# What do you do with your photos?



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

I guess this is more of a question to the hobbyist, rather than the pro's.

My definition of hobbyist's, and pro's are listed as:

Pro: Someone who makes all or some portion of their income through photography

Hobbyist: Someone who enjoys photography because they like taking pictures for fun.

So, to the hobbyist out there. What do you do with your photos?

For me, I usually just post them on forums (not just ehmac), and on flickr. Maybe Facebook, here and there. Although, I don't go on FB often. I once printed out a photobook of my vegas trips in 2007-08. I went there 3 times in a 2 year span. Besides that, I usually keep the photo's I take on my ipad to share with others. I only keep the current photo's from the year though. So, anything from 2011 is not on my iPad. Only photo's from 2012. Occasionally I'll look at the photos on my computer, and browse through them. Other than that, they just sit on my hdd.

I was curious what everyone else does with their photos.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I feel I'm in a grey state in terms of my "status" as a photographer. Quite often I take photographs specifically for work these days - portrait shots mostly - and beyond that I regularly fold my own images into stuff that makes its way onto film and television projects. Half the battle in that regard lies in securing decent cleared images that don't cost an arm and a leg. Using my own material wherever possible sidesteps that issue and I'm rarely asked to sign any clearance forms for my contribution (paperwork being something few people love). Too, it's just a buzz incorporating my shots into contexts for which they were never originally intended.

Otherwise - and this is the majority, mind you - my stuff streams into various predictable places - my own website's home splash and of course my photography page, a few different ongoing project construction and urban-themed threads over at Urban Toronto, this venerable thread and, finally, on G+, especially their themed stuff (macros, nature, transportation, etc).


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I belong to an online Photo Club that meets up in real life,
We arrange outings with each other periodically and then post our photos on their website.

It's very self gratifying

If you want to join, They are part of the "Meetup" groups as "Toronto Photographic" and they are also on "Facebook"


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Aug 4, 2010)

I do mostly wild bird photography in ontario. My images are used for books; IE: Vermont Bird Breeding Atlas (currently being prepared for early 2013 release); Bird Watching Magazine; Bird & Blooms Magazine; web sites; newsletters; etc etc. To me this is nice but I mainly do it as a hobby and not for money.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm a hobby photographer. I take pictures of our travels and outings, and many pictures of family, especially my grandchildren. The vast majority remain digital, to be viewed on a screen. Some are printed and framed for our home and others are assembled into photo books (via Shutterfly). I also enjoy shooting weather phenomena, and post pictures to Weather Underground.


----------



## Seagull21 (Sep 23, 2008)

I'm a hobbyist as well. Some photos I sell (great book - 2012 Photographers Market), some I keep, some I print. Like many others, I do it because I love it, not for the money.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm a bit different; to me the end result of the photographic process is a print. I make my own prints on an Epson 3880. I take lots of landscape and nature shots, and many of them end up on my walls for a certain amount of time. I also give some to family and to charity auctions. I sometimes sell some, but not a huge amount. I have two TVs with AppleTVs at home, and I often rotate slideshows on there, especially when we have guests over.

I am also a member and volunteer at the RA Photo Club in Ottawa (RA Photo Club), where I often participate in photo competitions. I also manage the gallery that members have access to to show their work (again, printed, although we are experimenting with a digital display)

so yes, despite the digital age, I have stacks of images on paper in my office/digital studio.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Friend of mine, an old school shooter, firmly believes that any fool with a camera can take a photo - he maintains that the real test is how well you can print that photo up. I think he enjoys sounding cantankerous about how easy it is to shoot; in practise he's a fastidious pro. But he strongly feels that while one's images may look luscious on-screen, it's an entirely different matter to do them justice as prints - and that's what separates the photographers from what he like to call "the shutterbugs."

