7 ms·

There are two categories of family photos: 1) Photos you look at when the subjects are still alive 2) Photos that you remember people by and cherish people fo

There are two categories of family photos: 1) Photos you look at when the subjects are still alive 2) Photos that you remember people by and cherish people for 1 = are all the typical family group pics, lots of posing 2 = the photos where the subjects may not even know that they are being photographed, while doing the things they are cherished for by others. Sometimes they might not even like the presented actvities, but everyone else around them appreciates it . - Photos of people repairing their family's gadgets - Photos of people doing mundane tasks, ironing their clothes, cooking dinner for everyone, being exhausted, reading to others... - This is what prevails while people are still alive who remember you. What you will be remembered by. Mostly what you did for other people and how people observed you. Take photos of your parents and loved relatives during daily life and their tasks. You will be far more moved and inspired by these pics, than by typical family group photos.

MarkMarine 2y ago
Agree, but the other part of the advice I think is important and maybe even not fully explained in this blog post. Taking great photos is about using great light, this matters more than composition (you can crop in post) in my opinion. Rule of thirds is just a guideline, not a rule, if you’ve got great light and an interesting subject I couldn’t care less where those thirds lines sit. I mostly shoot on an old hassleblad with 6x6 square negatives and I often frame my shots with my subjects in the middle of the frame. I have also done what the OP is describing, scanning all my family’s negatives. I wanted to devote the amount of time it takes me to scan and color correct a frame to a scant few of the images. My family liked to take “snaps” of places and vacations (think non-descript cornfields or national park visitor centers) and hostage photos of the kids clearly taken against our will. I taught myself how to shoot on film to learn what I was doing, but going to the community darkrooom was the real education. I learned how good photographers used the light and saw the world by watching them develop and seeing the end product. Photography is just like any other endeavor, you get out of it what you put into it. For your kids and your kids kids, don’t just put into it some AI-computationally adjusted selfies and snaps of the tops of kids heads. Put some effort in, figure out what good light is, and take candid photos.
- j4coh 2y ago
  Might depend on your personality a bit. Basically all my favorite photos of lost relatives and friends were taken on awful cameras by people with no knowledge of lighting or composition for that matter. The photos (to me) are valuable for a wholly different reason, it never even occurred to me until this moment that they were probably bad photographers.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Yup, the best pictures I have, are those snapshots of real life action. Not the super prepared professional ones requiring set up (we also have those, my sister is a photographer).
    - MarkMarine 2y ago
      Agree, I strongly dislike the staged, hostage photos. Almost no one looks like they are having fun.
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      Isn’t the sign of a professional that they don’t need that setup? I have some friends that seem able to snap these perfect moments effortlessly.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Isn’t the sign of a professional that they don’t need that setup? A professional should be able to get good results without it, but also when you are a professional, the incremental benefit of having the equipment available and using it where appropriate is more than worthwhile.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Ah no, I was talking about my own pictures. Some of the staged pictures my sister make of us, are nice as well, but overall I much prefer the blurry snapshot or video of a nice scene. (But then again, my sister especially recommended to me to choose my partner as she would look very good on pictures, I replied I have other priorities, but ended up with her anyway)
m463 2y ago
