What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,
and invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?


Nothing, I don't believe "Art" is an intellectual exercise at all. I would
say that think/talk is the fastest way there is to squash talent or vision.
There's only so much energy building itself up for "Art", and draining it
with arguments of LPMs or MBs or the cool colors next to warm colors lead to
nothing but analysis paralysis. Bob Hickey


I agree completely. If you follow the rules you may get some good
photos, but you'll never take a photo that someone else hasn't already
taken.

I got a camera to take photos of my son growing up. I would take him out
for walks in his push-chair, and I'd take photos while we were out (at
the time, generally butterflies and flowers). It just turned out that
people liked my work (it's taken a while to convince me they weren't
just being polite - and someone commissioning 'art' for their house).
Personally there're only 3 or 4 photos I've taken ever that I really like.
My point is that originally I took photos for something to do while my
son slept; later I took photos because I enjoyed it; now I take photos
in part because I like that other people like them - it means I'm doing
something right and might even be good at it.
So what you should be aiming for is results that satisfy/please the
intended audience: you, your family, your friends, historians in the
next century. This with one major qualifier - if you feel nothing for
the subject it'll come through in your photos and you'll be extremely
lucky to get a good shot. Pick a subject you have some affinity to,
something that you personally find visually interesting, then try to
capture it on film (metaphorically at least).

It may seem like obvious advice, but I think most people take photos of
things because they're things you're 'supposed' to take photos of (as
someone said).

Actually all of this poses another significant question for me.

Post to follow....

Tom

Depends on what his interests are.

Nowadays, 'landscape' is all the rage.

You don't see too many people photographing railroad yards or factories
or poor neighborhoods or street bums or condemned buildings, even
though these have much more visual interest than rocks and trees.

Just don't copy what ANYBODY else has done. Photograph what you find at
the sides of the road.

Dead animals/skeletons. (Today I saw a deer that had been killed by a
car at the side of a bridge. It was split open and rotting.)

Road litter.

Broken/rusted signs.

Old churches/Stained glass.

Factory workers getting out of work.

Pickets on strike at the plant.

Kids playing baseball/soccer/football.

Abandoned industrial sites.
You get the picture?

Please, NO MORE WATERFALLS!

Big Bill wrote:

On 4 Dec 2004 04:07:33 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
wrote:


Mike Henley wrote:

(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?


Composition?

- Siddhartha


I think the OP was asking what the composition should be of.

For example, I enjoy old railroad locos. I don't do exhaustive
photographic studies, but I shoot them when I find them.
Also zoos.
Also some local events (for example, a Cars, Planes & Other show last
year).
WHatever takes the amateur's fancy is fair game. He's not limited to
what sells or what the client wants. The amateur can shoot anything,
and as much of it as he wants (or can afford).
If shooting local street scenes is what's wanted (and I may look into
this myself; things change so fast), that's a valid pursuit.
My point being: the amateur can shoot anything he wants to. It doesn't
even have to be worthwhile, or have a point. A series of pics doesn't
even need to be coherent. They don't even need to conform to any
definition of "good." Being an amateur opens one up to almost the
entire world of photography, and the amateur can take or reject any
part of it he wishes. Even composition. :-)



Yeah, it's nice just taking pictures for yourself sometimes, just cause
you like how it looks with no plan to even show people. Some of these
are artsy, some very mundane. Sometimes they come out nice enough to
show off even.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:41:56 -0800, paul wrote:


Big Bill wrote:

On 4 Dec 2004 04:07:33 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
wrote:


Mike Henley wrote:

(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?


Composition?

- Siddhartha


I think the OP was asking what the composition should be of.

For example, I enjoy old railroad locos. I don't do exhaustive
photographic studies, but I shoot them when I find them.
Also zoos.
Also some local events (for example, a Cars, Planes & Other show last
year).
WHatever takes the amateur's fancy is fair game. He's not limited to
what sells or what the client wants. The amateur can shoot anything,
and as much of it as he wants (or can afford).
If shooting local street scenes is what's wanted (and I may look into
this myself; things change so fast), that's a valid pursuit.
My point being: the amateur can shoot anything he wants to. It doesn't
even have to be worthwhile, or have a point. A series of pics doesn't
even need to be coherent. They don't even need to conform to any
definition of "good." Being an amateur opens one up to almost the
entire world of photography, and the amateur can take or reject any
part of it he wishes. Even composition. :-)



Yeah, it's nice just taking pictures for yourself sometimes, just cause
you like how it looks with no plan to even show people. Some of these
are artsy, some very mundane. Sometimes they come out nice enough to
show off even.

