fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 6 7 end

The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Okay, you may call the title "click bait" but first look at this article in the New Yorker (Photo Booth) about a family that Thomas Holton has been photographing for 22 years: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/picturing-a-chinatown-family-across-twenty-two-years � if you have trouble with the paywall, look at this free British Journal of Photography article: https://www.1854.photography/2022/11/the-lams-of-ludlow-street-thomas-holton/

Then, look at this lecture by Holton, in which you can hear the context of his impactful photos of the the family:

It's one hour ten minutes, but I clicked through and watched about � of it. Make sure, though, to watch the last chapter on the process. My feeling is that the video is well worth watching, particularly if you want to think of getting away from "meaningless photography." If Holton's work interests you, here are more links:
Instagram: @thomas_holton_photography
Website: https://www.thomasholton.com

If you want show how some of your photos go beyond meaninglessness, please post them here.

View previous versions

Sep 21, 2025 at 08:48 AM

Nick Dakota
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Didn't watch the video, but saw his The Lams of Ludlow Street exhibition in NYC and know his work. I personally believe a lot of street photography is meaningless nowadays and saturated with people walking around aimlessly taking pictures of people walking the opposite way. The art of documentary photography seems to have been lost with the newest surge of Street Photographers. Not many photographers are doing doc anymore. Bringing a camera to one of the million protests around the world doesn't make one a documentary photographer. What Holton did is a lost art form. With social media everyone is documenting their daily lives in a curated way. There's a lot of opportunity for photographers to immerse themselves into something deeper. I'm not saying they have to have a 20 year body of work like him, but spend some time on a project. Documentary photography might be the last hope for the fiction we live.

Sep 21, 2025 at 10:31 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Nick Dakota wrote:
...There's a lot of opportunity for photographers to immerse themselves into something deeper...spend some time on a project...

Good point. I hoped there would be more response to Holton's work and discussion of meaningful vs meaningless photography. Meaning in the visual arts does not have to come from "telling a story," which is often the trope of many photographs who say, "I'm a storyteller." Meaning, emotion, expression and depth can also come from form, of which much has been written. I'll leave it at that.

Edited on Oct 07, 2025 at 03:28 AM · View previous versions

Sep 26, 2025 at 11:52 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

I didn�t really expect this thread to have the succ�s fou of the 77-page thread on lenses that have the most 3D POP. Okay, I�m being ironic; but even though the latter thread started in 2011, the last four pages or so are from Sep 2025.

So, while I didn�t really expect to get a lot of response on a gear forum, I was surprised to have only one poster join the discussion in the week that this thread has been up. I was going to add some more images on the meaning vs meaningless theme, but there is no point in doing that given the lack of response.

Sep 28, 2025 at 02:37 PM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

I don�t know his work and didn�t watch the video.

That said, I find it hard to distinguish between meaningless and meaningful photography as a general notion, just as I find it hard to distinguish between craft and art.

Too many people call their work something that I myself fail to see. But a snapshot without any pretentiousness can have an unintended meaning.

And I find this true across genres, whether it�s street, fashion or documentary photography. Portrait photographers often claim to bring out the sitter�s personality, without even knowing their subject beyond a single meeting. Documentary photographers often shoot the same kind of settings, while leaving the mundane lost to history.

Granted, nowadays we�re inundated with so many images that lack rhyme and reason and we see relatively less worthwhile imagery, but that�s probably not so much a function of photography but of the changed nature of publishing and the lack of middlemen who curated what was published.

Sep 28, 2025 at 03:08 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

This statement: 'If you want show how some of your photos go beyond meaninglessness, please post them here.' puts the onus on members to explain themselves, and also puts forward the idea that most photographs in the genre are 'meaningless' which is going to have such a wide range of opinion.

Holton is doing a narrow focus project, something very intimate and therefore not fully open to viewers of the photographic record he assembled. Until today, you have not posted any images of your own, nor have you fully explained what you mean by photographic meaning - where are the bounds, what is the essence?

