What keeps you inspired?

[SoulfulRecover]

...... being emulated by people fascinated with Photoshop and Lightroom and software "steps" and "file processing routines",and that worship of "file processing routines" is leading to this 500px, cookie-cutter mentality where the actual lenswork and on-the-ground photography parts of the equation are often being overlooked, and the "Photoshop stage" is being used to beautify poorly-composed and even poorly-conceptualized clicks of a shutter. That's the main reason I dislike browsing the big aggregator sites.

Ive said it before but there seems to be a mis understanding between photography and compositing (might be using the wrong term there)

an example would be someone like Brooke Shaden. She does know how to use a camera but she will spend 5-10 minutes to gather a few shots then spend hours creating composites and illustrations. To me she is more of a composite artist rather than a photographer. Im not saying she is not capable of great things with a camera or that I don't like her work (I think its pretty cool) but it seems to not really be photography.

 

[Heather Koch]

I am inspired by the story behind the photo, what I take from the photo and how the photo challenges me in my own life. Everyone has their own idea behind "great" photography, so I try to grasp all of their knowledge and my own when looking at their photo. Combining the two only creates masterpieces, in my eyes. Because the photo may speak differently to others, we all go through tough times and good times, different from each other, so a photo can bring up emotions that no one else may have. That is why I try not to condemn peoples photos but help them prosper their technique and quality so they can have proud moments, no matter what people say. At the end of the day, your photo must have inspired someone, even if that was yourself. Photography is more than an image to me, it is a way of living. You cherish the special moments and forget the not so good moments, but you learn from them so hopefully they can become those special moments. Than you share them with the world.

That is what keeps me inspired

 

[rexbobcat]

...... being emulated by people fascinated with Photoshop and Lightroom and software "steps" and "file processing routines",and that worship of "file processing routines" is leading to this 500px, cookie-cutter mentality where the actual lenswork and on-the-ground photography parts of the equation are often being overlooked, and the "Photoshop stage" is being used to beautify poorly-composed and even poorly-conceptualized clicks of a shutter. That's the main reason I dislike browsing the big aggregator sites.

Ive said it before but there seems to be a mis understanding between photography and compositing (might be using the wrong term there)

an example would be someone like Brooke Shaden. She does know how to use a camera but she will spend 5-10 minutes to gather a few shots then spend hours creating composites and illustrations. To me she is more of a composite artist rather than a photographer. Im not saying she is not capable of great things with a camera or that I don't like her work (I think its pretty cool) but it seems to not really be photography.

I would define what Brooke does as photographic art. Why? Because photography is the medium that she uses to create the art. She doesn't used graphical or typographic elements at all. It's all photography.

Digital paintings are still paintings, regardless of the fact that they don't use paint. While a composite isn't a photograph, it is photographically derived and it isn't wrong to refer to it as such.

Besides, where would we draw the line between too much manipulation? If I remove a distracting element from a photo, is it still a photo since it is not a purposefully inaccurate representation of the scene?

This whole area is a grey mush of semantics. If a work of art is created with photographs, I don't think it's too out there to refer to the creator as an artist who uses the medium of photography to create their work (AKA a photographic artist)

 

[D-B-J]

I love my subject matter...plain and simple.

Nay, we all do.

 

[rexbobcat]

My brain is somewhat numb to inspiration in the context of conceptualizing photos based off of the media of others. Some of it is because much of the stuff is out of my league (because of skill and/or resources), but it's also because I'm trying to steer away from being too blatantly derivative.

"This very specific concept has been done to death, but I'm going to do it anyway because it'll get me lots of likes on Facebook, but psssst don't tell anyone because I'm going to act like it's because of my brilliant, creative mind hahahahahaHAHAHAHA please like me."

No thanks.

The only problem with this when you're not very naturally creative is that most of the stuff you produce is very uninspiring within itself. So instead of feeling like I'm conquering my own insecurities about my worth as a photographer by doing something that I think is unique to the current photographic climate, I end up creating **** so painfully bland and seemingly uninspired that I question why I'm even doing it.

