intimate

luis_g · June 6, 2009

Intimacy of at least one kind is one of the most common things on the Planet. Otherwise, there'd be fewer of us. For some, it's simple, to others, complicated. As per the definition Anders provided, it certainly is possible to be intimate with a landscape, rocks, space, etc. There are forests I consider myself on intimate terms with, just as I am with many people.

Can intimacy be photographed? Perhaps...

Between people:

http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2233

Photographer, intimate with culture/locale:

http://www.egglestontrust.com/14_pictures.html

http://www.egglestontrust.com/dust_bells_v1.html

Can one be an intimate outsider?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Robert+Frank+%2BThe+Americans&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=IycrSuDpA82ktweWn4DDCA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title

Landrum Kelly · June 6, 2009

Luis, those are great photos, but the ontological status of "intimacy" remains.

By analogy, consider this: if I take a picture of you wincing when you are in pain, is the picture of your pain or of simply the external manifestations of your pain?

I certainly believe that it is possible to capture the external manifestations of intimacy in certain cases, but I would surmise that the possibility of misinterpretation or over-interpretation of what persons are actually experiencing is quite high.

--Lannie

fate_faith_change_chains · June 6, 2009

"Intimacy of at least one kind is one of the most common things on the Planet"

</blockquote>

I would say that intimacy can come out of one of the most common things on the Planet : survival of species by instinct. Then there's this other common thing on the planet, destruction of species by instinct.For us humans, uncomfortably intimate it can be, looking at the most powerful of photographs by warphotographers, staring in the eyes of war victims and the death they've seen and experienced. But there's hardly an intimate relationship with the subjects photographed, the intimate relationship is only with ourselves, with our own unguarded reaction towards reality or towards any other human being and animal...

luis_g · June 7, 2009

I have no clear-cut answers, Lannie. Photographs record light echoing from surfaces. The rest is connotation and denotation. Pain itself, if we consider it a neural signal, isn't visible. Suffering can be.

Phylo: "I would say that intimacy can come out of one of the most common things on the Planet : survival of species by instinct."

Yes, whatever the cause, it's hardly rare, at least by Anders' definition(s).

If familiarity builds intimacy, then Americans should be in intimate terms with war and war pictures, but not victims.

We hear on PN all the time how documentary photographers who do the human engineering, get close and spend time to familiarize themselves with their subjects (intimacy?) produce a different kind of picture. Maybe intimacy between photographer and subject is detectable, at least in documentary pictures? Or is it just increased access and trust?

Norma Desmond · June 7, 2009

When I used the word "intimacy" in the thread John mentioned I had in mind a few things: my relationship with the subjects of my portraits and my exposing something about those subjects and something about myself through my photographs. And a little bit more than all that which maybe I can explain, with difficulty. I think to the extent I can talk about aspects of life I can photograph them. I can talk about what nostalgia is, what intimacy is, what love is, what sadness is, and I can photograph those things. I think some photographs are of people being sad or are of expressions of sadness and some photographs are of sadness. These are not necessarily the same photographs, although I think they can be. Lately, I feel more sure I can come closer to significant expressions about these things with photographs than with words.

Sometimes, as Lannie suggested, we project onto subjects emotions/feelings that may not have been there. Sometimes, I discover a combination of a person's expression and light and surroundings and my own mood that creates a symbol or more universal expression than simply what was showing in the person's face. So, we may attribute, for example, sadness to the person I've photographed when, in fact, that person was not sad. But the combination of light, his/her expression, the environment, the visual symbols included in the photograph may add up to sadness. That, to me, is often a kind of truth I like to explore. It is not necessarily the individual truth of the subject of the photograph. It is the truth of a combination of elements which make up a photograph.

I have found in photography a means of allowing myself the freedom to express myself, to lay my cards on the table, as it were. As a philosopher, I've been much more used to intellectual endeavors and universalizing issues. With photography, I can be more sensual (not to be confused with, although sometimes accompanied by, eroticism), more particular (rather than universal) and more personal. I try to choose subjects, people mostly, that feel meaningful and close to me. That closeness can sometimes be a matter of their providing me with the raw materials to express something I'm feeling at the time. I hope I am moved either by the subject of my photograph or by the moment in which the subject and I come together.

