Is it about conquest?

[Sanford]

<p>If you don't think it is all about competition trying photographing a sporting event sometime.</p>

[Brad_]

That's why I love doing what I do; meeting interesting people while out shooting on the street and then

blogging about it. There is no competition, it is what it is and it feels great doing it. My friend and excellent

street/documentary photographer Emilio Banuelos said, "It's like taking vitamins or having therapy. You

do it because it makes you feel better."

[dan_south]

I don't see any connection between conquest and competition. My travel photography is conquest driven to some

extent, but my objective is to capture effectively that which I see and experience. And to have a heck of a good time

doing it.

 

I'm not trying to get a better shot than someone else. I'm trying to get MY best shot based on MY vision of the

location. In fact, is there really an objective measure that can determine that one technically sound photograph is better

than another? Pick a month from the past. Which photo was better, the cover of Life or the cover of National

Geographic? The whole notion is silly.

 

I don't enter contests. I don't upload my photos for critique or evaluation. I do what I do. My own evaluation criteria

are all that matter to me. When I travel somewhere, I want to come back with shots that make me happy. That is my conquest, as it were. I'm not competing with anyone else.

[greg_campbell1]

<blockquote>

<p>I find myself upset that he somehow gains recognition as a photographer by strapping himself over with camera gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, the entire concept of 'photography' has been hijacked by the marketing monkeys. They're spent squillions pushing the idea that 'you need a better camera' to take decent pictures. (And don't forget to buy the 'best' RAW processing software, tripod, etc., etc.) This notion has taken root among amateur photography and has effectively pushed out other, more artistic, considerations. When groups of photographers gather, they invariably yap about gear and software; discussions of philosophy and aesthetic achievement are limited to obscure forums read by a tiny fraction of the general population. Once you've chugged the gear flavored Kool Aid, the inverse argument - if you have spendy equipment, you MUST be an accomplished shooter - makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>As for the 'conquest' issue, I see it all the time in nature and scenic photographers. Living in Aridzona, I've visited Antelope canyon on several occasions, sometimes with local photo groups. When I am with a group, I've noticed that roughly half the people will be utter obsessed with those dumb 'light beams' that spill through to the canyon floor at certain times of the day. Yes, the beams are pretty, but all of Antelope (either section) is a sublime locale; anyone with a shred of aesthetic appreciation in their soul could spend hours there. Yet I've seen hardcore Beam Baggers literally running (well, moving as fast as is possible given the difficult terrain) to the spot where the beams await. Once there, they, like the Great African Hunter mentioned above, spend maybe 5 minutes composing a few mediocre shots. Mission accomplished, they turn around and leave! DOH! (Horseshoe Bend at high noon is next!) OK, so not everyone is that blind, but I'm still surprised by how many people have zero interest in creating anything pretty or self-expressive, and instead define their photographic success by completing a "hit list." Yes, they are out there and there are more of them than you may suspect!</p>

[rossb]

<p> Everybody wants a nice snap of their subject. I have no grand goals myself other then to just have fun with it. I do not always take a camera with me when doing stuff. If somebody is out for a Trophy shot whatever that is then more power to them. I hope they get the shot.</p>