Old guy: (retired, teaching in the humanities [Phil Lit Hist]): New hobby. Emphasis on Hobby. [See Below] Not going Pro. [Not that there is anything wrong with Professional Photography]. I call photography my hobby; it's not a fun activity (as in Ha, Ha; there are too many variables to be accounted for in taking a photo), but it is an interesting one because a lot of the time one is "playing" with light. My suggestions for a genre about what I do or categories I would not hate would be Amateur Folk Photography or American Folk Photography.

Amateur Photography, Style, and A(a)rt.

There is a quotation attributed to Henri Cartier Bresson that I would like to take in a different direction. The quote is: "The photograph itself does not interest me. I want only to capture a minute part of reality." [Nice sentiment and I like the photos of HCB]. I, however, am not interested in the slice of reality that I photograph, but only interested in the photograph. Hence, my choices of subjects are about photography and/or the photograph itself. My goal is to take a bunch of "good" (at least, interesting) photos with objects that I find ready-at-hand in my environment; useful objects in one context can be reconfigured into another context; i.e. specific utilitarian designs, the more specific the better, can sometimes be redesigned into an aesthetic design. They can then become part of a composition for a photograph. The more insignificant the object the better, (cheapness in monetary value counts; hence, amateur [folk] photography, [and I live in America]). It is not about the object, it is how the object(s) in the photo (the subject of the photo) is photographed: lighting, composition, use of equipment, etc. [See below] However, it is the photographer's ability, skill, talent then to elaborate, modify, change, exaggerate, alter, and/or distort the raw material of/in the photo that creates a style, and, thus, generates Art or art. Let me offer a few words of explanation about the concept of Art or the way I will use the word "art". I do not see my photos as part of the genre of "decorative" Arts. I deliberately choose subjects that no one would hang on their walls. [There are genres I do not do with my camera, e.g. landscapes or nudes]. So for me, Art or art in photography is something very non-utilitarian. [In a former lifetime when I was teaching: Is "Art" a name or description of something? An objective property that some things possess? (Natural? Supernatural? Ideal?) If not a name or description, we still use the word "art", so it seems to have a host of other subjective or social uses: Praise, Criticism, Derision, Acceptance].

Amateur camera (crop sensor), free software, "hardware store" lighting, Dollar Store extras.

Thoughts on Photography:

Unlike other endeavors, maybe music or sports, there are no natural-born photographers. That is: No one is born with any photographic ability. Everyone starts at 0 or -1. Here's what I mean: Given several million years of evolution, the human brain has been hard-wired as a three-dimensional thinking instrument. Three-D thinking had/has survival value. One even dreams in three-D. The camera, on the other hand, is a simple two-dimensional instrument. Thus, there is nothing in one's normal three-D thinking that can help one to think in two-D. Two-D thinking is not natural. But two-D thinking is the skill that is necessary for photography. However, one can learn the process of taking a 3d visual image and putting the image into a 2D format in such a way that the brain of the viewer will think 3D. This is where lighting and composition comes in helping to create the two-D image to be seen by the viewer as 3D. [And Lighting and composition are not two things; They represent about a dozen or more things.] Photography is learned through or from practical experience, (alone or with guidance from others) and that includes a lot of negative experiences. There are numerous ways of making mistakes in taking a photograph. The number of mistakes is said by the best (either Helmut Newton or Henri Cartier Bresson) to be Ten Thousand. I don't know if that is supposed to be an exact number, but it will seem like 10,000 mistakes before one starts to get "good" at photography. The only question that matters: Is it worth the time and trouble just to take a photo? If one can say yes, then carry on. It's at this point when one's natural-born talents might come in handy in choosing a professional direction. I'm doing it as a hobby so that was a big factor for me. But Pro or Amateur, the learning process is the same.

In my opinion, there are "four parts" to a photo. That is, I check out four different things when I look at a photo or when I try to take/make a photo. Let me be clear on this next point, each part is not worth twenty-five percent of the total value, because in some cases one part may be worth a lot more than twenty-five. It's the way the parts of the photo hang or work together (or not) to create the whole that counts. Number 0ne is obviously lighting; Did the photographer control and use the light? Two is composition; How do things hang together in the frame? How are the elements of design used? Did the photographer use or abuse the usual rules of composition? The third part is the use of equipment; lens, aperture, color balance, etc. What is the best focal length for portraits or for any other photograph? Why does the aperture matter? Which color of light works best? And the fourth part is the photographer. In what ways does the photographer use the three things above to fulfill the intention or purpose of the photo? And purpose may be as prosaic as fulfilling the terms of a client's contract or as indefinite as creating a work of art. There are two uses of a photograph: Descriptive and/or Expressive (someone else gets the credit for this distinction). That is, one can be doing Crime Scene Photography (the ultimate in descriptive) with the same equipment used in Abstract Photography (the ultimate in expressive). Nevertheless, the four parts have to be together in creating a "good" photo.

More About

I only take original photos. Plagiarism in photography bothers me. In my opinion, the three most difficult types of photos to take are those that include glass and/or metal, and, then, irregular shaped objects. I try to include these in my photography. As an amateur hobbyist, time is not money so it is not an issue in taking and re-taking a photo. So, I look for things that have a degree of difficulty in photographing them. The first two types are difficult because of glare and trying to control light. The third type, irregular shaped objects, because of the need to use multiple light sources. [In the category of difficult irregular shaped object includes-- portraits and naked human bodies. Subjects I would not want to do as an amateur, and there are enough other irregular shaped objects to photograph.]

I'm not sure how much this next stuff matters, but I did not initially get into photography as a hobby; that came a little bit later. My first interests in photography were about love and couplesdom. Gail, who I was with, started into photography. I was just trying to be supportive of her endeavors. At that time, photography to me was the annoying thing people do on vacations and not much more. So, I would listen and agree when she would tell me about the different camera equipment she was buying; what she had learned; and we watched videos together. After a while, I thought okay why not buy a camera so we can do it together. And we did until she got sick and had to put her camera aside. I, however, by that time, kept finding it more and more interesting. There was vastly more going on in photography than I had thought. And it was something that could be pursued as a hobby. So I kept at it. But if she had not started doing photography, I would not have gotten into it on my own. One can make of this whatever they want. Maybe, something about unintended consequences.

I post my photos as a hobbyist or amateur in very open forums. Anyone can make a copy of my photos. Part of the reason for the style of photography that I do is my concern with "secondary effects" (unintentional, boomerang, misdirection, ripples, offshoots, vibration, on others) of my photos. I would not want my photos to cause any harm or evil in any possible way, so I choose subjects that would be hard to 'misuse'; although, as an amateur, if you post, you can/should expect, that anyone can use the photos for whatever reason if they want. As a professional, you retain certain right over how the photos can be used. Not as an amateur, and I accept that. If anyone could possibly find a way to market my photos, they do not need my permission. All I would/could say, if it were to happen is: What ever would have been the monetary rights to the photographer and/or the photo--let that be donated to a charity. My photos are only really useful to me; they serve primarily my benefit in making/taking a photo; however, if by secondary effect, they were to benefit others, as wide as possible, in a material way even minimally, that would be nice and ironic. I'd be cool with that. Optional, If asked which charities: American Red Cross is Good. Local Food Banks are always in need. The Assyrian Orthodox Church, Paramus NJ is possible.