The Online Photographer

". . . to not put . . ."

Yes, there are cases where a split infinitive flows more felicitously, but this one stopped me in my reading tracks.

I'm writing this before even thinking about what you may be saying or beyond the first line. I'm guessing that's not the purpose of this first line?

Not to put too fine a point on it. \;~)>

[Ah, someone in your youth taught you to not split infinitives. Old joke.

My suggestion: never think about "split infinitives" again. It's a fake rule, always has been. Never give it another thought.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/most-of-what-you-think-you-know-about-grammar-is-wrong-4047445/

I'm with Goold Brown, who, in his The Grammar of English Grammars, 1851, said the construction "to not [verb]" was less elegant than some other adverbial placements but was sometimes clearer. That is the case here IMHO.

:-)

--Mike]

I find that I was interested in different things at different points in my life. I didn't really concentrate on any single subject though. Some subjects interested me and some didn't.

I took some decent photos at a 24-hour race, mainly to see if they would turn out well. I didn't expect anything "news worthy", unless there had been a terrible accident on the track near my location. I didn't get hooked on auto racing photography any more than any other subject. It was an event with an opportunity to take photos.

I've done some political campaign photography, college newspaper photography (human interest/informal portraits, some sports), and the usual family gatherings.

The thing that has interested me lately are new construction sites on land that was bare before. New buildings when they were being built with the "finished product" in due time.

Also interesting are the older buildings that have been around during my life. Some businesses are around for years, then suddenly they're going out of business. It always surprises me that a business I've known since I was a teenager can all of a sudden not be there any more.

Photos of family members and businesses which "used to be there" are probably the two categories in which future generations may have some interest.

Most race cars have looked alike for decades. Only the cars up through the 1960s are noticeably different from each other. So, none of my auto racing photos are going to look very interesting.

The first time I was really interested in studying photographs was after I saw Ansel Adams work -- especially the straight prints versus his finished work.

I'm still amazed at how he could see the final result with such a modest "beginning photo". (Of course, he was a masterful printer too.)

I'm eager to read the comments for this post. (The comments for the "A Curious Thing About a Book" post were as good as the post itself. I like this post even more than that previous one.)

_On Being a Photographer_ is also a favorite of mine, along with _Mountain Light_ by Galen Rowell. You would think they are very different books but when looked at correctly they say much the same things.

Here is a longer rumination of mine that mentions both books at the start which your page reminded me of ...

https://mutable-states.com/how-to-take-good-pictures.html

It's not the camera that tells the story but the person behind it.

Here's a recent story from behind the camera. It was just a test image, but it turned out surprisingly good (much better, larger), especially since I wasn't expecting much. I recently acquired a very nice Ebony RW and needed to test the bellows before leaving feedback for the seller. The timing was tight—Hurricane Debby was on its way, so I had to pack up the studio and the house. Still, with my digital back at hand, I decided to test the bellows just for fun. I set up the 210mm lens, grabbed some flowers from the kitchen table, and here's the result:

The bellows are light-tight, positive feedback was left, and now that H. Debby is history and the studio is unpacked, I'm ready to go on the road and shoot some film.

I'm sure some people won't like the image, and that's perfectly fine with me. I love it because it represents 64 seconds of my life captured in a single shot. The hydrangeas were huge and beautiful, and the camera performed flawlessly. That's what matters to me.

I'm a photographer because I enjoy making pictures and looking at what others share. Even though I made a living at it, taught it in the classroom, and even drove to KEH Camera when I closed my studio to unload all my Hasselblad gear—hoping it would force me to say "no" to more work—it still found its way back to me.

I have a deep appreciation for all photographers, including those who find happiness in acquiring gear, even if they don't often share their images. If it brings them joy and doesn't impact their financial well-being, then I fully support them. It's a sad thing when someone can't find joy in life, so if this is their way of finding it, I say more power to them.