I agree with John that there is a riskiness to intimacy, at least for me. As John, I think it is also not theoretical, not analytical, not solipsistic, and not internal. I was talking to a Buddhist friend recently about photography. During our talk, he smiled as he said that what he appreciates about good photography is how it makes him sense the connection between the photographer and the world. He's into that. Intimate connection to the world. I think I've always mistaken Buddhism as being overly internal. His thoughts on photography set me straight. An example for me of that riskiness is that I put myself in a position of letting my subjects see what I've chosen to do with their image, sometimes more a matter of my exposing how I see them as opposed to how I think they might want to be seen. I'm not in a position of needing to flatter my subjects and always go into it with that understanding clear between us. Sometimes, it can be a joint discovery of even a darker side of a person I don't know that well. That feels risky to me.

Intimacy, for me, is not a matter of time or duration with subject. I think I can be intimate in an instant. That doesn't mean I don't find value in knowing a subject well and for a long period of time. But I don't think intimacy is limited to such a relationship. That's because the intimacy can be expressed not about the subject per se but about the moment of the photograph. The expression with the light with the surroundings with the focus with the mood is an intimate moment for me. Sometimes, when I photograph people, especially ones I am just meeting for the first time, I feel we've shared something intimate though I don't always feel we've been intimate with each other.

don_e · June 7, 2009

I don't think it is about getting close or spending time with subjects, but about the relationship. Intimacy of relationship involves familiarity, but it is also a feeling, which is shared. Being close and spending time doesn't necessarily evoke it. A photograph may convey that feeling, but it may not be recognized as intimacy -- like naked bodies entwined in an embrace and captioned "Intimacy", as if it were a perfume or condom ad. I rather think it cannot be conveyed so explicitly.

Luis, what do you see in terms of intimacy in Smith's Country Doctor and Nurse Midwife? Do they both convey intimacy, or only one or neither? What is it about the photographs themselves that convey intimacy to you, if any do?

inoneeye · June 7, 2009

By nature many find intimacy often related/connected to vulnerability. As such there may be risk involved to share it through their work. Sharing intimacies with strangers can be risky, especially if they are willing to drop barriers to reveal themselves. FG"I have found in photography a means of allowing myself the freedom to express myself, to lay my cards on the table, as it were." I am attracted to photographers who give me the sense that they are sharing themselves in such a way. Occasionally i encounter images that the subject appears to be sharing with the photographer and or viewer a genuine moment of intimacy, and these images also resonate with a more profound meaning than the usual forced or candid photo. Intimacy in a photograph gives me the sense of genuine honesty from the photographer. Truth even. And when i sense a truth/true or a genuine moment it takes on more meaning to me as viewer. It involves me when someone shares an intimate moment. At its best it tells me something of myself.

JK "I hadn't thought to use the concept of "intimacy" as a goal (or result) in the photography that currently most concerns me, but now I will." - I will be very interested in following your progress.

"Is intimacy a value in your photography?" It is one question i use to I use to edit myself. and it is a part of my definition of art.

luis_g · June 7, 2009

Thanks to Fred for clarifying what he meant by intimacy (photographer-subject). It is true that closeness and time do not automatically generate it, nor are they required, but often do precede it. Many times I've made photographs of strangers whose language I could not speak, or in circumstances where the ambient noise prevented verbal communications, and achieved an amazing degree of intimacy through facial gesture and body language in a few moments.

If I go by the definition of intimate as "closely acquainted, familiar, private, personal", in Gene Smith's "Country Doctor" I see it in the picture of Dr. Ceriani's faraway worried look while he's tending to the baby with the head injury.

http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/09458967322060971458465/

The openness is remarkable. At one of my jobs, I've worked directly, one-on-one in clinical settings with Drs and patients for over a decade. I know Drs with faces like Ceriani's. While medicine and culture have changed a lot since 1948, I see intimacy in Smith's essay. I also see it in other pictures in that essay, like the one where Ceriani, fatigued within an inch of his life, rests his frame over the kitchen counter while having a cup of coffee.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOYDF7JW0&IT=ImageZoom01&PN=14&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Album&IID=2S5RYD1PSXFQ&SAKL=T&SGBT=T&DT=Image

On the way people looked back then, in the immediate Post-WWII era, from Edmund White's autobiography, _My Lives_:

" He said, ‘That was before the era of self-improvement. People just looked the way they looked. They had little idea about how to change.’ That was the era of baked potatoes, of vegetables boiled so long they’d go from green to tan, of Wonder Bread stacked on a plate and, for dessert, a dish of canned Queen Anne cherries . . . Men donned their brown or gray hats, cocked ever so slightly to the right or left, the sides artfully dimpled, the brim lowered just above the face, the crown reblocked every few months to maintain its stiffness. They wore their plain lace-up shoes and double-breasted suits and heavy overcoats and these uniforms elevated and concealed them in ageless anonymity—from twenty to fifty they were men, nothing more nor less."

