[crewl1]

I thought it was going to say to stay off the internet

[fretlessdavis]

It's not fair to put photographers into the same category of 'camera users'.

I think it's aimed at people that are more concerned about documenting their memories than enjoying things. Like people that take 'selfies' and pics of their food, friends, etc. That's using (eh, abusing) a camera.

People should put down their camera and enjoy what their doing. Phones with cameras built in are pretty much a waste. Don't disengage in what you're doing just to upload it to Facebook.

It's not fair to lump photographers in this category:

Photographers usually walk with their head up, looking for the artistic beauty in everyday life.

Photographers see relationships in colors, shapes, textures, people, and can create something of beauty from what others see as mundane.

Photographers are the people willing to haul 20 lbs of camera gear on a backpacking trip, to use it twice a day in morning and evening twilight.

Photographers are the people who go off the beaten path to document the beaten path (and the unbeaten path!)

Photographers look at things from multiple perspectives, and frequently don't take accept things at normal perspectives.

FILM photographers have less 'screen time', and use their brains in the darkroom with developing, printing, etc.


Now, given those, how many people think real photographers should give up their cameras to live a healthier life?

[Kerrowdown]

A little-known secret to staying healthy and living longer involves discarding your camera

Oh dear out of work or James Dean, well I'm already too old to be the later.

[waterfall]

It sounds like these are not purposeful photographers, so it make sense. But he fails to give any specific details of the type of photographers in the study. So his basic assertion is dubious to start with.


There's also a major disconnect, because I guarantee you that anyone who's old enough to have been in a "longevity study" during the last 20 years isn't a concert-going selfie-taking mad instagramer.



Nevertheless, if your photography is a quick and casual type that's more intent on taking a 2-D photo than living the moment, you probably are less happy. But I still think this characteristic is going to be found more in the younger generations.

The biggest health reason why camera photographers die young is jaywalking while texting on their smart phone. See, I could throw in a made up statistic here to make the assertion "scientific". "Eighty percent of cell phone photographers are in danger of dying young!"

How did this junk post make it onto PF?

[jogiba]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/secrets-longevity/201402/the-little-know...et-longer-life

"A little-known secret to staying healthy and living longer involves discarding your camera."

Right, put the camera down and pick up an AR15 and start shooting for real ! This guy is a nut case.

[Na Horuk]

I would also say that photogarphy has very little to do with habits for me. For me, photography is a way to get out of the usual routine

[normhead]

The man is a charlatan, to the point that many accomplished charlatans would be outraged by his amateurish charlatanism.

[Na Horuk]

The man is a charlatan, to the point that many accomplished charlatans would be outraged by his amateurish charlatanism.

You sure have a way with words

[wullemaha]

Pop psychology crap that better fits a reality TV show or the shopping channel.

^ this!

Also, I hardly think this post was referring to "Photography" as in people who take it as a serious hobby, searching for that picture, trying to get better, etc.... you know, lunatics like us. I think he is more referring to the "smartphone crowd" that snap away at anything, without a real interest in photography as an art form.

But anyhow. Wow, this article is a pain to read in how un-researched and bland it generalizes...

[THoog]

He says "camera", but he clearly means "camera phone". And he's basing this on a study of 1500 adults who were first examined as children in the 1920s. So all of the study group are at least in their 80s? Octogenarians aren't exactly known as major players in the social media scene.

I agree, those in the study group that are "thriving" probably are not photographing/videoing everything in their day and uploading it to social media (I'm willing to bet that the 50+% that are deceased don't, either). He would have done just as well to say that people who don't spend all day texting are more likely to "thrive". Given that social media and smartphones have only come along fairly recently, I'm not sure if you can draw any connection between that and the 80-to-102 age group.

The more times I read the article, the more it appears to be a carefully worded, pseudo-scientific, thinly veiled "Darned kids with their newfangled cameras and sexting and bookfaces! Get off my lawn!" rant.

