S/O S/O Is travel photography obnoxious?

[Ginevra]

Yes, that’s a serious question, and it pains me to ask it, because I LOVE photography. I have loved photography since I bought a Kodak Brownie at a yard-sale and promptly shot the whole roll of 12 pictures in my yard. 

When I went to France, I made an effort not to be obnoxious with my photography. And heaven forbid, I did not stand on any of those selfie stand things at the Eiffel Tower. But there were definitely numerous moments when I felt the sheer number of phones and cameras was obnoxious: in the Louvre, in Mona Lisa’s room being one of the worst examples. 

I have been thinking a lot about photography and...is there a word for over-photographing a tourist site? I’m going back to Europe in February and I find I want to do something differently, although I’m not sure exactly what. On one hand, I can’t imagine, say, not photographing Neuschwanstein from many angles. However...maybe I won’t. Maybe I could take three photos of the castle, buy a postcard, and call it good. 

What do you think? 

[Chris in VA]

Two things--

I think it isn't obnoxious at all (just don't force people to see your photos). There is a point to be made about making sure you live the experience of where you go, not just document it. For example, I tell people to put away the camera/cell phone when entering the Holy Sepulchre.  You are only in the Edicule for about 20 seconds (unless you come during low season) and you want to really be present there, not just seeing it thru a lens--buy a postcard. 

Second, I was shocked how people here take photos during church. I mean, even priests up at the altar snap away (figuratively  lol). It is disconcerting.  

When I'm photographing famous sites here, I like to change angles or focus on people or small areas. 

[Corraleno]

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as you're not pushing in front of people to get the photo you want, or shoving your selfie-stick into the frame of someone else's photo. I do find the proliferation of selfie-sticks obnoxious! I don't get the point of going on a trip and coming back with 800 pictures of your own face with a little bit of some cultural site in the background (and even that little bit is likely obscured by other tourists taking selfies!)

[MEmama]

I think any photography is only as obnoxious as the photographer.

There's nothing wrong with insta set ups (like those butterfly wings painted on brick walls to stand in front of) or taking a selfie in front of the Louvre or the I am Amsterdam sign or whatever. It IS obnoxious to block a view, or to take an intentionally long time when other people are hoping to get a shot in as well. 

I've stopped taking a bazillion shots of the same thing, because I really only need one for my albums and a tiny change of angle isn’t going to change my memory of a place. 

I take a lot of weird pictures, lots of my feet and of things I find interesting but others might wonder what I’m looking at. Lol. Sometimes it’s embarrassing, but I always regret it if I walk by something I want to capture. On the other hand, I rarely take photos of the obvious (except the I am Amsterdam sign lol) like Christmas morning or generic scenery. 

I doubt you are an obnoxious photographer, but if you are you’ll be in good company. Lol. I think you should just take what you want as long as you’re not in someone else’s way and enjoy your trip—and the memories. 🙂

[Arcadia]

I don’t think so as long as you don’t mind people in the background. For example, lots of tourists take photographs at the Stanford University main quad. People are walking and while people try to walk behind the photographer, it can be hard to make a detour sometimes depending on where the photographer is standing.

When my kids take photographs, they put their camera or cellphone down when they see people who need to pass so that the people knows it’s okay to walk/run in front of them to get to their classrooms. My kids tend to want perfect shots so it’s only right that they don’t make people wait or have to go behind them.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Arcadia
Typing

[Guest]

Just now, Corraleno said:

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as you're not pushing in front of people to get the photo you want, or shoving your selfie-stick into the frame of someone else's photo. I do find the proliferation of selfie-sticks obnoxious! I don't get the point of going on a trip and coming back with 800 pictures of your own face with a little bit of some cultural site in the background (and even that little bit is likely obscured by other tourists taking selfies!)

Yes, I completely hate selfie sticks and I think selfies at a monument or site need to be kept to a minimum. I find it weird when I’m looking at someone’s photos from Europe and it’s one after the other of their selfie face, with snippets of something famous behind them. 

[katilac]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

I find it weird when I’m looking at someone’s photos from Europe and it’s one after the other of their selfie face, with snippets of something famous behind them. 

On the other hand, it's not like we don't know what the Eiffel Tower looks like, lol. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

On the other hand, it's not like we don't know what the Eiffel Tower looks like, lol. 