At the beginning of the essay, we indeed see Dr. Ceriani in his suit and dimpled hat, but there is nothing anonymous about his face.

As for Smith's method, I remember reading that he achieved his intimacy with his subjects "by fading into the wallpaper".

As to risks:

"I've never made any picture, good or bad, without paying for it in emotional turmoil."

--- Gene Smith

Norma Desmond · June 7, 2009

Luis, I didn't mean to omit the intimacy I find in my relationship with viewers or at least the understanding that viewers are likely to see my photographs.

Josh seems to have picked up on this in quoting me re: "I have found in photography a means of allowing myself the freedom to express myself, to lay my cards on the table, as it were."

Ultimately, a viewer gets to see my expressions, glimpses of me, so there is both vulnerability (a significant quality Josh introduced) and intimacy in the photographer-viewer relationship as well as the photographer-subject relationship.

I like that Luis brings up the intimate outsider. Voyeurism can be a very intimate practice yet often is the purview of a very privy outsider.

don_e · June 7, 2009

Thanks, Luis. I admire the way you write about photographs. Linking to Eggleston's work was impressive "Photographer, intimate with culture/locale" is important in my work and probably is the way I am looking at intimacy. The photographer can make an effort to connect with a subject who is otherwise a stranger (or, since I have a broader notion of intimacy, a strange thing) -- get close to, spend time with, but if what is there to share between them is just the shoot, intimacy may be lacking in the photographs. Even if only the photographer and subject (if a person) discover they root for the same team or prefer vacations in the mountains is better than nothing shared at all.

"Can one be an intimate outsider?"

The photographer has the burden, like a cultural anthropologist, of being both a participant and an observer at once. Smith I think was a powerful observer (fading into the wallpaper), but a weaker particpant:

"As to risks:

"I've never made any picture, good or bad, without paying for it in emotional turmoil."

--- Gene Smith"

To be very blunt, Smith was too full of himself for a strong degree of particpation more often than not, I think. He created the "risks". He got in his own way, due to that "turmoil". His letters and other comments about "The Pittsburgh Project" reveal that clearly, at least to me. When he was able to participate more fully -- intimate -- it could be hair raising as in his combat photography, Minamata, but also less dramatically in Country Doctor and the photos taken in his NY loft.

fate_faith_change_chains · June 7, 2009

I find many of Ralph Gibson's portraits, nude and non nude, also good examples of photographs dealing with intimacy. Intimacy in the form of ideas and dreams...

Ultimitaly intimacy may be about fleeting ideas, always slightly ahead and not easily sustainable.

<a href="http://www.ralphgibson.com/archive/popup.php?id=1175&album=4">http://www.ralphgibson.com/archive/popup.php?id=1175&album=4</a>

Landrum Kelly · June 7, 2009

Phylo, my first thought upon looking at those great photos was "These are really moody!"

Then it occurred to me that I do not know what I mean by that, but I use the term "moody" a lot. I guess that the same goes for "intimacy." We more often use the adjective form ("intimate"), I suppose. On the other hand, as a noun relevant for describing a photo (or as something evoked in us by the photo, the concept of "intimacy" is still problematic for me--not because it is not real, but because I cannot quite nail it down.

I am still having trouble defining it, without doubting that it is real, and without doubting that in some essential sense we are capable of capturing it (or evidence of it) in a photograph.

I rather think that we do not photograph intimacy per se . Rather, we capture the external evidence of it, as X-rays were never seen on film, but were inferred from the exposed streaks on the film.

