Why do I/ We love taking photos. What’s in that viewfinder that makes us fall in love with what we see

<p>Why do I/ We love taking photos. What’s in that viewfinder that makes us fall in love with what we see.<br>

Do I sound Stupid ?</p>

<p>The viewfinder presents the world as a stage. What we set on the stage, how we arrange it, and how we choose to view it makes it our creation.</p>

<p>Jon, beautifully stated!</p>

<p>Subhra, I don't fall in love with what I see through the camera. I am in all sorts of varied relationships to the subjects and contents of my photographs. Love is not common for me in terms of what I photograph.</p>

<p>That being said, I often do love the act of photographing and the entire process of making a picture.</p>

<p>For me, it's an additional way of seeing. And it enables me to share visions, inner visions, and something of myself and of my subjects with others. It's a means of exploration and expression that I find myself craving. </p>

<p>Also, on a somewhat simple level, I love taking (making!) photographs because I love looking at them, both my own and others.</p>

<p>I like making pretty pictures. I can’t draw or paint worth a damn, but I like to think that

I’m pretty decent with the camera / photoshop / inkjet combination.</p>

 

<p>For me, the viewfinder is simply a tool I use in that process. Nothing more, nothing less. A certain joy always comes from working with good tools, but that’s the extent of the viewfinder-related joy I personally experience.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>I agree with what Jon said. That is what makes us artists.</p>

<p>I also agree with Jon, we are the "directors" of the stage of life. We learn about others and about ourselves at the same time. We are small 'Shakespeares:</p>

<p>"All the world's a stage,<br>

And all the men and women merely players:<br>

They have their exits and their entrances....."</p>

<p>I learned so much about human life on our planet from the time my tool became the camera .</p>

<p>For me...<br>

Its stopping time.<br>

The moment frozen forever.</p>

<p>Photography, taking pictures, for me has nothing to do with love. It allows me to flex my creative chops while capturing a moment in time.</p>

<p>There are people who consider me an artist, however, I am not one of them. I'm just a creative technician.</p>

<p>As has been stated or implied in several earlier posts, I think the key element is the desire to create. Although, as Glen stated, I don't consider myself an artist, I have the irresistable urge to create. When I'm not shooting or processing photographs, I am playing whatever comes into my head on my digital piano (can't read music anymore). From time to time, I am compelled to pick up pen and paper with an eye toward writing a poem.</p>

<p>The results of my creative activities are occasionally worthwhile. Sometimes they are sheer crap. Sometimes they are mediocre at best. I don't really care about the results. It's the creative act that revs me up. (Thanks for reminding me of this, Fred.)</p>

<p>Subhra,its the frame ! The creative act of photography lies in its capability of cutting a portion of reality and eliminating the noise around. The immense in the small. If we love it (I would not use the term either), if we are attracted to photography it might be that we are longing towards a simpler and less complicated world and try to image the world in more simple limited messages than those complex and overwhelming messages we are confronted to in our daily life. We believe (maybe) that truth of life is in the elements and not in the complexity and diversity of the total. The result of this is that most critics on PN concentrate on cropping and simplifying (cutting out dead and non essential space) and rarely on expanding the frame or even moving it.</p>

<p>I like how Jon states it, it's close to how I'd define it, although in defining the stage, we also define the theatre, the audience, and so on. It's more than defining players, stage and play; and we're not directors with complete control either. Some of the best photos happen because of unpredictable events happening while setting the stage.<br>

For a long time, I also had this idea of stopping time, which Peter Y mentions. But I think that misses a key element. "Only stopping time" would make me a button-pusher, a recorder of a split second. And while for many photos this is true, for those who are made with more care and intent, it leaves out that intent. It is not a moment in time that we record, but a moment in time as we ouselves saw it or wanted to see it.<br>

But at the same time: the stopping time element is the capture of memories. And for sure, for many photos, that is just exactly what we're doing. Capture the memory, or a story as it unfolds at that moment.</p>

<p>To me, what attracts me in photography is that it helps me see, and define better what I see, and an urge/need to capture that "vision". I'm much more aware of details, relations between objects, colours, shapes, much more awake to see worthwhile moments happen at random times. Now most of these are just "mental fabrications", but they do feed the brain with some worthwhile food (for me). In short, it has given, and is giving, me a much richer experience from what I see around me.<br>

In addition, the points raised by Fred apply to me as well: I like the activity, I like seeing the results of others and applying my thoughts on those, and I like scrutinising my own results in an attempt to grow a little.</p>

<p>Subhra- 'What’s in that viewfinder that makes us fall in love with what we see.'<br>

I' not so sure Sebastio Salgado or Lewis Hine or Dorothy Lange or Eddie Adams were in love with what they saw.</p>

<p>A much bigger problem, in my estimation, is falling in love with our own work to the extent that we can't look at it objectively.</p>

<p>A photograph allows us to stare without annoying the subject...this is one reason.</p>