And it's all over the place isn't it, this concept of 'meaning'. And it is very personal, some think all images of people carry the weight of meaning and they enjoy wondering what is inside their heads. And others want to see a 'story' as exposition of meaning. 'Documentary photography' is even more poorly defined - all images are documents of something, unless you leave the lens cap on. One person's doc work is another person's meaningless imagery.

So members would be setting themselves up for a critique they don't need, on a number of fronts. And they don't want to do that for obvious reasons, and it lies inside a genre that is simply a location-based construct, that of 'street'.

Sep 28, 2025 at 05:13 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

FM does not present as a gear-dominated forum. The ever=present Sony FE Images thread, a resource focused purely on images taken with recent Sony cameras, has an ~average of 33 images per page (last completed one). And it leads to an estimate of 167,178 photographs, each of them valuable (and dare we say, 'meaningful' enough) in the minds of the posters to show in public.

People who post in the very large 3D thread lead with their images very often, and you see the range of responses, going from blanket dismissals (there is no 3D') aimed at shutting down debate or exploration of this fascinating subject that involves ALL visual artistry, be it cine, video and stills photography - through to explanations of their own views on the matter.

So to wrap up and be helpful, you might have received more responses and interest if you had: (i) simply explained your understanding of 'meaning' in the context of street/doc work, (ii) posted 5-10 images with short summaries of each one's meaning, then (iii) asked if others would share their take on the issue. It sounds like I am critical here, but not at all. It's all worth talking about because so many do this form of photography. But the framing is critical:

And people see instructions and click out immediately. They don't want to be told what to do. Here are yours, posted above:

'look at this free..'; 'look at this lecture'; 'Make sure, though, to watch'. Then you imply they are aware of their photography as potentially meaningless: 'particularly if you want to think of getting away from "meaningless photography."'

As though Holton has the answers. He doesn't. No one does. Each serious photographer is doing their best as it is. Do you think they never consider whether each photo they take holds meaning? ('interest' might be a better word here too, 'meaning' suggests deep involvement, or at least familiarity).

One of the wonderful developments of the modern age is the democratization of imaging. People are no longer swayed by heavily promoted hero figures at Magnum etc. showing them 'the way forward', the way it is done. People are now busy doing their own creative work and learning by doing, not revering others. And full power to them, and to all of us. cheers to you, leaving with good will.

Sep 28, 2025 at 06:04 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Mitch Alland wrote:
So, while I didn�t really expect to get a lot of response on a gear forum,

Why not post it in the street forum ... specifically, if you are also asking for folks to contribute their "meaningful" presentations of the topic / genre (and there is no connection at all to the gear side of things as a predicate).

Fred could probably move it there for you.

A few pics ... are they a 20 year project that was granted unique access, nope. Am I making and selling books from the work, nope. Am I using them to produce lectures and exhibits, nope. Were they orchestrated with the assistance of governmental authority, nope. Did they have folks sitting on a couch for half an hour in awkward silence on a scheduled basis, nope.

Are they meaningless ... IDK, kinda depends on who's asking ... and who's answering.

Backstory on #3 and #5.

#5

I'm taking pics of some urban decay, documenting some of the historical architecture before demolishing in a plighted area. Also, the same area I frequent for vantage points on some of my bridge work. It's cold and dusky out, and these two guys approach my truck and hand me a drone. I inform them that it's not my drone. They tell me they KNOW that, and that's why they are giving it to me.

You see, there are these folks that chase / exploit plighted homeless individuals, with their images ... and yet, the neighborhood knows that I don't do that, so they gave me the drone (damaged, as they knocked it out of the air, while it was chasing them). As they mentioned, to me ... "We know who your are. We've got eyes on everyone that comes down here."

Then, as I'm leaving ... they turn around and shout "Take our picture." (process that for a moment), so I oblige with a one-off shot from inside my truck. It was crapshoot shot, under a sodium vapor street lamp (quite dark to the naked eye). I really expected to get "nothing" from the shot, so I was glad to see this from it.

They said I should come eat with them sometime, if I was genuine.

Later, I made prints of the image and went out to find them ... to no avail. I had wrapped the prints as a present, and brought some wine to share with them, in the event I could make good on their offer to hang with them.