I've always valued my privacy, so being in the spotlight was never my goal. While I never enjoyed doing shows, I did sell a lot of prints throughout my career. What truly fulfilled me was bringing joy to others through my photography. It might sound a bit corny or old-fashioned, but that's who I am. The happiness I've been able to share has brought me lasting fulfillment, and that's more than enough for me—and it was all thanks to photography.

PLEASE EDIT MY POST TO BE:

Do we all photograph things for the same real reason?

We're almost identical, all human beings. Could the core reason, the true truth behind what actually drives us to photograph things be, in essence, the same for all of us?

To not think it possible that that is what is the truth, is that not in itself a possible? (SWIDT) see what I did there...

The best (IMO) entry in the 2nd edition of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English, OUP (1978) (ed. Sir Ernest Gowers) is that on the split infinitive; being by the frank admission of the editor, an "inconclusive discussion, in which ... the author's opinion has perhaps been allowed to appear with indecent plainness". The entry begins - "The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish. .... (1) Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes ....". And so it goes for 2 1/2 pages. Lovely stuff, if that's your cup of tea.

I love that you make me remember it. After some time I need to revisit a lot, I feel I have many memories and some are lost. I like visit them as old friends. Many thanks.

"The best way to be a photographer might be to not put "photography" first as your main interest."

This seems to me to raise the question, how do you define "photographer"?

Allthough you say you are talking about amateurs, it feels to me as though your definition is grounded in the world of professional photography, curators, gallery owners and pro critics.

For example: "hopeless dilettante in the focus of your attention and your work—you dabble in all sorts of things but create only a jumble, a far-flung hodgepodge of unrelated pictures."

Those pejoratives are all from the point of view of an outsider, someone used to evaluating saleability, show readiness, and so on. They take no account of the perspective, opinions, and feelings of the photographer.

"Photographers might ask themselves: Am I interested in photographs? Are you interested enough in photographs that you'd still be just as deeply interested in them if you gave up your own photography altogether? It's possible to be deeply engaged with photography yet not be a photographer."

It's unclear to me how this relates to the putative question. Your title is not "The Best Way to Be interested in Photography" I don't see the necessary link between being interested in pictures in general and being a photographer.

Was Michelangelo deeply interested in other artists work? I have no idea, but how does it matter to what he created?

I'm surely no Michelangelo, but I take photographs to get results that please me, and often, but not necessarily, friends and family.

"The most common way of getting lost is to shop for gear and never stop shopping."

I've bought and sold a fair amount of gear. But it's always been with the goal of making photos. What does this thing do that will allow me to do better versions of what I've done or, best, what will it allow me to do that I've wanted to do, but could not?

I've moved on from cameras I really liked to ones that please me less to carry and use, simply for increased capability.

This brings me back to dilettante. I've done a lot of playing with styles and gear. Not long ago, I played with several lenses, working out which and how will make "soap bubble bokeh". Did I get any deathless photos, no. But I had fun and now know how to do that.

More recently, I've been working with a couple of Oly's F1.2 lenses. And yes, some images I and others love, both in conventional shallow DoF and in other ways I could not do before in-camera focus bracketing. Good Stuff!, whether you a gallery owner or a curator likes them or not.

"It's occurred to me over the years that what I really like is looking. I love to look and to see, and some of that can be photographed and some can't, but I love to see, whether I have a camera with me or not."

Ah, finally in sync! Yes, seeing is the thing. I do relatively more tele and close-up/macro photography because that's a way I see, small portions of the full visual field.

"The best book I know of that articulates these ideas is Bill Jay and David Hurn's On Being a Photographer."

Thumbs up! And yet, although I know I read and liked it a lot, I can't recall specifics. I just put it back in the pile.

@Kirk : Exactly, couldn’t agree more ! Each and every-one of my pictures that I am really glad with, has come as a surprise. A kind of grace that only occurs when I am open minded.

One of my favourite books is: "How to Read a Photograph" by Jeffrey.

https://www.amazon.ca/How-Read-Photograph-Lessons-Photographers/dp/0810972972