At this point in my thinking, I am thus inclined to think that we infer intimacy when we view a photo. We do not actually see it, for intimacy in and of itself remains in the minds of the person of persons whom we are photographing. Having said that, however, I can immediately think of photos that I have made in which the intimate relationship that I share or have shared with that person comes through in their expression. In such a case, I am inferring something about what that person is feeling toward me at the moment the photo is being taken--or perhaps I am projecting onto them what I have felt or am feeling for them.

--Lannie

fate_faith_change_chains · June 7, 2009

Lannie,

Yes, those are strong examples of photographs conveying something intimate through the sense of dreamlike subjective ideas they trigger. Perhaps when the intimate is shared it is no longer truly intimate, which may be a reason that it is not easily grasped, for when it is, and being shared and shown with others, it becomes more transparent, less intimate. I don't know.

AJHingel · June 7, 2009

Ralph Gibson is also the one saying that black and white is "three steps away from reality" and when asked whether he preferred black and white or color he announced that he preferred the three!! (off subject, I know)

Marvelous photos, by the way.

jtk · June 7, 2009

Many enlightening responses!

Regarding "definition": we rarely, maybe never, precisely define words that name concepts. When we try, we create circular, often intentionally diversionary fog ... or we simply abandon the effort, perhaps recognizing that some medium other than "definition" will serve better. Photography?

Words label and sometimes assemble into verbal constructs (which are themselves multi-word labels more than concepts). Verbal constructs, such as poems, may even create "equivalents" to non-verbal phenomena. Actors, however, deliver crucial non-verbal extras, such as inflection and physical movement. Shakespeare's plays are better in performance than on a page: he wrote for actors except when he wrote poetry. "Intimacy" refers to a non-verbal phenomenon, like passion or disinterest or fakery, and can be displayed in photographs of faces and the rest...with more utility than by sentences.

Labels ("intimacy," "art," "good," "bad") are only place-holders. Often they're applied so promiscuously as to be non-utilitarian (I almost said "meaningless"). Sometimes they're applied in the hope that they'll spotlight something that tends to be avoided: a look in someone's eye when they drop a mask, a connection, someone's risk. We do know about masks in photography: "Big grin!" "Say cheeeese!"

AJHingel · June 7, 2009

John, it is along story, but if I really want to dive into "intimacy, passion, disinterest, fakery" I re-read for example Marcel Proust "In Search of Lost Time or Remembrance of Things Past" (French: À la recherche du temps perdu) or the Memories of Casanova or why not those of Saint-Simon, which cannot really be said to be non-verbal. Instead of trying to identify phenomena that are verbal/non-verbal, I think it would be a more fertile approach to characterize people as more or less verbally oriented.

Norma Desmond · June 7, 2009

Much as I like the Gibson photos, statements that suggest distance from reality don't usually work for me ("black and white is three steps away from reality").

I think of my own experiences, photographs included, as more immediate than that. A black and white photo is as real as a color one and a photo is as real as the sky and trees outside my room. When a photograph really touches or moves me, I experience the emotion or quality directly: sadness, intimacy, longing, desire. When a photograph brings me to tears, it has overwhelmed me in some sense. I don't experience being overwhelmed as something filtered or evidenced. I'm happy to describe it more directly, and to say that I see sadness or intimacy in the photo. Gibson is echoing and likely paying homage to Plato, who suggested similar sentiments in almost identical language long ago with his cave allegory. We see, Plato said, representations, mere shadows of reality. Objects we see are twice removed from the true reality, the Ideas. Therefore, drawings of those things, he said, were "thrice removed from reality." Our senses, he could have said, put us in touch only with evidence of reality. I think Phylo gets at the core of the difficulty of creating good photographs. Regarding this specific thread, the question would be, how do we show and share and still maintain intimacy? That may be a significant aspect of John's original musings. I think it can be done, and I think it's done rarely. But when it's done, for me, it's immediate, memorable, and moving.

Norma Desmond · June 7, 2009

John--

I agree with you about word definitions. As a philosopher, I know sometimes I can get lost in words and their precise definitions and often that actually helps to illustrate and clarify concepts. As a photographer, I'm much more lenient in my acceptance of words like "intimate" and "intimacy" and in just using such a word, even if there will be slight differences in the way each of understand the word. The point, for me, is how we photograph. How we approach our subjects can be described (sometimes with difficulty because of language limitations) without concentrating too much on the exact definition of the word you used to start the thread.

