Do you "believe in" of photgraphy?

Image #3 is kinda hawt
dude-funny-pictures-seriously--5148.jpg


She looks like a hooker that the Crayola Crayon factory threw up on.

Yes, it's called being young and not a fossilized old fart. Also, Go look up images from Vancouver's Pride Parade.

I did and none of these women look anything like that Walmart mess.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2921/14822082932_310753c9db_b.jpg

http://images.glaciermedia.ca/polop..._gen/derivatives/original_size/pride-2013.jpg

http://thesociables.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/20130804Pride011.jpg
 
What a stupid question, of course I do. I've seen photographs, photography exists, ergo, I believe in it.

Well... no, that's not quite what I meant. Do you believe in the power of photography? Aside from all the platitudes that those of us who try and earn a couple of bucks in this game put on our websites about "creating and preserving memories" and such, do you, as a person, believe that a photograph, even if it's not a great portrait by the likes of HCB has the power to have a significant impact on people (nb: I'm primarily referring to photographs of close family members, not "great portraits") and to be or become something genuinely treasured rather than just a nice of memory of how we looked back then?

Why, or why not. Discuss.
On a serious note, Photography is what it is. Different for every individual. For some photos may have meaning, for others they may just be a thing of enjoyment. Sadly for some they can even be things of great displeasure or even hate. One's view of life and what is important to the individual as well as their history is going to greatly influence how they perceive many things including photographs.
 
Oh no, here we go again....
 
Photos preserve moments. I have always said that what I shoot are not my memories, they are the memories of the people I shoot. I remember when the photos were shot, but they mean less to me than the people in the photos. I hear at least once a week from the pro football players I shoot how much they mean to them and their families, that's enough for me.
 
Yes, I do. Not b/c I"m a photographer.

I believe in the power of still photography as an art form. And the single best illustration I can think of is this: there was moving picture film taken of the second flag raising over Iwo Jima. Google it. It's nice. But it's not very inspirational. A bunch of guys raising a flag. Happens quickly and it's over. Not much to note to it. And I've seen other artistic depictions of the same event (the roof of the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico VA is a nice architectural statement for instance). Now, look at Joe Rosenthal's picture of the exact same event....except it's still photography. And it's a gut punch it's so powerful. I've seen video of the time and location when RFK was shot...the sound of the shots, the chaos, the shouts. But I've seen Bill Eppridge's stills of the exact same event. Some of Eppridge's work (particularly the Fillipino bus boy kneeling down next to the mortally wounded Robert Kennedy, looking up helplessly, unsure of what to do) is so freaking powerful. I watched her swim in real time and in video, I've commentators at the Olympics talk about her remarkable performance but to me, the definitive explanation of the utter dominance of Katie Ledecky are the still photos showing her either lapping the pool (she is swimming in one direction and 5 other swimmers are going the other way) or a distance shot that looks as if she's swimming by herself. Powerful stuff...and watching it real time or on tape didn't convey that complete utter dominance in her field to me that the still work did.

My point is not that video or moving pictures (or other depictions of an event or statement) pale next to still photography. It's that you can look at a range of different art forms of the same message or event. Sometimes you'll pick video or a sculpture or a painting (Picasso's Guernica is a great example) as the definitive statement that just grabs you and won't let go. But often times it's a still photo. That's for a variety of reasons. That ability to unnaturally stop the motion at a key moment, allows us to focus, won't let us move on or gloss over what is happening (Capa's shot of the Spaniard that's just been shot), or the knowing of what comes next from the photo (like the story where the ending isn't explicit...the protagonist heads off to the gunfight and we already know he is going to die...but he doesn't know)....that ability can move us in ways at times that are superior to other art forms.
 
Last edited:
And that is what you have to hang on to. Some funny photos here.
 
Image #3 is kinda hawt

The camera phone has been a great tool for passive bullies to humiliate people anonymously in a socially acceptable manner.

Without this, these bullies wouldn't have a voice. It's really been a great thing to further democratize cruelty and body shaming.

You know, though. I am ok with #2.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top