So I guess what I'm saying is that my drive and inspiration come from the constant existential anxiety that I place on myself.

And I don't mean that as something positive.

 

[limr37 7]

I would call that graphic arts. If a collage includes photographs, should we call it photography? Or does it get its own name because it's gone beyond the typical constraints of that medium, plus the other mediums used to create it?

So no, I wouldn't consider work like Maggie Taylor's (whom I found while googling examples of Brooke Shaden) to be photography. I wouldn't call it painting either. I'd call her a graphic artist.

:: maggie taylor ::

 

[Fred Berg]

I am inspired by the challenge that photography represents, and its possibilities. Having the chance to transform things that would normally be ignored or overlooked into something that drives the imagination is what keeps me coming back.

 

[limr37 7]

In her garden of digital delights - Maggie Taylor featured in Lens in the NYT in 2011.

And interestingly enough, the day before, Lens featured her husband, Jerry Uelsmanns (Jerry Uelsmanns Analog Dreams) who is still all analog and makes his images in the darkroom.

"At first, in the early 60s when I would show my work to other photographers, they’d always say, “Well, this is interesting, but this is not photography.” I’d buy the same cameras, spend hours in the darkroom, but somehow they were locked in to the sort of documentary, camera-conceived imagery tradition, which still dominates photography."

 

[Gary A.]

I am inspired by my desire to capture the exceptional image. I am driven by the challenge involved in the hands-on mechanics of that capture.

 

[bribrius]

My brain is somewhat numb to inspiration in the context of conceptualizing photos based off of the media of others. Some of it is because much of the stuff is out of my league (because of skill and/or resources), but it's also because I'm trying to steer away from being too blatantly derivative.

"This very specific concept has been done to death, but I'm going to do it anyway because it'll get me lots of likes on Facebook, but psssst don't tell anyone because I'm going to act like it's because of my brilliant, creative mind hahahahahaHAHAHAHA please like me."

No thanks.

The only problem with this when you're not very naturally creative is that most of the stuff you produce is very uninspiring within itself. So instead of feeling like I'm conquering my own insecurities about my worth as a photographer by doing something that I think is unique to the current photographic climate, I end up creating **** so painfully bland and seemingly uninspired that I question why I'm even doing it.

So I guess what I'm saying is that my drive and inspiration come from the constant existential anxiety that I place on myself.

And I don't mean that as something positive.

edited to shorten and because my language was horrid.
huh. Are you attempting to go pro is that why the stress? I dont really think too much about it. I could be on the opposite side of the spectrum as you.
I just kind of do what I do? I usually have a camera with me.
concentrate mostly on family pics, local area. Pretty straight forward these are my most valuable (though simple and boring pics) valuable to me?
I would wonder why with such anxiety you even want to do this ? And if you are trying to be unique why you cant just be yourself? Instead of worrying about justifying you just be you? Or justifying your photography just do what you want? Instead of trying to be something else?

 

[Paul Josaph]

I love my subject matter...plain and simple.

In which subject do you have an edge?

 

[gsgary]

I think if I just shot digital I would struggle to keep inspired but shooting mostly film B+W developing and printing in the darkroom I have no problem keeping inspired

 

[limr37 7]

I love my subject matter...plain and simple.

In which subject do you have an edge?

T&A

 

[petrochemist125 150]

Nothing 'keeps me inspired'.
I'm inspired afresh by many things, sometimes just the light playing through the trees, or attending motorsport, or the tiny details on a patch of moss, or reading of an interesting technique...
Sometimes inspiration runs low due to other distractions, but I can be sure it will return soon enough - I attend/help run a club/workshop every week, which helps during the times (like now) when the natural light is dull, and I'm too tied up with work & DIY to get out properly.

 

[MRnats]

Others' before/after pics (SOOC vs. PP) and seeing how a "normal" photo is made to pop, and trying to work with challenging ambient light.