I've been finding "masks" more and more interesting the more people photos I do. I've been thinking of masks more in terms of various personas we all put forth. And, sometimes, I find that capturing those personas is as significant as capturing what lies beneath the persona. I was recently thinking about masks of the "say cheese" type. I think they have potential for significant exploration as well. When I was in New Hampshire, several of the people with autism and/or retardation that I photographed would automatically say "cheese" simply upon seeing the camera and almost always when they thought the picture was being snapped. Sometimes, I'd be happy to capture the "cheese" and sometimes I'd fake the shutter release to get them a moment before or after the "cheese." But some of the captures of "cheese" are very genuine, intimate photos, even though they are simultaneously captures of masks. Of course, many of the "big grin" and "say cheese" events you refer to are distractions to intimacy.

fate_faith_change_chains · June 7, 2009

Other examples of intimacy ? :

When I first saw that flying bag scene in American Beauty I was simply stunned, poetry in motion and ' fiction ' aligned with truth, just plain simple truth...

I was talking to a Buddhist friend recently about photography. During our talk, he smiled as he said that what he appreciates about good photography is how it makes him sense the connection between the photographer and the world. He's into that. Intimate connection to the world.

</blockquote>

Indeed, for the experienced Buddhist, being intimate with the world may also be a non-issue. I think photography and Buddhism have a lot in common.

jtk · June 7, 2009

" I think it would be a more fertile approach to characterize people as more or less verbally oriented."

- Anders H

Anders, my hope is that we accomplish more than "characterise people."

This is a photo forum, but you're right, some are more comfortable with verbality than with visual images. Poets, novelists, technical writers, essayists.

Susan Sontag made photographs (as everyone does), was a writer-about-photography, wrestled with intimacy...but was she a "fertile" producer of intimate photographic images?

That a person may be "more verbally oriented" might make photographic intimacy unlikely. Her photography might exquisitely address nature, architecture, fashion, or graphics, be less capable of intimate photographs.

Proust created refined scenarios verbally, even in translation. In particular he dealt with intimacy. Did he produce intimate photography?

We all know that some find verbality more "fertile" than visual imagery (I often do...but for this exercise I hope we stick to photography). A Verbal Forum would surely be more "fertile" for some than this Photo Forum. I'm in a James Joyce reading group (Bloomsday is June 16!)...Joyce wrote intimately (sometimes), wrote cinematic images ...he might have been a great photographer if he could have cooled his verbal brain. <a href="http://www.bloomsdaybuffalo.com/PhotoGallery.html">http://www.bloomsdaybuffalo.com/PhotoGallery.html</a> (there are better Bloomsday sites, but this has a fun feel).

If we label a photo "intimate," we risk switching to a realm that may be yet another verbal exercise. That's an edgy dynamic, and that's where I think I am. If "intimate" is reduced to "friendly expression" or "familiarity," the phenomenon Fred G writes about with more subtlety may drift away.

AJHingel · June 7, 2009

I have no intention of characterizing people but the fact that subject matters like "intimacy, passion, disinterest, fakery" have been treated by other arts throughout centuries, does not change because we are in a photo forum discussing photography. This was what I maybe mistakenly understood when you referred to them as non-verbal by definition.

As you might have understood by my first contribution to this very interesting discussing I'm convinced that "intimacy" is present in almost all portfolio in various forms and according to various definitions. I could only imagine a photographer totally alienated by professionalism and instrumentalism shooting photos with little personal involvement. Such photos and photographers surely exist but they are exceptions.

inoneeye · June 7, 2009

Fred "Regarding this specific thread, the question would be, how do we show and share and still maintain intimacy?John "Actors, however, deliver crucial non-verbal extras, such as inflection and physical movement."

Isn't how you practice and use the non-verbal extras(?) as a photographer what helps to define your work, as it does an actor. Since photography is a non-verbal language the extras are in the forefront.""Intimacy" refers to a non-verbal phenomenon, like passion or disinterest or fakery, and can be displayed in photographs of faces and the rest...with more utility than by sentences."

Interesting observations and possible gateway to the nuts and bolts involved to how non-verbal phenomenon (intimacy through disinterest) are communicated..... successfully or not.

