as in my Web Site 2.

A couple years ago I had a radical internal change and started photographing people, first as an experiment, and then earnestly. I started Web Site 1 to assemble what I had done previously and to house my work going forward.

I don't think I'll ever go back to inanimate subjects. But contrast there's so much life in and so many dimensions to people.

John

[RichW]

I like to photograph people but I don't like posed shots or when the subject is aware of the camera, i like to capture a side of the person that they may not normally show, although i'm still trying to master this

Images without people don't seem to interest me so much generally, or at least I thought until recently, when I realised many of my fav images from the gallery do not feature any people at all!

Richard