Photographers like myself, from the pre-digital era, will remember the quirky images that would sometimes occur when you burst off the first two or three random frames in winding on a fresh roll of 35mm film. While pictures made without any calculated intent whatever can hardly be called creative, there was an indefinable quality about them that was often appealing. I kind of wish I had kept those fragments of film.
This picture occurred on the end of CF card from a corporate assignment I shot in Melbourne yesterday. Must have bumped the shutter release when I went to get a cab to the airport. Can’t explain why I like it, but I do…
I’m of an age when I can remember when photography was just a craft; when photographers took “photographs” or at worst “made pictures”. These days we “make images” or “create imagery”. It is as if by anointing their pictures with oil of spin, today’s photographers think they can get people to take their work more seriously. Actually, I don’t make images: I still take photographs and in any discussion, pedantically insist on this description. Painters make paintings; photographers make photographs.
Unfortunately, the assault on photographic language doesn’t end here. Those who want to appear “in” and in the know (mainly insecure semi-pro Brits) like to refer to themselves as “togs”.
I’ve also noticed that Canon owners/poseurs are notorious for not using lenses. How do they make their “images” then? Check out any discussion of Canon lenses and they’ll be yacking on about their “glass”. In most instances this will be “L glass”, and “expensive” as though dollars expended requires the abandonment of any word as simply descriptive as “lens”.
Can anyone think of other examples?