Just for fun: Where is the best place in the world for a photographer to live?

[stp]

<p>I asked the same question back in 2008: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00QXNH</p>

<p>I made a disastrous move in 2009, and I've been trying to sell my house for the last two years to try again. I plan to live in my camper for the foreseeable future. If your responses to Chris are within driving distance, I hope to visit and maybe stay a while.</p>

[igord]

Only PARIS

[john_tran14]

<p>Definitely, the DARKROOM</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Assuming we are talking about personal / amateur photography, IMHO, if you are passionate about a locale independent of your photographic interests, it will come across in your photos. It really doesn't matter whether you happen to love the beach, mountains, desert, rain forest, center city night life, farm country, a specific city, or any other place in the world. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, the opposite is also true: little puts more of a damper on my personal photography than being stuck in a place I don't like.</p>

<p>OTOH, if you are a pro, you've got to be in a place that has photographic business opportunities of the kind you are seeking, e.g., advertising, fashion, the movie industry, pro sports teams, etc. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>How about the Seattle area. You are close to city, mountains, historic trains, a rainforest, and a desert. You can drive down to Portland and the Columbia gorge for fun as well.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>A driver for the Motorhome and me to see as much of the USA for my bucket List or<br>

build as close to Yellowstone N>P be driven around it at any time :</p>

[rossb]

<p> I live in the Monteray area of Calif and it's very beautiful here. However home is where the family is and I would not move away from my kids. I would enjoy visiting all 58 National Parks and take some photos while I am at it. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>OMG didn't anyone see The Lord Of The Rings trilogy?</p>

<p>It's got to be New Zealand for the best all around photography place. It even looks great zooming in on it with Google Maps.</p>

<p>Of course since no one mentioned Texas in this entire thread, I'll toot my horn on this nation state. You've got Grand Canyon like country out in West Texas, Germany's terrain in Central Texas (just sans the big mountains and castles) and piney woods in East Texas just a bit within 400 miles of each other. Oh well, you can't have it all.</p>

[purplealien]

<p>It seems I'm not the only lucky one! It's great to read the passion everyone has for their home turf. What a beautiful planet we live on.</p>

<p>I've travelled a bit, and if I had to choose one other country to live in it would probably be New Zealand. So I'm with you Tim. </p>

<p>I've often thought if I did win the lottery I'd spend 6 months in a different country each year - enough time to see the seasons change. I have a fascination with India and the far East (particularly the people), so I'd probably go back there first for street photography. Followed by (in no particular order):<br>

New Zealand for landscapes<br>

Middle East/North Africa just to take pictures of sand dunes<br>

Canada for wildlife (always fancied the bears catching salmon)</p>

<p>I guess I should go and buy that lottery ticket!</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p> </p>

[cjk]

<p>@Chris: I am currently in the Middle East, having relocated here from NYC (for a while only) and I can tell you this: there is Middle East and there is Middle East. You'd have to choose very carefully, because even the sand dunes can differ in their attractiveness.</p>

<p>And there's all the non-sand dunes rest. I am currently in Riyadh, Saudi and that is probably the most photograph-UNfriendly environment I can think of, both from a scenery perspective and from a hostility to photography of the locals... Even the deserts surrounding the city are actually not photo friendly as they are littered with trash including in the most pristine environments...</p>

<p>On the other hand, Dubai offers quite a variety of landscapes, architecture, beach & city life and people from all over in a pretty small and easily reachable radius. Lebanon also offers quite a variety of landscapes (mountains and beaches) and a friendly population in a 200km x 50km tiny box (no sand dunes there though).</p>

<p>That said, my top choices from the places I lived in would be NYC and Paris...<br>

[edit: I would also add the south of France, even though I haven't *lived* there]</p>

 

[mjferron]

<p>I live near Austin, TX and landscape photography is skimpy here, I can drive east for 1/2 hour and look for agricultural scenes with roads heading into infinity that look good with dramatic summer skies. I look for leftovers of Texas past. The old signs, building and pickups often catch my eye. There's always downtown Austin and street scenes. </p>

<p>Arizona or Utah would be my choice to live when it comes to scenic photography. I would be very happy basing myself out of Sedona AZ. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>I've lived in Seattle, Madison, WI, and now in Northern VA. I also have a place in AZ. I can't say I photographically prefer one over the other. Photography lives in the mind of the photographer, not in any particular place on the ground.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>This is a game I have played with myself over the years. I originally thought that I would move to New York but changed my mind after several visits to Paris. Having said that however, I'm not sure I would want to permanently live there; a year or two to experience her over all four seasons would be enough for me (though it's possible that when the time came to return home, I might not want to!). cb :-)</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p><em><strong>I (heart) Urban. </strong> </em><br>

Best thing about anywere interesting is that you don't have to live there. </p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I live near Austin, TX and landscape photography is skimpy here...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, I can tell from your gallery that you have a very good eye at finding interesting subjects and imbuing them with a compelling and professional look so I'm a bit puzzled by your statement.</p>