As I mentioned, I couldn't find them.

#3

It's now the holiday, and I was still searching for them, when I ran across this couple. I asked them if they knew the two in the picture. They did, so I asked if they thought they might cross paths with them, and they thought they would.

I asked if they would be willing to deliver the prints and the wine to them. They agreed to take the prints and the wine and deliver them. So, for me ... the shot isn't just some homeless people ... it is a shot of people who are willing to go on their less advantaged journey, and yet, still be willing to help me.

I've never since seen these guys again, and my "best intel" is that they are no longer in the area. I haven't seen the couple again either. And, I have no way of knowing for sure if the pictures / wine got delivered, or consumed by the couple or others.

BUT ... I KNOW this. These pictures are meaningful to me, because these folks respected me, and I respected them ... whereas others (

photographers) were disrespecting or exploiting them with their idea of ( "remote" ) street photography.

For others, these could easily be "meaningless" pictures. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... meaning is likely similar. I don't expect these to be of much meaning to others, but then again ... what does it matter if others do / don't find them "meaningful"? And, at what point is the "meaningfulness" about the photographer's hard work to produce the project vs. the imagery, itself (rhetorical).


	Kent Southers


	Kent Southers


	Kent Southers


	Kent Southers


	Kent Southers

5

Edited on Sep 29, 2025 at 06:44 AM · View previous versions

Sep 28, 2025 at 06:22 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

A few pics ... are they a 20 year project that was granted unique access, nope. Are they meaningless ... IDK, kinda depends on who's asking ... and who's answering.

I like these...each of the tells some kind of story. My personal favorite though is the first one - lots to see in this portrait, and I imagined quite a story and history in it!

Sep 28, 2025 at 06:47 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

retrofocus wrote:
I like these...each of the tells some kind of story. My personal favorite though is the first one - lots to see in this portrait, and I imagined quite a story and history in it!

Thanks.

The first one (though it doesn't really show) is a woman absorbing herself into mindless television following the passing of her husband of 60+ years. No dramatic grieving tears or intense expression of agony ... just an effort to continue forward, while grieving in her own way.

The other two, are simply captures of the energetic youthfulness of boys, being boys ... in a non-intrusive approach, that doesn't interject the photographer into the scene. Personally, if I'm shooting "street", I prefer the documentation to be sans photographer alteration of the scene (i.e. influence, because they are watching you vs. their natural behavior sans awareness of the photographer presence). Granted, there are those who are crafted at engaging the street, well (a variant that others like, also). Just not my pref.

Here again, meaningful ... is kinda relative. In some regard, the framework of the term is so broad, it could almost be considered pretentious in nature as to assert that if it doesn't meet the (unspecified) criteria of the assessor, it establishes an antithetical premise of being meaningless, by (subjective) default.

As to the OP's premise of the video, I give credence to the dedication to the length of the project, as being earnest, steadfast and enduring. For many, those attributes are admirable qualities that not everyone's instant gratification affords them to produce. That is a point of distinguishing character of the presented work. But, (imo) that does not provide the differentiation between meaningful and (by inference of others) meaningless. It simply provides for a lengthy body of work ... or, is that what the OP is trying to suggest by the chosen terminology around meaningful / meaningless as a means of validation for the enduring effort (and might reconsider the semantics of intent).

As to the regularly scheduled attendance with government official, and folks sitting in awkward silence (compliance

) presence being "street" ... I'll have to ponder that a bit more. To be fair, I hopscotched through the video to review the images with partial contextual comments from the presenter, but my observation of the images ... I couldn't help but get the continued, repetitive theme that the people were feeling intruded upon (i.e. compliance), through their expression. Alternatively, if they had been given direction wrt to their expressions to retain a theme, then there is photographer influence interjecting.

Again, I'd need to go through the video a few times to better discern this, first pass being incomplete to the presenters explanations. But, first pass left me a bit cold about how this developed / progressed. I really didn't see much "warmth" toward the camera or one another, and after 20 years you'd think the relationship between the photographer and the family would reveal some growth in that regard. The ones that showed the most, were with the little kids who managed to seem oblivious. Many of the others, seemed to just have this consistent "dead gaze" about them.