Well thats what I found ironic about the Mona Lisa. Everybody knows what that painting looks like. Yet there’s a throng of people trying to get a picture or a selfie with it. Weird. 

[Chris in VA]

ok, forgive me, but I want to share my "different" pictures. Weird angles ( Paper boats in Jaffa), different "poses," (people at the Jordan), small details (flower in St. G's garden. I like this artsy style after you get the "I was here at this famous place"-type photo. I should add these are all cell phone, quickly-snapped. That's the only camera I have. 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Chris in VA

[mmasc]

Beautiful photos, @Chris in VA! Just lovely, really. 

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yes, that’s a serious question, and it pains me to ask it, because I LOVE photography. I have loved photography since I bought a Kodak Brownie at a yard-sale and promptly shot the whole roll of 12 pictures in my yard. 

When I went to France, I made an effort not to be obnoxious with my photography. And heaven forbid, I did not stand on any of those selfie stand things at the Eiffel Tower. But there were definitely numerous moments when I felt the sheer number of phones and cameras was obnoxious: in the Louvre, in Mona Lisa’s room being one of the worst examples. 

I have been thinking a lot about photography and...is there a word for over-photographing a tourist site? I’m going back to Europe in February and I find I want to do something differently, although I’m not sure exactly what. On one hand, I can’t imagine, say, not photographing Neuschwanstein from many angles. However...maybe I won’t. Maybe I could take three photos of the castle, buy a postcard, and call it good. 

What do you think? 

you aren't allowed to take photographs of the inside of neuschwanstein - so you'll be saved from temptation.  there were other castles I preferred.

 not sure where it is in the stage of exterior renovations - but large sections were covered with scaffolding - which is a dissuading factor in photographs.

I don't remember much photography in the museums we went to in Vienna - but I was unwell and I was forcing myself through because if I didn't make it to the floor with all the roman antiquities (found within the borders of the Austria-Hungary empire)  - I would be kicking myself for years.

the grounds of schoenbrunn are so large - it really can't be "over photographed".  and most people who climb to the top of the gloriette do so specifically to take pictures of the view from the top.

 

[marbel]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Well thats what I found ironic about the Mona Lisa. Everybody knows what that painting looks like. Yet there’s a throng of people trying to get a picture or a selfie with it. Weird. 

Because they want to be shown with it.  Seeing the painting is not the important part for some people - it's being able to show others that they have seen it.

Edited January 16, 2020 by marbel

[Rosie_0801]

Mostly I think tourists are gonna be tourists. They're on holiday! They should be having fun! I do think it obnoxious when people are getting in the way to take a photo they are unlikely to ever look at again, particularly when they are never going to take a better photo than they could buy on a postcard or on a book in the gift shop. This is all the more pronounced when they're getting in the way of little kids seeing, like at the zoo. For goodness sakes, the gift shop has a better pic and this is almost certainly not *the only gorilla you are ever going to see.* You paid your money, so have your look, then get out of the way so the kindy kids can see and the mothers can see their kindy kids!

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, marbel said:

Because they want to be shown with it.  Seeing the painting is not the important part for some people - it's being able to show others that they have seen it.

Yeah I know. But I think that’s rather a base goal. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mmasc said:

Beautiful photos, @Chris in VA! Just lovely, really. 

I agree! I love those paper boats especially! Such an overlooked detail.

[Ausmumof3]

Generally no with a couple of exceptions.  I really hate it when people photograph my kids.  Occasionally people might be really focussed on getting a perfect photo and just not realise they are taking a long time and preventing other people from having the chance to get a photo or a decent view.  And there’s a couple of weird things where I’ve seen people taking pics of infrastructure specifically that gave me a weird feeling that they weren’t really just tourists rather information gathering.  Having said that my dh may be inclined to do that where things were a bit different to home because he’s always interested in stuff like that so I don’t want to jump to conclusions.

I can’t imaging you being like any of that so I think you’re good.

I think there’s some Australians sites that it’s not culturally sensitive to photograph but they are gradually being sign posted so you’ll know.

[marbel]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yeah I know. But I think that’s rather a base goal. 

Oh I agree with you!  I don't understand the need people have to prove they have been somewhere interesting/desirable. And I am definitely a person who does not get to travel much. I still don't get it. 

(I marvel every time I go to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and see crowds taking selfies with the Rocky statue, or worse, having a friend film them running up the steps.)