That's an interesting insight. I have another probably simplistic insight. I've gone on vacation and taken photos of the sights. wow, look at that beach/mountain/breathtaking view, etc. Later viewing them, they are usually kind of dull. But if you put a friend or family member in the landscape, they become 1000x more memorable. keepers. Like your advice, unposed and just in the frame can be more powerful than a posed image.
- starwatch 2y ago
  I've had the same experience. My new approach is to do a mental check to see if I could get the same picture from a google search. If not then I get out the camera. That in effect compels me to either enjoy the moment, or to include people in the photo to make it unique.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Pictures of the Grand Canyon. You can see on Google. pictures of the grand canyon with my kid in the foreground... Pictures of a city nearby. You can find on Google pictures of the city nearby from the top of the tallest building in the city nearby. No. Out my back door if I turn left 10° more than I normally do I'll quickly arrive in a spot no human has stood in for decades. Not in a Google search. I don't want to claim that maybe it's the surroundings that are mundane, because I don't find that true. One of my favorite films is koyanisqatsi, which is, really, just industrial film of earth. As mundane as it gets. I suppose I cannot fathom this yardstick you describe.
- dageshi 2y ago
  I'm going to take a different view on this. I travelled a lot circa 2008-10 in and around Asia and recently I've been uploading all those old travel photos to Google Photos simply because every day it randomly pops up pictures from a place I once visited. Even the bad photos I took back then (I didn't have a great camera) are way better at keeping those memories alive than I would have expected, they may not be the best, but I was there and I took them.
  - 2y ago
ErigmolCt 2y ago
Is there a definition of "live" photographs in photography? I think taking photos of people while they're doing something makes them "live" in a way
- dsego 2y ago
  Candid photos, snapshots, photojournalism.
- bregma 2y ago
  Those are photographs. The other kind are portraits. Incidentally, the word "selfie" used to be an acronym for "self-portrait." Now it refers to any kind of portrait (posed, but not necessarily of the picture-taker), so it has morphed into an acronym for just "portrait".
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Other comments cover it as well, but generally, you'll see categories like (none are hard and fast, there's overlap, etc)... - portraits = posed photos with a person as subject - snapshots / candids = what you describe as "live" photos - street = snapshots, but of random people moving about their lives (much of photojournalism falls into this category, where the photographer is doing street photography at an event) - landscapes = photos of the world, where people are not the primary subject, often wider angle - wildlife = photos of animals, often with a very long telephoto lens - macro = "super zoomed in" / close up (technically where the subject is equal or larger than the sensor on the camera)
  - ErigmolCt 2y ago
    Thanks for the breakdown! It’s interesting how "live" photos can be a blend of several categories, depending on context
- ElevenLathe 2y ago
  I've heard them called "candids" or candid shots. The only picture I have of my grandfather (who died when my father was young) is of him taking out the trash.
WalterBright 2y ago
I borrowed a couple Annie Liebovitz portrait books from the library for inspiration. Lots of good poses in there, rather than the standard straight ahead picture. My favorite is the one of Bruce Springsteen sitting on his motorbike. I'm going to try and recreate it. I've seen various photos of Keith Richards. What's amazing is he's not a handsome man, but somehow the photos of him are incredible.
- Freak_NL 2y ago
  Leibovitz, not Liebovitz.
Damogran6 2y ago
I found a harddisk with a ton of ripped MiniDV footage of the kids when they were young. What I value most isn't the kids. Sure, they're adorable and I have a ton of snapshots from them...but it's things like 'oh, we had that TV then, oh, that room still had carpet, man, the trees were really short, oh that really annoying noise the parrot makes? He's been doing it for more than 20 years.' It's not the subjects, it's the context that is cherished.