IDK ... somewhere, the meaningfulness about people vs. the meaningfulness about photos ... and the lines can become blurry. I'd really like to know what the true thoughts of the subjects were about the photographer's project over the course of a generation, and his books, exhibits, lectures, etc. In other words, what did it mean to them, vs. whether or not we assess the photographer's work as meaningful. Things that likely we'll never have a true answer to, but I still wonder ... kinda reminds me of the posed Afghan girl, and her take on things regarding the impact it had on her, as she progressed with life.

Again, if I missed it ... but, I just kept getting this peculiar feeling of "compliance" (20 years of emotional suppression

) by the subjects. Contrast / compare that to the work of Roy DeCarava in "The Sweet Flypaper of Life".

My .02 ... others will dissent. YMMV

Sep 28, 2025 at 07:36 PM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

I believe in any photograph there needs to be more there than the obvious. Something deeper. Here are some of my visual impressions on the subject.

I do know there is no right or wrong way to do any of this. Finding your own voice is what is important in my opinion.

A few street portraits.

Here's some of my thoughts on the subject. Leica did a piece on my work a few years back. Also an interview.
https://leica-camera.blog/2016/12/15/spontaneous-relationships/

Sep 29, 2025 at 09:12 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

johnvanr wrote:
...I find it hard to distinguish between meaningless and meaningful photography as a general notion, just as I find it hard to distinguish between craft and art...Granted, nowadays we�re inundated with so many images that lack rhyme and reason and we see relatively less worthwhile imagery, but that�s probably not so much a function of photography but of the changed nature of publishing and the lack of middlemen who curated what was published.

Not a bad place to start. In the introduction to his Story of Art, E.H. Gombrich famously writes, "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." This places the artist, with his or her individual intentions and skills, as the central focus of artistic creation. I think the same thing goes for meaning (and meaninglessness) in photogarphy. That is say, the important thing the meaning and intent of the photographer. Then, that which is "curated" becomes a part of the art world.

airfrogusmc wrote:
I believe in any photograph there needs to be more there than the obvious. Something deeper...I do know there is no right or wrong way to do any of this. Finding your own voice is what is important in my opinion...Here's some of my thoughts on the subject. Leica did a piece on my work a few years back. Also an interview...

Allen - in the interview you stated: For my personal work over the past 8 or 9 years I found myself seeing in values, tones, shapes and those spontaneous relationships and when they all seem to come together. I like this idea of immediacy and, in my concept statement of the ten-image EXPOSED II series that I linked above, I wrote: The basic ideas�are seeking visual narrative and immediacy between light and shadow; getting away from the realm of words while finding signs as signifiers. All is �here,� all is �now,� all is connected. All about concentration and emptiness.

These feelings become concentrated in a series of ten photos, with the increased ambiguity that reflects contemporary life. In the first image: the light amid the dark shadows, the woman�s glance, her hand and the man�s repose; in the third image: the mother and daughter (in university uniform) closing up shop for the night, with shadow and light on their respective faces; dead chickens (second image) and dead fish (eighth image); and ending with the colossal sculpture of the dying Buddha going into nothingness (parinirvana), while the fine lines of the folds of his robe call back to life. My feeling is that the images must, and do, speak for themselves and �expose� a meaning to the viewer like a poem does, without explication. (I'll show these ten images in the next post.

BTW, I love your shot of the Gustave Caillebotte painting being photographed by a woman with a smartphone.

Edited on Sep 29, 2025 at 11:20 AM · View previous versions

Sep 29, 2025 at 10:38 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Here are the ten images that comprise the EXPOSED II series: X

Edited on Oct 07, 2025 at 03:30 AM · View previous versions

Sep 29, 2025 at 10:39 AM

1bwana1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Great shots. I Enthusiastically agree Alan. Here are a few of my recent B&W images with a similar theme.

Sep 29, 2025 at 10:46 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

philip_pj wrote:
This statement: 'If you want show how some of your photos go beyond meaninglessness, please post them here.' puts the onus on members to explain themselves, and also puts forward the idea that most photographs in the genre are 'meaningless' which is going to have such a wide range of opinion.

