'Into the Light' Photo of the Week

Yes, Arthur. Though we disagree some on the photo, I'm glad you expressed yourself as you did, and I didn't take offense to your "team" suggestion as I could figure out the vain in which you meant it. Your speaking up gave us a chance to gain a better understanding of each other's point of view. The attempt to suppress sincere expression is rarely a good idea.

Arthur, I appreciate your response to my questions and your point of view on this image. My initial post on this thread didn't, in any way, address originality. It had to do with the story I gleaned from the image, even though Fred thinks it wasn't inspiring.

Fred, my take on the image's story line possibly derived from the time I've recently spent in a hospital awaiting the result of brain surgery on a loved one. It was a dark time, and I must confess to searching for light. Fortunately, the result was (guardedly) good.

John, as you know, I have been following your photography for a very long time. Only lately have I started becoming interested in a "philosophy of photography" as a kind of personal way of thinking about and doing photography. What brought this to mind was this link to an interview with Graham Nash. (Yes, THAT Graham Nash.)

I was just wondering what you might say about your own philosophy of photography if you were "subjected" to the same kind of interview. Expound at length, if you will. I would like to know how your philosophy of photography relates to this week's Photo. Feel free to link to other pictures of yours to make your point(s), if you will.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly,

The answer to your question about 'philosophy of photography' is more easily stated than you might imagine.

I take photos of whatever genre I think I can do well, often never showing those I take, and sitting on certain ones for now well over a decade while I find its 'worth' or 'truth' or even discover the meaning of the photograph or its 'worth', but trust me, I could 'see' then when I took it, it's 'worth' as a photograph, but maybe then (8 to 12 or more years ago) had little appreciation of where those outlier photos fell in the scheme of things.)

You might find in the my ImageBrief.com portfolio a number of photos that you recognize as being the color versions of photos posted here as B&W but a large number of other images you have never seen before --- thousands of them. I shot stock photo long ago and gave it up, but learned to take photos of everything because you never know what has eventual value, but in my 'style'.

I also have not shied away from taking photos in unusual 'styles' or 'genres' and even posting a few, though I tend to love classical streeet and documentary because it pleases me, but those genres or classifications are not enough to contain my artistic spirit, so I take EVERYTHING that pleases me, whether it's a flower, a leaf, a sidewalk or street, and just don't post them (nudes as well), but you'll never see them though many are good. I try to make all my photos conform to good composition, and tried early on with bird photos -- what better practice than to shoot birds flying into and out of formation to hone those trigger quick reflexes needed for shooting people, and to catch those birds in interesting, however brief, compositions.

However, in short, I'll take whatever pleases me, whether then I can articulate the thought or not. Often now I can, especially after participating so long in the critique process on Photo.net which has hones my skills (thanks all), but that does not define what I take.

If I see it and can capture it well, I'll do so.

Regardless if it falls into a preferred genre or category at all.

What I post indicates a philosophy; what I take does not.

Sorry Julie about upsetting you with photos of suffering humans -- look harder at my photos and you'll find many happy, sympathetic, touching, very humane people not suffering at all with touches of rear humaneness about them -- they just were not in those links which required a category. Perhaps the suffering if you see it throughoughout my work is in your eyes?

Or you mistake the great touch of surrealness I find around me and seek to capture as suffering? It is not especially so.

I find specific moments in life captured in fractions of a second often look quite surreal and seek to preserve those as well as other work that is more easily categorized.

john

John (Crosley)

john

John (Crosley)

Landrum Kelly,

The answer to your question about 'philosophy of photography' is more easily stated than you might imagine.

I take photos of whatever genre I think I can do well, often never showing those I take, and sitting on certain ones for now well over a decade while I find its 'worth' or 'truth' or even discover the meaning of the photograph or its 'worth', but trust me, I could 'see' then when I took it, it's 'worth' as a photograph, but maybe then (8 to 12 or more years ago) had little appreciation of where those outlier photos fell in the scheme of things.)

You might find in the my ImageBrief.com portfolio a number of photos that you recognize as being the color versions of photos posted here as B&W but a large number of other images you have never seen before --- thousands of them. I shot stock photo long ago and gave it up, but learned to take photos of everything because you never know what has eventual value, but in my 'style'.

I also have not shied away from taking photos in unusual 'styles' or 'genres' and even posting a few, though I tend to love classical streeet and documentary because it pleases me, but those genres or classifications are not enough to contain my artistic spirit, so I take EVERYTHING that pleases me, whether it's a flower, a leaf, a sidewalk or street, and just don't post them (nudes as well), but you'll never see them though many are good. I try to make all my photos conform to good composition, and tried early on with bird photos -- what better practice than to shoot birds flying into and out of formation to hone those trigger quick reflexes needed for shooting people, and to catch those birds in interesting, however brief, compositions.

However, in short, I'll take whatever pleases me, whether then I can articulate the thought or not. Often now I can, especially after participating so long in the critique process on Photo.net which has hones my skills (thanks all), but that does not define what I take.

If I see it and can capture it well, I'll do so.

Regardless if it falls into a preferred genre or category at all.

What I post indicates a philosophy; what I take does not.

Sorry Julie about upsetting you with photos of suffering humans -- look harder at my photos and you'll find many happy, sympathetic, touching, very humane people not suffering at all with touches of rear humaneness about them -- they just were not in those links which required a category. Perhaps the suffering if you see it throughoughout my work is in your eyes?

Or you mistake the great touch of surrealness I find around me and seek to capture as suffering? It is not especially so.

I find specific moments in life captured in fractions of a second often look quite surreal and seek to preserve those as well as other work that is more easily categorized.

john

John (Crosley)

john

John (Crosley)