<p>I lived in Austin back in the late '80's and found the west and south sides around Town Lake, Mt. Bonnell, Lake Travis, Dripping Springs (where they shot the most recent version of the "Alamo" movie) as landscape eye candy especially in the early morning and evening. There's a huge string of interconnected lake systems all the way to Marble Falls most of which are within a day's drive. There's Pedernalis Falls area...</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/search?q=pedernales+falls&hl=en&newwindow=1&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_1GAT7a9A4PW2gXsofCLBw&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1293&bih=940</p>

<p>Don't know how far away from Austin you live, but I would say central Texas is a landscape paradise for me.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Thanks for the compliment Tim. I'm in Pflugerville bordering Austin on the north east corner. Takes me about 45mm to drive into hill country. Unfortunately Austin, Lake Travis, and the hill country has changed a lot since the 80's. A few years back Austin was the fastest growing city in the US. I haven't really found a pristine scene in nearby hill country. There are mansions on the hills overlooking the lake and high tension lines everywhere.</p>

<p>Now I did make my first visit to Pedernalis about a month ago and I found some potential there. It's a bit of a hike for me but worth it. </p>

[wogears]

<p>Any REAL place, being defined as one of the diminishing number of regions that have not been Disnified, Starbucked, Fast-fooded and Bennetonated. Where the villages and people are real, not constructs for tourists, and the landscape has not been photographed and postcarded out of any sense of edge. If I were young and single, I would wish for the courage to go to Afghanistan or Mongolia. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Certain places do seem to inspire me and photographers in general. At the same time, I'm aware that it's my vision of the place and not the place of my vision that makes the biggest difference. Sometimes it's not about the place at all. It can be about details, universals, instances, moments, narrative, fiction, imagination. You can take pictures <em>of</em> things and you make pictures <em>with</em> things and you can combine these and other approaches to make any place into any photo.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I live in Orange County CA and shoot at least once per week. For retirement, I've thought about moving but probably won't because of all the photographic opportunities locally: Huntington gardens, Descanso Gardens, LA Arboretum gardens, Safari park, San Joaquin Bird Sanctuary, Newport Back Bay.............If I want to drive a little: La Jolla Coves, Safari Park, Lancaster Poppy Reserve........ nature and people photos can be captured at most location's and I haven't even scratched the surface of photo opportunities. If I want to drive several hours: Yosemite, Monterey, Big Sur, Eastern Sierra.........</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>If I won the lottery, where would I move to get the most opportunities for great photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the answers are probably based on OP's photography subjects of interest, and perhaps what his considered to be "great photos" (at his site?). Other photographers with different interests, and with recognized "great photos" would have very different answers.</p>

<p>http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1170</p>

<p>http://www.war-photographer.com/</p>

<p>http://www.cruzine.com/2010/09/14/poverty-photography/</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Having recently returned from a trip to Northern California, I have to agree with Tom Harvey that it does not suck. We spent 2 days in Monterey with a drive down CA 1 through Big Sur and 4 days in Napa Valley with side trips to Point Reyes and Yosemite. Living in upstate NY, I thought I was used to the snow, but in the Sierras when they say you need chains, they aren't kidding.</p>

<p>One of the best things about photography in Rochester is the access to experts in the history and technology of photography. As for the kind of photography I like to do:<br>

Landscape: 6/10, lots of waterfalls, a big lake, and four distinct seasons.<br>

Sports: 7/10, easy access to school events, several minor league teams<br>

Astronomy: 4/10, I don't have to drive to far from town to find darkness, but the clearest nights are usually the coldest nights.</p>

[m_m3]

<p>playboy mansion.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Ron, I think I've found the darkest spot for astronomy in the lower 48...Hatch Point Utah, 30 miles south and about 50 west of Moab. Absolutely middle of nowhere, and I couldn't detect any light pollution at all even after about 4 hours of acclimation.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>I've done it both ways and the best place to live is where the clients and agencies are based. I can travel to a shoot - fly the more distant- with no problem since when shooting I am on another frequency anyways but when I get home it is great to be a short commute to all the brick and mortar needs of everyday life.</p>

<p>An additional advantage of metropolitan Los Angeles is drive any direction for an hour or two and beaches, mountains (snow in winter), low desert landscapes, high desert dry lake beds and every variation of forests and chaparral are available to choose from. </p>

<p>New York is better purely from a business perspective but factoring in the rest, Los Angeles. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>On photography in the Texas Hill Country: I lived there, too, Tim! It was a wonderful place for photography. I have fond memories of Barton Springs, Hamilton Pool, West Lake Hills, the 360 bridge, Town Lake in the springtime, the UT campus. And then other destinations are only a short drive away -- the Brenham area when the wildflowers are out (can be almost a religious experience!), the San Antonio river walk, New Braunfels (where I recall you live), and dozens of really cool, small towns. Also let's not forget the Gulf Coast!</p>