[FHPhotographer]

I got into photography as a tool for brush n' canvas painting, to have a work-around for my inability to draw very well. For that I could have stopped with a $100 point n' shoot. Photographic detail (resolution, contrast, detail, color accuracy etc) didn't matter because I was just using the images to create the outlines to paint.

Then when I saw what kind of "art" could be created digitally using photographs as a base , I dropped the brush and went with the computer . And I got a larger-format 13x19" printer because I had the strange notion that very few good paintings are small paintings; so I needed the upgraded large format printer (with expensive art papers and eight ink cartridges at $15 a pop that go empty if you even breath on them hard). And that's where I may have put my first foot on the slippery slope ...

Digital painting seems to me to be reductive instead of additive; the digital filters (brushes) have to smear/change/delete pixel detail to get the various effects. No matter what you do, you're reducing photographic detail/clarity/color to get digital paint effects. But, to retain those painting effects using ink jet printing of at least 300 dpi, you need a large image which mans you have to start with a DSLR large-sensor high resolution detailed image.

But truth be told, now caught up in digital photography, I think it's too much about the technology, the process of taking the picture instead of seeing the picture and grabbing it. I'm detail oriented (a nice way of saying tight assed) but I'm finding that most DSLR minutia confuses and/or bores even me. It all seems just a bit too precious, so much distinction without difference. It really should be more about what you see than what you use to see with. All I want to do is see something, frame it, shoot it and leave with minimum fuss . Sort of like sex.

I'm going back and look at all the "saved" shots from the past couple of years in hopes of finding a pattern of the kind of scenes/images/objects/settings that caught my eye, liked well enough to photograph and keep. And if I can't find a pattern of subject, maybe I'll at least find a focus of intent (couldn't resist). If I find out anything interesting I'll let you know; if I don't find out something interesting, I'll talk about it anyway And I'd be interested if anybody else is tussling with the same or similar issues, trying to find a photographic direction,

Brian

[mattb123]

I was also a painter, a watercolorist. I liked field painting, but sometimes I wanted to take a photo and finish the painting from it at home (purist field painters cringe at this idea). Gradually, I began to enjoy the photography more and more. When digital got relatively good and inexpensive, I knew it was for me. This is because I've always been a gadget and technology fan, so digital photography brings two of my interests together.

[mickeyobe]

I too paint in oils.
I do not claim to be an artist.

I often use a photo as my model for a painting but I do not confuse the two.

They are both different media.
I strive to make an acceptable picture in one medium or the other but do not expect to have one replace or duplicate the other.

Mickey

[RioRico]

Why start with photography? Because I was raised to it.
Why stay? Because the voices in my head insist on it.

[gnaztee]

My involvement in photography began with travel. I wanted to be able to have photographic memories from travels and show family and friends who don't travel what other places are like. I shot Cuba, Peru and my first trip to Europe on a Fujifilm 35mm point and shoot and spent $100s developing terrible photos. The Fuji crapped out at the start of my second trip to Europe, and I got my first digital, a Konica-Minolta Dimage 400 P&S. Realized my photos weren't good enough to capture the sense of place I wanted to convey, or hang on my wall, so got serious about learning. Progressed quickly through the P&S to a Panny FZ7 to the K10D. Eventually realized I can't travel all the time, so now I'm playing around with the strobist stuff quite a bit.

[ajoe]

For me, photography is just another form of expression. I have written, painted, composed music, but photography has been the most constant since starting in 1970.

Sometimes photography is the final product and other times it is used just to capture an idea for use elsewhere.

[Nesster]

My current photography enthusiasm loosely parallels my youth. I spent most of my adult life as a stereophile, a hi-fi head, a record enthusiast, a music consumer, a vintage equipment hound.

I don't play an instrument, and my family makes fun of my 'singing'. I don't paint either.

I discovered the following: hi fi gear is LARGE and takes up SPACE and COSTS MONEY. And how many sets of speakers and amps can I stash? How many linear feet of LPs and CDs do I have to schlep from house to house?

I discovered the following: camera gear is SMALL and doesn't take up SPACE, and only sometimes COSTS MONEY. I can easily stash a few dozen cameras and lenses where two vintage JBL's or DYNACO's would otherwise sit. Film stores flat, digital stores digitally.

And, using said cameras and lenses and films and so on, I can actually occupy myself creatively rather than the passivity of sitting there listening to the hi-fi.

[Ratmagiclady]

I think it's really pretty much like how you relate to *any* medium, artistically: you need the technical skills you need to get the results you want. Digital's defintely got a lot of technical stuff just about trying to translate photography into computers, if you asked me, not to mention complicating the relationship between the photog and her tools with some pretty high-tech and complicated/mysterious stuff, but it's the same sort of relationship, nonetheless.

I've always seen my photography as a little more as a trade and a craft, with the artsy somewhere between documentary and communication and what you'd call 'Fine Art,' the latter of which is kind of a heavy label for anything.

