I graduated in 1991 with a degree in photography. At that moment I quit shooting. A few years later I traveled around the globe, with extended stays in Malaysia, Thailand, India, and London. No camera, no photos. It is a great way to experience a place, and be present in a different way. We still get the stories, but maybe we don't need the photos.
Now I am a professional photographer. I shoot A LOT. On my own time, I am really glad to not be shooting.
I took a few trips (before the advent of phone cameras) where I intentionally left my 35mm camera at home. In those cases, the trips were intense and risky and I didn't want to worry about breaking or losing it. I did feel more freedom, but in the end I can't decide if it was worth it. Because I am older, trips I went on 30 or 40 years ago are really difficult to remember in granular detail, and photos are super helpful, even poorly executed ones. A single photo can trigger a lot of memory.
I take a lot of photos. Tons of photos. I enjoy it. But mostly I only take photos when I'm traveling. I'm kind of traveling now, but not really. We are house sitting in the US while we build out our new van. I take pictures of the pet but not much else. But here we are in a house on a marsh in the low country of South Carolina. It's beautiful. The Spanish moss is so beautiful. But I haven't taken many pictures.
I think photographing helps me see a place. Perhaps it gives me an activity to do while I see a place, a reason to see a place. I don't know.
Just today I was thinking I should go take pictures of the marsh. Inertia takes over, though. It would help me to get outside of myself to go take pictures.
I totally get what you are saying. Sometimes I wonder if I'm really seeing stuff or just taking pictures. It's a good exercise to not take pictures. But I love having a camera I my pocket all the time.
I graduated in 1991 with a degree in photography. At that moment I quit shooting. A few years later I traveled around the globe, with extended stays in Malaysia, Thailand, India, and London. No camera, no photos. It is a great way to experience a place, and be present in a different way. We still get the stories, but maybe we don't need the photos.
Now I am a professional photographer. I shoot A LOT. On my own time, I am really glad to not be shooting.
Thank you for a thoughtful, relatable post.
Thank you!
I took a few trips (before the advent of phone cameras) where I intentionally left my 35mm camera at home. In those cases, the trips were intense and risky and I didn't want to worry about breaking or losing it. I did feel more freedom, but in the end I can't decide if it was worth it. Because I am older, trips I went on 30 or 40 years ago are really difficult to remember in granular detail, and photos are super helpful, even poorly executed ones. A single photo can trigger a lot of memory.
I take a lot of photos. Tons of photos. I enjoy it. But mostly I only take photos when I'm traveling. I'm kind of traveling now, but not really. We are house sitting in the US while we build out our new van. I take pictures of the pet but not much else. But here we are in a house on a marsh in the low country of South Carolina. It's beautiful. The Spanish moss is so beautiful. But I haven't taken many pictures.
I think photographing helps me see a place. Perhaps it gives me an activity to do while I see a place, a reason to see a place. I don't know.
Just today I was thinking I should go take pictures of the marsh. Inertia takes over, though. It would help me to get outside of myself to go take pictures.
I totally get what you are saying. Sometimes I wonder if I'm really seeing stuff or just taking pictures. It's a good exercise to not take pictures. But I love having a camera I my pocket all the time.