...Until today, you have not posted any images of your own, nor have you fully explained what you mean by photographic meaning - where are the bounds, what is the essence?...So members would be setting themselves up for a critique they don't need, on a number of fronts. And...Show more →

First, you state that I haven't posted anything; but you should be able to see that I have 1,266 posts on FM. If only 20% had photos, I would have posted 240+ image � but, actually, I have images several multiples of the latter number.

On my stating what I mean my photographic meaning, I touched on it lightly in my OP, not wanting to pontificate and foreclose discussion; and, then, said some more in the post in which I have Gombrich's quote on "art."

Finally, you say that members would be "setting themselves for a critique they don't need." That's a lot more glum view of the view and of FM than I've seen.

Sep 29, 2025 at 11:03 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

RustyBug wrote:
Why not post it in the street forum ... specifically, if you are also asking for folks to contribute their "meaningful" presentations of the topic / genre (and there is no connection at all to the gear side of things as a predicate)...

For the simple reason that I wanted to discuss "meaning" in more than street photography. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough, though I did say in the OP the reference to "meaningless street photography" was click bait. (It's a statement one often sees.)

Sep 29, 2025 at 11:12 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Mitch Alland wrote:
For the simple reason that I wanted to discuss "meaning" in more than street photography. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough, though I did say in the OP the reference to "meaningless street photography" was click bait. (It's a statement one often sees.)

Gotcha ... just got me "thinking out loud" a bit.

Sep 29, 2025 at 11:36 PM

brick33308
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

I find the premise of this thread elitist and off putting, the idea that there is an objective/definitive standard that defines what is and isn't meaningful. Seems to me that meaningful is in the eye of the photographer even if others don't see what was meaningful to the photographer who took the picture.

I post frequently in the FM Leica images and Film Is Not Dead threads (as well certain gear specific threads) where I'm happy to receive likes and sometimes comments on my images, but won't post images in this thread because its premise leaves a bad taste in my mouth despite enjoying many of the images posted above.

Sep 30, 2025 at 06:59 AM

Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

brick33308 wrote:
I find the premise of this thread elitist and off putting, the idea that there is an objective/definitive standard that defines what is and isn't meaningful. Seems to me that meaningful is in the eye of the photographer even if others don't see what was meaningful to the photographer who took the picture...but won't post images in this thread because its premise leaves a bad taste in my mouth despite enjoying many of the images posted above.

Strange to me that you say this thread is elitist and off-putting because of the idea that there is an objective/definitive standard that defines what is and isn't meaningful � considering that (in p.1 #12) I wrote the opposite, which I'd better repeat in full: In the introduction to his Story of Art, E.H. Gombrich famously writes, "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." This places the artist, with his or her individual intentions and skills, as the central focus of artistic creation. I think the same thing goes for meaning (and meaninglessness) in photogarphy. That is say, the important thing is the meaning and intent of the photographer. Then, that which is "curated" becomes a part of the art world.

Perhaps it's worthwhile to quote a longer passage from Gombrich's book that I happened to find on my computer: There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. Once these were men who took coloured earth and roughed out the forms of a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy their paints, and design posters for hoardings; they did and do many other things. There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence. For Art with a capital A has come to be something of a bogey and a fetish. You may crush an artist by telling him that what he has just done may be quite good in its own way, only it is not 'Art'. And you may confound anyone enjoying a picture by declaring that what he liked in it was not the Art but something different.

Actually I do not think that there are any wrong reasons for liking a statue or a picture. Someone may like a landscape painting because it reminds him of home, or a portrait because it reminds him of a friend. There is nothing wrong with that. All of us, when we see a painting, are bound to be reminded of a hundred-and-one things which influence our likes and dislikes. As long as these memories help us to enjoy what we see, we need not worry. It is only when some irrelevant memory makes us prejudiced, when we instinctively turn away from a magnificent picture of an alpine scene because we dislike climbing, that we should search our mind for the reason for the aversion which spoils a pleasure we mighta work of otherwise have had. There are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art.