It's a good medium if you *are* technically-minded in one way or another, also in different ways if you *aren't.* That's something you can bring to it. You could be someone who's pretty fire-and forget and about the moment, or someone who takes the same images and mashes em up in a computer or darkroom, ... you could be someone like me who's good with the mechanical/physical/tactile aspects of shooting, and usually the social interactions of people photography, ...for me, it's a living/moving/breathing way of doing visual arts and communication. (End products seem to fall by the wayside sometimes, even, that's where I need discipline and such, as opposed to, say, plunking down with a canvas and paints and making it happen.

There's an interactivity to photographic media on a lot of levels that I'm very fond of, and in a lot of ways it doesn't hurt at all that I like *machines* enough that I'd still be interested in 'Cameras and how to use them' if I never made an image myself again, except maybe to keep my toe in. (Personally, for some people, you could say their hobby/interest is 'Cameras,' rather than 'Photography,' and, you know, in a lot of ways, why not. I can sure see the appeal, even if they have an annoying tendency to corner the market on Biogons. Fact is, I'm interested in photo stuff I'd probably rarely or never use if I had it. ) I'm sure a lot of people love computer-data stuff in the same way.

It's a good thing about 'Photography,' ...it's a process a lot of people can bring a lot of themselves to in a lot of different ways.

[yeatzee]

I wanted to capture the awesome insects I saw

and now some years later here I am with this monstrosity:

[Ash]

Late bloomer here. Never could draw or use paints artistically to save my life, but love to 'see', observe the world around me, so photography quickly developed as a tool that could capture my observations of the world. It continues to be a vocation that inspires and brings joy in its application and results.

[jimmm18]

My current photography enthusiasm loosely parallels my youth. I spent most of my adult life as a stereophile, a hi-fi head, a record enthusiast, a music consumer, a vintage equipment hound.

I don't play an instrument, and my family makes fun of my 'singing'. I don't paint either.

I discovered the following: hi fi gear is LARGE and takes up SPACE and COSTS MONEY. And how many sets of speakers and amps can I stash? How many linear feet of LPs and CDs do I have to schlep from house to house?

I discovered the following: camera gear is SMALL and doesn't take up SPACE, and only sometimes COSTS MONEY. I can easily stash a few dozen cameras and lenses where two vintage JBL's or DYNACO's would otherwise sit. Film stores flat, digital stores digitally.

And, using said cameras and lenses and films and so on, I can actually occupy myself creatively rather than the passivity of sitting there listening to the hi-fi.

I love the question and have been wondering and thinking about it since I started backup a month or so ago.

And thanks for the above. Though my story in not exactly the same (though I am a stereophile) there is something in the spirit of your post that matches me. I have no idea why I am doing photograhy again. OK that is not exactly true but the "equipment junkie" in me really likes it. I have collected 4 cameras the last few weeks, some borrowed (sf1) some bought on the cheap (*ist 35mm;Canon G5) and one to get the latest technology (my red k-x). though I understand the technical concepts of photography I struggle with all of it; the composition, the exposure, the light but love it when i get something I like. I am giving myself permission not only be a beginner again but to approach it like a kid does just taking pics of everything. most of it is crap but I am learning the cameras. I will take a class soon, mostly so I am not doing it all alone.

I did not grow up in a "creative" family. Until I met my wife I didn't even really know the meaning of the word. For me it is like an adult who learns a new language. I can learn it and be fluent it but is not the same as when you get something on a cellular level as a kid. I need this outlet even if I don't know why or even what it is.

OK back to listening to the stereo...

[RioRico]

I think answers could break down variously:

* Mainly to record what's around you.
* Mainly to to create expressive images.
* Mainly to communicate specific ideas.
* To feed images to other ends (science, forensics, politics, blackmail, etc).
* Mainly to plan criminal activities.
* Mainly to produce pornography.
* Mainly to make an honest living.
* Mainly to collect interesting gear.
* Maybe as an excuse for snooping.
* Or it might be just a habit / obsession.

Hay, I should set tis up as a poll! I wonder how many will admit to pr0n, blackmail, spying, propaganda, lens-fetishism? I guess that should be anonymous...

[mattb123]

* Mainly to produce pornography.

Hay, I should set tis up as a poll! I wonder how many will admit to pr0n, blackmail, spying, propaganda, lens-fetishism? I guess that should be anonymous...

Another reason for sealed cameras and lenses?

[ll_coffee_lP]

Because painting requires too much talent, drawing too much patience, and I have the equivalent of two left feet musically.

Photography stuck once I began seeing the final image in my mind's eye before I had even aimed the camera, or tripped the shutter.

c[_]

[reeftool]

The world around us is the greatest work of art there is. My eyes see it and brain just goes WOW! Whether it's a photo or a painting, it's getting that WOW moment captured and put on a screen, canvas, or paper is the art. A photo can be technically perfect but not much of a work of art. Art produces some emotion when you look at it.