So you're certainly not alone, Idphoto.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ldphoto said:


> I'm a bit different; to me the end result of the photographic process is a print. I make my own prints on an Epson 3880. I take lots of landscape and nature shots, and many of them end up on my walls for a certain amount of time. I also give some to family and to charity auctions. I sometimes sell some, but not a huge amount. I have two TVs with AppleTVs at home, and I often rotate slideshows on there, especially when we have guests over.
> 
> I am also a member and volunteer at the RA Photo Club in Ottawa (RA Photo Club), where I often participate in photo competitions. I also manage the gallery that members have access to to show their work (again, printed, although we are experimenting with a digital display)
> 
> so yes, despite the digital age, I have stacks of images on paper in my office/digital studio.





Max said:


> Friend of mine, an old school shooter, firmly believes that any fool with a camera can take a photo - he maintains that the real test is how well you can print that photo up. I think he enjoys sounding cantankerous about how easy it is to shoot; in practise he's a fastidious pro. But he strongly feels that while one's images may look luscious on-screen, it's an entirely different matter to do them justice as prints - and that's what separates the photographers from what he like to call "the shutterbugs."
> 
> So you're certainly not alone, Idphoto.


Max while I know where your friend is coming from, many if not most professional photographers don't print their own work, they leave it up to high end professional labs. They may be involved with the proofing process but the fact of that matter is that a working professional simply doesn't have the time to be printing their own stuff due to the volume of work that they have.

So in fact I would say that while he may feel this way, if he is "a fastidious pro" he sure isn't getting that much work if he has the time to be printing his own work.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, he actually keeps quite busy, and he charges top dollar for his stuff. So he must be doing something right. Not all of it is sales of his own prints, mind. He'll do portrait work for Bay St. firms and various magazines, but in that case he's naturally not printing up the work, he's selling the rights. But his own images? He's built his own meticulous printer profiles and prints what he sells. Clearly it's not a model everyone can live up to, and he's fine with that. I imagine he prefers it that way - it gives him an edge over others who are content to let someone else do the printing.

But in the main he's right - if you want maximum quality control over your own work, learn to print it up yourself.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Well, he actually keeps quite busy, and he charges top dollar for his stuff. So he must be doing something right. Not all of it is sales of his own prints, mind. He'll do portrait work for Bay St. firms and various magazines, but in that case he's naturally not printing up the work, he's selling the rights. But his own images? He's built his own meticulous printer profiles and prints what he sells. Clearly it's not a model everyone can live up to, and he's fine with that. I imagine he prefers it that way - it gives him an edge over others who are content to let someone else do the printing.
> 
> *But in the main he's right - if you want maximum quality control over your own work, learn to print it up yourself*.


I'm sure he is doing something right, but you don't *need *to be a great maker of prints to be a great photographer. If you aren't a great "printer" what you do need is to have the vision of what you want and be able to translate it to someone who is a great maker of prints.

Maximum control perhaps... but he is wrong in saying that if you don't print your own work somehow that makes you an amateur or a hobbyist/'"shuttter bug" and not a *real *photographer, especially in the digital era.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Let’s not get stuck on semantics. Anyone who uses a camera is a photographer, and like any human enterprise, some of us practice the art minimally, others maximally, some for personal use, some for profit. Hopefully, we all enjoy it, and some of us like sharing our enthusiasm and pictures.

Is someone who plays two-finger “chopsticks” on a piano a musician?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kleles: understood, don't mean to sound like an elitist. And yes, two-finger chopsticks can be wondrously musical indeed. No question!

By the way, I don't print my own stuff - I just don't print, period - apart from work, I mean. But then again, I'm not a pro photographer. What I do for a living incorporates it, certainly - but it's a rather soupy welter of creative things, of which photography is but a part. I'm just saying that there are different definitions of photography floating about - perhaps now more than ever. Instagram, anyone?

Screature: I told you my friend is cantankerous and holds strong opinions, especially ones on would-be, self-proclaimed "photographers." It's his right to dismiss many shooters as mere hutterbugs - just as it's your right to consider his opinion ridiculously offensive.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> *Kleles: understood*, don't mean to sound like an elitist. And yes, two-finger chopsticks can be wondrously musical indeed. No question!
> 
> By the way, I don't print my own stuff - I just don't print, period - apart from work, I mean. But then again, I'm not a pro photographer. What I do for a living incorporates it, certainly - but it's a rather soupy welter of creative things, of which photography is but a part. I'm just saying that there are different definitions of photography floating about - perhaps now more than ever. Instagram, anyone?
> 
> *Screature: I told you my friend is cantankerous and holds strong opinions, especially ones on would-be, self-proclaimed "photographers." It's his right to dismiss many shooters as mere (s)hutterbugs - just as it's your right to consider his opinion ridiculously offensive.*


And so did I from the beginning... as I said:



> screature said:
> 
> 
> > Max while I know where your friend is coming from...


