My photography tastes

"His album consists only of flowers, buildings and animals!!", exclaimed my friend's friend to him. She was trying to point out the absence of chics in my photographs. This comment of hers made me deep dive into thinking about what exactly I like about my photographs. I sifted through my collection to look for those one or two particular elements that make my photographs.

One thing that stood out was that the photographs were as natural as they can be. Nobody had put them in place. No flower took position to be photographed, nor was any animal or bird posing for one. I then looked at a few photographs that I had taken at some family functions. In most of those, people had posed for photographs. Now, there were a few photos that were taken without the subject having prior knowledge. I tried to give a hard look to the impact these two types of photos generate. The emotions, the expressions were better when the subject of the photograph was unaware that he/she is being photographed. While the ones where people were made to pose did not have the 'natural' flavour of the photograph.

I arrived at a conclusion. Most people appear best in a photograph when not aware. However, the people whom I photographed in their unawareness, were my relatives. I had the privilege to do so. But what about others, who might be in a very good pose for a photograph, but who are strangers. Is it ethically correct to photograph them? Will it mount to invasion of privacy? I haven't been able to satisfactorily answer these questions.

However, I had to arrive at a conclusion about my photography tastes. Once again, sifting through all those photographs, I realised that my photography is at its best only when the subject of focus exhibits its natural behaviour. Thus, I will continue to photograph buildings, flowers, animals and my relatives, but as of now, I may not photograph strangers, without them having prior knowledge.