Quoting Andrew Mack
Personally I take photos as a reminder of places, rather that as artistic items.
Surely those two aims aren't mutually exclusive? I value my photos as reminders of places and people, but I strive to make them look as good as I possibly can as well 
Quoting ToonSarah
Quoting Andrew Mack
Personally I take photos as a reminder of places, rather that as artistic items.
Surely those two aims aren't mutually exclusive?
Of course they aren't.
Quoting Andrew Mack
Personally I take photos as a reminder of places, rather that as artistic items.
So a few photos 'kick-start' my memory of where it was and the stories/events involved in that journey.
I've friends who are prouder of their photos than they are knowledgeable about the place the picture were taken. They only know when it was taken because of the date-stamp.
Although I must say that the memory of my first trip (France/Belgium/Luxembourg) in 85 is a very vague memory...
I don't have date stamps on most of my photos. I think they detract from the image.
I know that my sister does not remember early trips (1948 and 1950) in as great a detail as I do. While I was 2+ years older (I was 11 in 1948), that isn't all that it is. Part of it is that my sister was quite near sighted and we didn't know that she needed glasses until after those trips. If you can't see the mountains in Switzerland, it may not be as memorable. But I think I remember the trips better because even in those days I was involved in take photos of the places (taking my own or posing for my father when he took photos). Making the effort to figure out a good angle to take a photo of some building does cement it in your memory. I may not know WHEN it was taken exactly (I've traveled a lot over a long period of time and have gone back to the same places several times), but I do know where I was. And I have also cemented those things in my memory by writing about them.
I do use the photos to jog my memory - just as I use what I have written about the trips to recall the details of the trips.
When you say that you are not taking 'artistic' photos, it depends on what you mean by that. My goal in taking photos is to show things that I saw as they were. I like to take beautiful photos - well composed and exposed properly and in focus. But I use the automatic feature of my camera - I don't shoot 'raw' because I'm not going to spend that much time on the photos. Mostly I just crop and correct the exposure and sometimes brighten. I'm not a fan of the blurred water or light flare or the HDRish type photos which seem to be the type of photos that are now lauded as 'art'.
I'm not a fan of the blurred water or light flare
My pet hate is the blured water pictures
I don't understand what people see that is so attractive about it
I mostly use a point and shoot as I do like it's compactness and while I try to take good pictures for me I just want to capture the moment of now and what I am seeing. I'm not really into trick photography though sometimes I wish I could take pictures of starry nights
When I was in highschool I did some photography classes one of the things they emphasised was composition was the main thing that makes a photo "meh" or amazing. I think I have taken that to heart in terms of how I photograph. Sometimes I'll fix up colours or make more contrasts in editing but mostly I find that composition really does make all the difference
The one trick shot I have found actually to be great would be the Panorama feature on mobile phones. I just found they are a great way to get a whole view of a place that one or multiple photos just can't do. A good 360 degree shot is sometimes needed to really show how awesome a place is
I am more interested and involved if I am looking for photos to take. To the extent that if a place does not allow photography, I have no interest in going in to see it.
When I travelled through Serbia nearly every monastry banned photography inside. It was a bit of a pity since there were some outstanding murals. Now all I can do is try a describe it to people
For the day I drove the monastry route all my pictures are of the outside of buildings, gardens and a couple of mountain shots When I visited the palace in Madrid they also had a no photo rule. Every room we went in had a sign with a picture of a camera and a line through it, then we crossed wings and in the first room there was no sign. I whip my camera out start snapping away. Having the P&S was probably an advantage as it took awhile before I got the tap on the shoulder and the lady told me "no photo". She didn't ask me to delete anything so I did get way with some interior shots
There have been times where I do sort of regret spending way too much time taking photos and not enjoying the moment as when I think back to those moments the only memories I have are those through the camera, and I do find myself feeling a bit sad about that
[ Edit: Edited on 24-Dec-2017, at 22:29 by Teoni ]
I have used both. Truth is that I really prefer my DSLR in terms of quality photos. The point and shoot is great sometimes but if you want great photos, not just good photos, and especially if you want low light or motion photos the DSLR simply does more.
Just my $0.02 of course but I know that my canon travels with me on any serious trip.
Quoting Teoni
I'm not a fan of the blurred water or light flare
My pet hate is the blured water pictures
Do you mean using a slow shutter speed to show the movement of water, as in a waterfall or the sea? I find that very effective at times, especially for the former, as it conveys a sense of the power of the water which is impossible to get otherwise in a still image.
as it conveys a sense of the power of the water which is impossible to get otherwise in a still image.
I can't speak to the intention of the photographers but as a viewer power is not the message I'm receiving from those images. My impression is the intention is to make some fairytale like image and I just don't understand why all moving waters needs to look like sheer silk draped over rocks. To me it just makes the whole image look fake, like it was composed in a computer. I personally like seeing the droplets and the uneven edges of the moving water, that natural roughness for me convays power more than the smoothed out images. This is only my opinion, others clearly love it otherwise there wouldn't be so many of these images. It's just not my cup of tea
[ Edit: Edited on 25-Dec-2017, at 04:27 by Teoni ]
Quoting Teoni
as it conveys a sense of the power of the water which is impossible to get otherwise in a still image.
I can't speak to the intention of the photographers but as a viewer power is not the message I'm receiving from those images. My impression is the intention is to make some fairytale like image and I just don't understand why all moving waters needs to look like sheer silk draped over rocks. To me it just makes the whole image look fake, like it was composed in a computer. I personally like seeing the droplets and the uneven edges of the moving water, that natural roughness for me conveys power more than the smoothed out images. This is only my opinion, others clearly love it otherwise there wouldn't be so many of these images
EXACTLY
That is exactly my POV also. I know it takes some skill to do those photos, but just because it is hard to do doesn't mean that we should do it. I really hate the blurred water photos. I like to see all the water drops (which you would not see if the water was still and not rushing down a slope). I think it is a fad which I hope will go away.
There are some things that our eyes see better than the camera does. Our eyes do better in dim light for instance. And there are some things that the camera can show us that our eyes don't really see quickly enough. The camera can stop motion of water or a horse running so that we can see the droplets or whether the horse has any feet on the ground. In the case of the blurred water, our eyes don't see the individual droplets as clearly as the camera can, but I also see more detail than the blurred motion water shots. So neither way is absolutely true to what we actually see. But I like the detail that I don't see better than the smoothed out water which is also not what I see.