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.

It is all about being there

Yes, I realised this two days ago and my views were confirmed today. There's this advertisement by Nikon about photography. I've seen it only once, hence do not recollect the exact content, but the gist is that photography is not only about the camera and your skills, it is also being there at the right time.

Now, if you take a look at this photograph, you can see a streak of light appearing at the left top corner of the Renaissance building. That streak is of an airplane taking off from the Mumbai airport. Now, considering that I am in Powai and that the point of take off is more than 12 kms by road, this streak appears bright enough. This is a classic case of me being present when the plane was taking off. While my intention was to capture the Renaissance Hotel building during night time, the focus has now changed to the airplane, which is just a streak in the photograph. The meaning conveyed by this photograph has changed completely from the intention with which it was clicked.

Another example is this photograph of the monkey. This was taken from the stairs leading to my department. It was an exceptionally cold morning in Mumbai and most monkeys were trying to warm up. This monkey too was doing the same and I thought of capturing it with my camera. Now, the moment I turned my camera on and clicked the button, this monkey turned his/her head and voila!! The resulting image was as if the monkey is posing for the photograph. Well, these two incidents have convinced me that the beauty of a photograph also lies in its timing. Being there to see that is also very important.