Having never acted I don't usually understand how one actors skills are being used to move me. I simply respond, feel it. Had i studied acting and even more so, practiced it, i would have the ability to lift the curtain when i choose to reveal most of the strings behind the magic. The strings/tools that are revealed to me are often not the strings you will see. (I do believe that there are some signs and symbols that are more universal.) The same image i find 'intimate' may make someone else feel uncomfortable or forced. When i find a photo that feels intimate to me and i wish to understand the why and how i am able to break it down and begin to practice/use it. The non-verbal tools used are usually comprehensible. The real magic is to make it your own.

"If "intimate" is reduced to "friendly expression" or "familiarity," the phenomenon Fred G writes about with more subtlety may drift away." How about sharing the private or personal side of yourself ?, as Fred often does with his images. If you speak with intimacy (a risk but often enlightening) you are more likely to convey and receive intimacy. Silly and obvious statement but when i think in terms of photographing with intimacy i know that it is more likely to be a reciprocal intimate experience or insight for the viewer.

luis_g · June 7, 2009

I can see no possible usefulness in decreeing exclusionary lines of demarcation between human endeavors.

Wright Morris immediately comes to mind. If we exclude words, all we are left with is W/NW, pointing, grunting, doing cartwheels, bodily functions and chimping. Not exactly conducive to human communications.

The use of language by humans is nothing new, and even the letters forming words are derived from pictograms. How can we know exactly what Fred means by intimacy? As we witnessed earlier in this thread, even if we go by his pictures, there were several varying ideas of what the word meant. There is no reason to put a pox on defining how one sees the word. And this thread focuses on that word. No one here thinks that by using words, or exclusionary principles, that anything winds up enslaved, reduced, let alone magnified in any way. Life goes on, defying all efforts (via any means) to be caged.

Robert Adams, Stephen Shore, Ansel Adams, Gibson, HCB, Jeff Wall, Edward Weston, Walker Evans, Alec Soth, Mark Klett, and dozens more just off the top of my head have written and are distinguished, widely published (photographically), sell prints in the five-figure+ range, their pictures are in the best private and museum collections in the world. And... they all write, most quite prolifically, emphatically disproving the mutually exclusive idea.

Norma Desmond · June 7, 2009

Luis--

I don't know if you're referring, at least in part, to something I said about words. I may have overstated my position.

Words are valuable and can help us communicate even when considering photographs. Definitions can be tricky. I think the meanings of words develop with usage and don't see them as fixed and precise. That's why I appreciate those who have simply used the word "intimacy" and talked about how it relates to their photographs and processes.

I find the definitional aspects of these forum discussions often abstract and a little distanced. Josh's recent contribution and John's talk of tools of the acting trade seem to bring the discussion back to personal methods and feelings. I'm interested in how each of us approaches subjects and how each of us thinks about our relationship to those subjects and to viewers. I respect that others may be as interested in the definitions themselves as they are in their own photographic methods. I certainly am at times.

Talk about the words themselves often gets me out of myself and more into theory than practice. I can sometimes talk definitionally in the abstract and forget to relate it to my own work and approach. I'm often left wanting when a famous photographer is quoted but the quote is not accompanied by some sort of connection to the quoter's own personal experience as a means of solidifying and grounding the use of the quote.

I often take famous photographers' quotes with a grain of salt, especially when they get more abstract and are less about nuts and bolts. Gibson's quote above has little relevance to me about photographs even though it comes from a fine and recognized photographer. He seems simply to echo philosophical paradigms that I find don't well describe the world and photography. That statement of Gibson's is less about what he is really intimate with, the making of photographs, and more about making a sound bite of an observation that certainly has a ring of truth to it, but misses a lot both photographically and philosophically.

This is a thread about intimacy and I know that I, at least, have a tendency to use words sometimes abstractly and theoretically, missing opportunities to actually talk about my own work, motivations, and processes. I was particularly conscious, since John used my words as the lead-in to this thread about intimacy, to try and keep it personal and not get too into the more abstract definitional quagmires. But that was really just a personal decision. And it felt good.

Norma Desmond · June 7, 2009

Just wanted to add one point. When someone talks about risks and photography, I'm more interested in hearing their experience with risk in their own photographic endeavors than I am about hearing whether risk is part of intimacy. Not that I think the latter isn't interesting and worth considering and discussing. It's more about what I personally am looking for in these forums. And I have strayed from my own advice on many occasions.

Sign In

intimate

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in