MarkMarine 2y ago

Agree, but the other part of the advice I think is important and maybe even not fully explained in this blog post. Taking great photos is about using great light, this matters more than composition (you can crop in post) in my opinion. Rule of thirds is just a guideline, not a rule, if you’ve got great light and an interesting subject I couldn’t care less where those thirds lines sit. I mostly shoot on an old hassleblad with 6x6 square negatives and I often frame my shots with my subjects in the middle of the frame. I have also done what the OP is describing, scanning all my family’s negatives. I wanted to devote the amount of time it takes me to scan and color correct a frame to a scant few of the images. My family liked to take “snaps” of places and vacations (think non-descript cornfields or national park visitor centers) and hostage photos of the kids clearly taken against our will. I taught myself how to shoot on film to learn what I was doing, but going to the community darkrooom was the real education. I learned how good photographers used the light and saw the world by watching them develop and seeing the end product. Photography is just like any other endeavor, you get out of it what you put into it. For your kids and your kids kids, don’t just put into it some AI-computationally adjusted selfies and snaps of the tops of kids heads. Put some effort in, figure out what good light is, and take candid photos.

j4coh 2y ago
Might depend on your personality a bit. Basically all my favorite photos of lost relatives and friends were taken on awful cameras by people with no knowledge of lighting or composition for that matter. The photos (to me) are valuable for a wholly different reason, it never even occurred to me until this moment that they were probably bad photographers.
- lukan 2y ago
  Yup, the best pictures I have, are those snapshots of real life action. Not the super prepared professional ones requiring set up (we also have those, my sister is a photographer).
  - MarkMarine 2y ago
    Agree, I strongly dislike the staged, hostage photos. Almost no one looks like they are having fun.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    Isn’t the sign of a professional that they don’t need that setup? I have some friends that seem able to snap these perfect moments effortlessly.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Isn’t the sign of a professional that they don’t need that setup? A professional should be able to get good results without it, but also when you are a professional, the incremental benefit of having the equipment available and using it where appropriate is more than worthwhile.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Ah no, I was talking about my own pictures. Some of the staged pictures my sister make of us, are nice as well, but overall I much prefer the blurry snapshot or video of a nice scene. (But then again, my sister especially recommended to me to choose my partner as she would look very good on pictures, I replied I have other priorities, but ended up with her anyway)

m463 2y ago

That's an interesting insight. I have another probably simplistic insight. I've gone on vacation and taken photos of the sights. wow, look at that beach/mountain/breathtaking view, etc. Later viewing them, they are usually kind of dull. But if you put a friend or family member in the landscape, they become 1000x more memorable. keepers. Like your advice, unposed and just in the frame can be more powerful than a posed image.

starwatch 2y ago
I've had the same experience. My new approach is to do a mental check to see if I could get the same picture from a google search. If not then I get out the camera. That in effect compels me to either enjoy the moment, or to include people in the photo to make it unique.
- genewitch 2y ago
  Pictures of the Grand Canyon. You can see on Google. pictures of the grand canyon with my kid in the foreground... Pictures of a city nearby. You can find on Google pictures of the city nearby from the top of the tallest building in the city nearby. No. Out my back door if I turn left 10° more than I normally do I'll quickly arrive in a spot no human has stood in for decades. Not in a Google search. I don't want to claim that maybe it's the surroundings that are mundane, because I don't find that true. One of my favorite films is koyanisqatsi, which is, really, just industrial film of earth. As mundane as it gets. I suppose I cannot fathom this yardstick you describe.
dageshi 2y ago
I'm going to take a different view on this. I travelled a lot circa 2008-10 in and around Asia and recently I've been uploading all those old travel photos to Google Photos simply because every day it randomly pops up pictures from a place I once visited. Even the bad photos I took back then (I didn't have a great camera) are way better at keeping those memories alive than I would have expected, they may not be the best, but I was there and I took them.
- 2y ago

ErigmolCt 2y ago

Is there a definition of "live" photographs in photography? I think taking photos of people while they're doing something makes them "live" in a way

dsego 2y ago
Candid photos, snapshots, photojournalism.
bregma 2y ago
Those are photographs. The other kind are portraits. Incidentally, the word "selfie" used to be an acronym for "self-portrait." Now it refers to any kind of portrait (posed, but not necessarily of the picture-taker), so it has morphed into an acronym for just "portrait".
alistairSH 2y ago
Other comments cover it as well, but generally, you'll see categories like (none are hard and fast, there's overlap, etc)... - portraits = posed photos with a person as subject - snapshots / candids = what you describe as "live" photos - street = snapshots, but of random people moving about their lives (much of photojournalism falls into this category, where the photographer is doing street photography at an event) - landscapes = photos of the world, where people are not the primary subject, often wider angle - wildlife = photos of animals, often with a very long telephoto lens - macro = "super zoomed in" / close up (technically where the subject is equal or larger than the sensor on the camera)
- ErigmolCt 2y ago
  Thanks for the breakdown! It’s interesting how "live" photos can be a blend of several categories, depending on context
ElevenLathe 2y ago
I've heard them called "candids" or candid shots. The only picture I have of my grandfather (who died when my father was young) is of him taking out the trash.

WalterBright 2y ago

I borrowed a couple Annie Liebovitz portrait books from the library for inspiration. Lots of good poses in there, rather than the standard straight ahead picture. My favorite is the one of Bruce Springsteen sitting on his motorbike. I'm going to try and recreate it. I've seen various photos of Keith Richards. What's amazing is he's not a handsome man, but somehow the photos of him are incredible.

Freak_NL 2y ago
Leibovitz, not Liebovitz.

Damogran6 2y ago

I found a harddisk with a ton of ripped MiniDV footage of the kids when they were young. What I value most isn't the kids. Sure, they're adorable and I have a ton of snapshots from them...but it's things like 'oh, we had that TV then, oh, that room still had carpet, man, the trees were really short, oh that really annoying noise the parrot makes? He's been doing it for more than 20 years.' It's not the subjects, it's the context that is cherished.