Agreed... 

The way I think of a forum is it is *supposed* to be about debate and refinement of thought... or at least it is at the best of times... other times it is just about ranting and railing.

I thought I was doing the former with my posts or at least it was my intention. If it was understood by you to be otherwise I apologize for my lack of clarity.

But just as a side note... Andy Warhol once stated he wished he could be a machine... I think this is a very relevant statement to this particular discussion...


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

pure hobbyist here.
for family archiving, memory captures.
I keep saying I'm going to get out more and shoot yet I never do
But I sure enjoy when I do.

load them in Aperture and keyword

showcase on AppleTV

I rarely print anything. More from not taking the time then anything.

I'm also going back through my Grandma's photos and all of my Moms to create a comprehensive photodatabase for our family. It's taking a long time, but also fun remembering the moments and folks.

Neat to see a file structure from 1972 to now and about to add in from the 1920s to 72.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

keebler27 said:


> I'm also going back through my Grandma's photos and all of my Moms to create a comprehensive photodatabase for our family. It's taking a long time, but also fun remembering the moments and folks.
> 
> Neat to see a file structure from 1972 to now and about to add in from the 1920s to 72.


I'm thinking of doing the same with older family pics and putting names to the faces, with my mother's help. I assume, keebler27 that you are scanning the old photos. What settings (colour vs BW, resolution, etc) are you using on the scanner?


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Kleles said:


> I'm thinking of doing the same with older family pics and putting names to the faces, with my mother's help. I assume, keebler27 that you are scanning the old photos. What settings (colour vs BW, resolution, etc) are you using on the scanner?


I'm using the slides and negatives at 2000 DPI.
Paper photographs at 1200. 
I colour calibrate my monitor with a Spyder Pro3.
I find checking the white balance while scanning helps correct the images quite a bit.
Then I boost the saturation a bit as it seems the photos have faded a bit.

It's a great project to undertake. It takes time, but I also recommend using either Lightroom or Aperture or maybe another program which allows you to slap the keywords right into the metadata. Tagging with faces and names is great, but also being able to type in "Brian's 4th birthday" or "Fishing Trip 1998" right to the data is fantastic. I'm being really nerdy about it lol

My approach is: if someone in my family imports this photo or checks the information on it in Preview etc.., will they know exactly who's in it and/or what it's about 

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Thanks for the guidance. 

I have heard from others, also, that it's a painstaking process. A friend started copying his slides when he retired 5 years ago, and his project is ongoing! I'm in line to borrow his slide copier, but it won't happen soon. I can start with the photos, though. Entering names/dates/events is important. I don't know the subjects in many of my mother's photos (some are 75 yrs or older), and she doesn't remember all the non-family people. They become just "old pictures."


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Kleles said:


> Thanks for the guidance.
> 
> I have heard from others, also, that it's a painstaking process. A friend started copying his slides when he retired 5 years ago, and his project is ongoing! I'm in line to borrow his slide copier, but it won't happen soon. I can start with the photos, though. Entering names/dates/events is important. I don't know the subjects in many of my mother's photos (some are 75 yrs or older), and she doesn't remember all the non-family people. They become just "old pictures."


No problem.

It can be painstaking, but I toss on some music and chip away.


----------



## slipstream (May 9, 2011)

Working on an another Apple book for the wife for upcoming birthday milestone. Problem is that last half of our married life is digital, fist half is print photos, so now I'm having to take digital photos of the prints, which of course end up being lower quality Instagram-like images than the originals. And I worry about both the prints and digital images degrading before the next generation discovers them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Some excellent print scanners out there at very reasonable prices. Better results than attempting to copy with your camera.


----------