That sounded vaguely condescending.
As an amateur, I'm not working for a client. I seriously doubt that
many amateurs shoot mostly for other people at all.
So what's the "sometimes" for?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

I'd say the big advantage the serious amateur has is he doesn't need
to generate cash flow and so time is not money. Amateurs should be
encouraged to scrounge old equipment and use it creatively, and to
document things that are not of commercial interest. Find some role
models and point yourself in their direction but don't slavishly copy.
If you are a people photographer, do lots of unknown musicians, actors,
models. They will appreciate your contributions to their portfolio and
if you have enough of them, and a little sense, one will hit the big
time. Look at all the guys who shot Bettie Page or MM as amateurs...or
even country singers, pro wrestlers, local pols, et al. If you are
into cars, trains, planes, et al, find some niche-maybe you have a guy
in your town that is restoring a circle track car or who flies a unique
airplane. Look at the Hughes Racer replica that crashed on the way home
from Oshkosh last year-a sad crash, but I would rather have pictures of
it than not, and one could be a cover for any aviation magazine in the
world.

I'd say the big advantage the serious amateur has is he doesn't need
to generate cash flow and so time is not money. Amateurs should be
encouraged to scrounge old equipment and use it creatively, and to
document things that are not of commercial interest. Find some role
models and point yourself in their direction but don't slavishly copy.
If you are a people photographer, do lots of unknown musicians, actors,
models. They will appreciate your contributions to their portfolio and
if you have enough of them, and a little sense, one will hit the big
time. Look at all the guys who shot Bettie Page or MM as amateurs...or
even country singers, pro wrestlers, local pols, et al. If you are
into cars, trains, planes, et al, find some niche-maybe you have a guy
in your town that is restoring a circle track car or who flies a unique
airplane. Look at the Hughes Racer replica that crashed on the way home
from Oshkosh last year-a sad crash, but I would rather have pictures of
it than not, and one could be a cover for any aviation magazine in the
world.

Big Bill wrote:
paul wrote:

Yeah, it's nice just taking pictures for yourself sometimes, just cause
you like how it looks with no plan to even show people. Some of these
are artsy, some very mundane. Sometimes they come out nice enough to
show off even.


That sounded vaguely condescending.
As an amateur, I'm not working for a client. I seriously doubt that
many amateurs shoot mostly for other people at all.
So what's the "sometimes" for?


Sorry if I gave that impression. I do other creative work for clients
though & it can be exasperating. I do feel the pressure to make photos
that have popular appeal and occasionally manage to sell (or give away)
a bit to the odd specialist magazine. I do love photography though & I
like this whole idea of doing it for yourself very much. Many ameteurs
probably have in mind to impress their friends & family. It is a rare &
precious thing to shoot totally selfishly.

Most of my photos are documenting plant species and habitats which I
present to the public on the web & I probably obsess too much about
creating beautiful artistically composed pictures.

I wouldn't mind making actual money from photography, even if it'll
never be much I could use it & it's more interesting than other things I
can think of doing for a living. I wish I could be satisfied with a
regular job but I'm stuck tangling my love with money.

Big Bill wrote:
paul wrote:

Yeah, it's nice just taking pictures for yourself sometimes, just cause
you like how it looks with no plan to even show people. Some of these
are artsy, some very mundane. Sometimes they come out nice enough to
show off even.


That sounded vaguely condescending.
As an amateur, I'm not working for a client. I seriously doubt that
many amateurs shoot mostly for other people at all.
So what's the "sometimes" for?


Sorry if I gave that impression. I do other creative work for clients
though & it can be exasperating. I do feel the pressure to make photos
that have popular appeal and occasionally manage to sell (or give away)
a bit to the odd specialist magazine. I do love photography though & I
like this whole idea of doing it for yourself very much. Many ameteurs
probably have in mind to impress their friends & family. It is a rare &
precious thing to shoot totally selfishly.

Most of my photos are documenting plant species and habitats which I
present to the public on the web & I probably obsess too much about
creating beautiful artistically composed pictures.

I wouldn't mind making actual money from photography, even if it'll
never be much I could use it & it's more interesting than other things I
can think of doing for a living. I wish I could be satisfied with a
regular job but I'm stuck tangling my love with money.