[magkelly]

If I am I'm going to die happy that means probably dying with a camera in my hand. Take away my cameras and not only would I be broke, and unemployed, which is not particularly good for one's health, but I'd also be depressed and miserable. I got my first little digital cam when I was recovering from being badly hurt in a car accident. I was broke. I was depressed and I was hurting like heck. That first little 1.2 MP camera it saved my sorry arse. It gave me something to think about besides how much I hurt.

I later ended up almost unemployable because of illness and injury. I now make my living doing photography. Without it I would not have a roof over my head at this point. Picking up a camera that has been nothing but good for me. It's given me an occupation, an artistic voice, a reason to keep on going though society pretty much decided I was useless. I don't believe in being connected 24/7. I need downtime to just be human, but I'm actually at my most human, and I'm most relaxed and healthiest when I am doing my photography so that just shoots this guy's pet theories all to heck, now doesn't it?

The only two things that ever stress me when it comes to my photography are getting enough people to let me do it every month so I can pay my rent etc and not really having the $$$ to upgrade as much as I'd like and really need to at this point. I do get tired of trying to run a photography business in a really bad area for it on a shoestring budget shooting with an entry level camera instead of something a bit more appropriate, but believe me I get a lot less stressed running my own business and all that than I ever did working for someone else and running theirs. Even when business is less than stellar I still I think I have about a tenth of the stress now than I had working as a retail manager and that's even with having to look after my Dad, which is definitely no picnic most of the time, cranky, frustrating old geezer that he's become...

This guy he has NO idea of what qualifies as quality of life. They'll probably take my camera out of my cold dead hands all right, but whoever does will duly note that I went out with a smile on my face doing my thing too....

[wullemaha]

The more times I read the article, the more it appears to be a carefully worded, pseudo-scientific, thinly veiled "Darned kids with their newfangled cameras and sexting and bookfaces! Get off my lawn!" rant.

I like you! *gg*

[steve1307]

I think I'd be happier and live longer if I gave up reading crap like that rather than taking photos.

I do agree the "ipad photographers" are rediculous.

Longevity of photographers? I dont think many photographer from the 1920's would live to 100, but this might have something to do with all the chemicals used in the darkroom.

Nowdays I think it might be the GoPro photographers that would statistically have a shorter lifespan.

[magkelly]

The only photographers I can think of who might have a justifiably probable shorter life span are combat photographers/photo journalists stationed in a war zone and/or the dreaded and sleazy paparazzi. The former because they unfortunately might die while documenting war, the latter because some pissed off celebrity might run them down in a huff one day for sticking their cameras where they have no business being like too far up their kid's face or something.

Personally I think the ones that dog the kids of celebrities should be shot on sight. What they've been doing to kids like Suri Cruise all her life is nothing less than mental child abuse. It's one thing to constantly photograph the parents, though even that I think sometimes can go too far. They got into the business of fame as a career. But to do that to their kids, who are not celebrities themselves is just plain sick. I'm so happy that some of the major magazines are finally starting to realize that and are backing off buying as many shots like that. Real photojournalists I have nothing but respect for. Papparazzi totally disgust me.

I'd never photograph a celebrity's private life. Not unless I was hired to, by them or by a magazine with their permission to do an "at home" shoot or something. I've actually lived in places where you'd see famous people all the time. I could have made some serious money if I'd had a camera handy once or twice actually. But it's against my personal code to bother someone like that when they are off the clock, so to speak. I consider it very, very rude. (No, I'm not much into asking for autographs either.)

One of my very favorite famous people (and a major crush at the time) once wandered across my photographic range of vision once when I was shooting some interesting architecture in SF. I was so startled I nearly dropped my camera. He eyed me and I eyed him, and then I smiled and very deliberately dropped my lens and put a cap on my camera lens until he went inside. He turned around and blew me a kiss and I think I just about melted, lol. He was so darned adorable, and clearly it made his day NOT to be photographed for once. That's a moment I will not forget, priceless, grin.

[DeadJohn]

He says "the happiest, healthiest, and longest-living individuals tend to be those who are creating things...". A photograph *is* a thing.