Edited January 16, 2020 by marbel

[Laura Corin]

I wouldn't photograph in a museum. For me, it does intrude on other people's experience. And there are always postcards to buy.

Photos of identifiable people are iffy - I'm not sure where my line is on that. Apart from that, just stay to one side and I think it's fine.

[SKL]

Not at a tourist site.  In a more private / personal setting, I'd keep it to a minimum or skip it.

What is obnoxious is blocking the crowd for more than a couple seconds so you can get that perfect photo of your darlings with the Eiffel Tower in the background.

And if you have found the absolute perfect spot from which to photograph the waterfall, take a few great shots and move on so others can have a turn.

[SKL]

I would note that I think it is OK to photograph the Mona Lisa.

For one thing, that whole room of the Louvre is set up for it, and everyone else is doing it.  So why wouldn't you?  If you're like me, you are never going back there again, so might as well have a snap of the moment.  (But again, take your picture and move on.)

[SKL]

16 hours ago, Quill said:

Well thats what I found ironic about the Mona Lisa. Everybody knows what that painting looks like. Yet there’s a throng of people trying to get a picture or a selfie with it. Weird. 

I assume you've been there to see it in person.  Was there not something about it that surprised you?  (Not gonna be a spoiler for those still to travel there.)

I like to look back at my travel photos as they help me remember and re-enjoy the experience.  So far nobody but me has seen my Louvre photos, LOL, but that's actually not why I took them.  (Also my kids were 7 when we went, so I figure someday they will look at all of that with a different eye ... and no I am not taking them back there.  🙂

[vonfirmath]

16 hours ago, Quill said:

Yes, I completely hate selfie sticks and I think selfies at a monument or site need to be kept to a minimum. I find it weird when I’m looking at someone’s photos from Europe and it’s one after the other of their selfie face, with snippets of something famous behind them. 

 

I think the selfie thing is a "I was here" moment.

When we were kids, my dad took lots of pictures with my mom and us kids at places. And rarely someone would take a picture with my dad in it. Finally he got a timer and would put his camera on a tripod, set the timer, and hurry to be in the picture.

Selfie sticks make this more accessible -- but also limits the picture possibilities.

 

[CAJinBE]

For me it is just the memories of where I have been or what I have seen. Recently I saw Van Gogh's sunflowers but photography was not allowed at all. I really wanted a selfie with that one just to remember seeing it better. I have a photo, not a selfie, with The Girl with a Pearl Earring that I like. It's a little bit like a scavenger hunt I guess. We had friends who lived in Paris for a while and I think they took photos of everyone that came to visit in front of the Eiffel Tower. I took photos of my kids in front of the Rosetta Stone since we had been interested in learning languages in our homeschool.  On the other hand, I've seen people try to take photos of every item in a museum. That I don't get at all, just buy the book at the gift shop.

[vonfirmath]

3 minutes ago, CAJinBE said:

For me it is just the memories of where I have been or what I have seen. Recently I saw Van Gogh's sunflowers but photography was not allowed at all. I really wanted a selfie with that one just to remember seeing it better. I have a photo, not a selfie, with The Girl with a Pearl Earring that I like. It's a little bit like a scavenger hunt I guess. We had friends who lived in Paris for a while and I think they took photos of everyone that came to visit in front of the Eiffel Tower. I took photos of my kids in front of the Rosetta Stone since we had been interested in learning languages in our homeschool.  On the other hand, I've seen people try to take photos of every item in a museum. That I don't get at all, just buy the book at the gift shop.

 

What do you mean "Buy the Book"?

At least the last museum I was at (the Musical Instrument Museum in Phoenix) did not have a book in the gift shop with pictures and identification of all the items in the museum. That would have been much easier than trying to catch on film all the things I wanted to remember.  (or even just all the items on one continent, separated by country)

Edited January 16, 2020 by vonfirmath

[Soror]

Most, yes.

The biggest annoyances:

- photographing in cultural or religiously important sites- if done at all should be done respectfully- the number of people taking pictures and utterly oblivious to the fact that it is serves primarily as a place of worship was disheartening

-when a place is so busy your photography impedes the flow of traffic- at first we were so careful not to walk in anyone's pictures but with everyone taking 5 million pictures with people spaced out 10-15 ft in hugely busy areas I stopped caring. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I assume you've been there to see it in person.  Was there not something about it that surprised you?  (Not gonna be a spoiler for those still to travel there.)