...What these recent developments have brought home to us again is that there are tides of taste in art no less than there are tides of fashion in clothing or decoration. It is undeniable that many of the old masters whom we admire and indeed many styles of the past failed to be appreciated by very sensitive and knowledgeable critics of former generations. This is certainly true. No critic and no historian can be entirely unbiased, but think it is wrong to draw the conclusion that artistic values are altogether relative. Granted that we rarely stop to look for the objective merits of works or styles that have failed immediately to appeal to us, this does not prove that our appreciations are entirely subjective. I still remain convinced that we can recognize mastery in art, and this recognition has little to do with our personal likes and dislikes. One reader of this book may like Raphael and dislike Rubens or the other way round, but the book would have failed in its purpose if its readers did not also recognize that both of them were towering masters.

Sep 30, 2025 at 11:24 AM

petersm59
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...

Indeed, meaning is totally subjective. And perhaps the word meaning is too loose to define. I really think what we are trying to define is whether or not either the photographer has any emotional connection to what they are doing, and are they able to convey that to the viewer.

What do you feel when you look at a Jackson Pollock painting?

What do you feel when you look at Moonrise by Ansel?

What do you feel when you look at the bus photo by Robert Frank?

What do you feel when you look at the boy with the grenade by Diane Arbus?

What do you feel when you look at Nighthawks by Edward Hopper?

And frankly, this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen here. Talking about something difficult, something deeper than just making a pretty picture is almost nonexistent on any forum. Usually it's crickets.

All we have to share is our point of view, and as is always the case, some people have more to offer than others. What I find meaningful might not apply to others. Show me what only YOU see, not just what matches what you've seen other people do.

Photography, or any art for that matter, is a titanic struggle between form, or how it looks, and content which is the subject matter and how the photographer engages it. Form usually wins in most cases, and especially in the hands of people who are less emotionally engaged with their subject matter.

Content is harder to parse and more difficult to engage with as both a producer and as a viewer. Engagement requires an emotional connection, and a willingness to attempt to express those feelings in one way or another, along with the viewer being open to receiving it. The best artists find a way to balance the two, and even for them, their audience may be limited.

What trips the switch for me is a consistent body of work that is a reflection of the time and place of the image combined with a sense of pathos and empathy from the photographer that reflects their own sense of who they are and how they fit in. People who do this for me: Robert Frank, Gene Smith, Diane Arbus, Bruce Gilden, Helen Levitt, August Sander, Avedon, Mary-Ellen Mark, Walker Evans, Greg Girard, Garry Winogrand, and others whose names escape my old and feeble mind.

For my own practice, it's all about seeing something about the people I photograph that I can connect with. I usually see something in them that is familiar to me from a memory or an experience, almost like how a smell will conjure up a feeling. I shoot with intention and my goal is to express how I feel about what I see. I have no interest in making pretty pictures, or pictures of subject matter that I feel no connection to.

I don't know if I'm successful with that. I don't pretend to be a know it all, it's just how my practice has evolved over the past half century. At a certain point, on a technical level, I could make any photograph, but I had to dig deeper to find more of a connection. As I get older, I seem to get more specific about what I want to photograph, and care less about what others think of what I do. I take the idea of making a statement seriously. My time is limited, and I have no use for making images that might look good over the sofa, or trying to make a better landscape than Ansel, or a better bird photo than anyone here on this forum. I stick to what matters to me and to what I care most about. People.

What is meaning? I have no idea.

Do your photos reflect your intention? Only you can answer that.

And, just to put my photos where my keyboard is, here is a link to my website.

https://www.mikepeters-photography.com/Personal-Projects

I like to think that everything I do is meaningful. I used to do commercial work for lots of companies, magazines and organizations whose ethos did not align with my point of view. The money was good, but that wasn't enough. Now, for the past 25 years I shoot professionally for a university where the work I do supports the mission of an institution that works towards the greater good in society. To me, doing work that I can believe in, for myself and for my clients, is very important to me.

Purpose and intention are everything.

Sep 30, 2025 at 11:32 AM

1 2 3 … 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 end