I like to look back at my travel photos as they help me remember and re-enjoy the experience.  So far nobody but me has seen my Louvre photos, LOL, but that's actually not why I took them.  (Also my kids were 7 when we went, so I figure someday they will look at all of that with a different eye ... and no I am not taking them back there.  🙂

It’s fine to take a picture of the Mona Lisa. It’s not like I think it’s immoral. But I couldn’t even *get close* to the art because of the seventy people, most jockeying for selfie position, in the way. Ill see ifI can pull up my photo from the Mona Lisa room and youll see what i mean. 

[Joker]

The only place I've so far been bothered by photography is the 9/11 memorials in NYC. The selfie taking there really bothered me. We took no pictures at all because it didn't feel right to do so to us.

We've been to many museums and while some do seem to go overboard, it doesn't truly bother me.

[Guest]

Well, as someone who has a rather large thread with lots of photographs of recent travel, I truly hope we weren't too obnoxious :). And yes, we were truly excited by water dragons, Ibis, crowned pigeons, magpies, Skinks, tui, etc :). 

[mumto2]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

I assume you've been there to see it in person.  Was there not something about it that surprised you?  (Not gonna be a spoiler for those still to travel there.)

I like to look back at my travel photos as they help me remember and re-enjoy the experience.  So far nobody but me has seen my Louvre photos, LOL, but that's actually not why I took them.  (Also my kids were 7 when we went, so I figure someday they will look at all of that with a different eye ... and no I am not taking them back there.  🙂

😂My family was just talking about Dh and the Mona Lisa because he couldn’t get over the” surprising part”.  He still talks about it if anyone mentions the Louvre.  Yes we have pictures of him with it......Yes, I am sort of embarrassed.........

I don’t think there is a thing wrong with taking pictures as long as you are being very quick in a crowded place and not interfering with others, respectful..........

I tend take a lot of quick snaps so I can remember the day.  Some are silly and just mattered to me at that moment which is interesting.......but I also capture really special things at times.

[GoodGrief]

I'm a photographer, so I understand the angst.

People's desire for just the right photo for Instagram has caused problems for some tourist sites, and led to restrictions on visitors. Think people trampling lavender fields, that kind of thing.

I have a love/hate relationship with a major Facebook hiking group for our state. Several of the "hidden gem" sites have been...well, "ruined" would be too strong of a word, but they are overly trafficked now and not as special. People post pictures of areas, other people see them and want their own pictures for Instagram. Safety issues have cropped up as well. A couple people posted photos from beautiful and relatively accessible ice caves. It's quite dangerous to go into the caves. Not only are they in a winter avalanche zone, in the warmer months they are especially subject to sudden collapse. But people don't realize this because they are seeing the photos in a context where the details/dangers are not explained, as they would be in a typical guide. All of a sudden there are families taking children and pets for dramatic photos. There was a death, but people forget quickly and the posts continue.

[Farrar]

The thing with the Mona Lisa is just... it's so wild. But it also feels like a strange anomaly to me. Like, if I wanted to go to the NGA and stare at the Ginevra Binci and mostly be unbothered, I could. And, honestly, I have. I sort of prefer it.  Or if I wanted to go to the Louvre and stare at some of the other masterworks there and be unbothered then I could (and have) done that too. To me, the thing with the Mona Lisa is... I dunno... I get that it's iconic, but it also feels ignorant to me, honestly. Just the sheer difference in the size of the crowd. Like, the last time I was there, I dragged my mother to see Vermeer's The Lacemaker and there were like two or three people there. I sat in front of the Coronation of Napoleon for like twenty minutes and most people barely stopped... presumably because all the Davids are right around the corner from the Mona Lisa. It's like... I'm not an art snob, but this makes zero sense.

Now, some places are just packed with people more naturally. And then I do think you have to try to exercise some restraint, just because everyone is already jostling and trying to get photos. It's polite to take a turn and hang back if you can.

Most places, I don't think it's an issue. I have very few photos from when I lived and traveled in Asia... but my memories are more vivid around it. I think some of that is just stage of life, but some of it was the lack of cameras, I believe. I just... enjoyed it. I think I have like half a dozen photos of Sukhothai. It's a World Heritage Site. It's huge. On the other hand, I went to Europe last year with my mom. I have a million photos of her and us together in front of every Gaudi site in Barcelona. That's okay too... I don't feel like it ruined it or anything. I mean, yeah, I see people who are clearly taking too many photos. What will you do with them. Will you enjoy the place other than through the lens? But the right balance is definitely going to be different for different people.

If they let you take photos inside a place - a museum or a church or temple - then I think it's fine. I do think it's really, really wrong to take a photo if they forbid them. That drives me nuts.

[Arctic Bunny]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

It’s fine to take a picture of the Mona Lisa. It’s not like I think it’s immoral. But I couldn’t even *get close* to the art because of the seventy people, most jockeying for selfie position, in the way. Ill see ifI can pull up my photo from the Mona Lisa room and youll see what i mean. 

It’s funny, but my picture of the Mona Lisa is one a remember most. We were in high school and the crowd to see the ML was huge, and we decided there were more interesting things to see, so I snapped a picture from across the room as we tried to get through. It’s a poorly lit blur, with a rectangle at the end. But totally captured my experience!

[Pam in CT]

I think it's fine to take pictures in museums that allow it (though as Farrar said, the distribution of the crowds between ICONIC! and top-top-notch is often very baffling). It's fine to take exterior pictures of the Eiffel Tower, waterfall etc. Don't be a dope about blocking others' views in a crowd for more a than a few seconds, etc. Certainly it's fine to take pictures of orchids or sunsets or anything really that amounts to the wonder of the natural world.

I do NOT think it's OK to take pictures of kids you don't know, even if they're unbearably cute; and especially if the context edges anywhere near slum dog tourism territory.

Quote

Slum tourism is a one-way street: They get photos; we lose a piece of our dignity.

 

[marbel]

So it's unlikely I will ever see the Mona Lisa in person, what is the surprise? It is OK to PM me.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by marbel

[Guest]

I found a Picasso exhibition rather underwhelming. I think sometimes art just doesn't look as good in a gallery as in my imagination. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by dmmetler

[Rosie_0801]

4 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

I found a Picasso exhibition rather underwhelming. I think sometimes art just doesn't look as good in a gallery as in my imagination. 

 

I've installed a couple of local art exhibitions, in various spaces in my region. It's very interesting how the idiosyncrasies of each space have forced me to display, and how people respond. I've felt most successful in what would have been considered the worst space. Stark walls, high ceilings etc add gravitas. But those spaces also mean people can step through the door, run their eyes around, and walk out, having seen all they need to see. I hate working in those kinds of spaces! The "worst" space had a couple of brick walls, some plaster, a glass cabinet and a dodgy, dirty green-blue coloured pinboard. People *enjoyed* that much more, even though they were mostly the same display items. In that space, people generally toured the room three times before they felt they'd seen what they needed to see.

[Penguin]

2 hours ago, marbel said:

So it's unlikely I will ever see the Mona Lisa in person, what is the surprise? It is OK to PM me.

 

 

I have seen it in person a few times, and am wondering what the surprise is, too! 

[Momto6inIN]

2 hours ago, marbel said:

So it's unlikely I will ever see the Mona Lisa in person, what is the surprise? It is OK to PM me.

 

 

Me too please!

I take pictures to put in a digital scrapbook and as a family we look at those all.the.time. to remember where we went and what we saw and what we did. Posting to FB is fun, but that's not why I take them. I take them for us, for our memories. I really don't care if anyone thinks it's obnoxious. I don't take pics when it says not to, and I don't take pics of other people if I can help it (who wants other people on their vacation photos anyway? I'm more likely to Photoshop them out). But by golly if this is the only time I'm ever going to see X then you can bet I'm going to take all the photos I want! I will usually wait around until crowds ebb to get the shot I want, although we usually are in National Parks so they aren't quite as crowded as the Louvre I'm guessing.

I don't get the whole selfie thing. I like photos with my people in them, but picture after picture of the same faces with no context or background are just weird to me.

I would totally be part of a crowd waiting to take a picture of the Mona Lisa if I can ever get DH to fly on a plane long enough to get me there! Lol

@Chris in VA your pics are gorgeous! I like to take shots of weird angles and things like that too, as well as the more typical ones.

[Guest]

I think the surprise she meant is that it’s small. I already knew that from guidebooks, but apparently, people are surprised and frequently disappointed to find it to be small and not terribly impressive. 

[marbel]

6 minutes ago, Quill said:

I think the surprise she meant is that it’s small. I already knew that from guidebooks, but apparently, people are surprised and frequently disappointed to find it to be small and not terribly impressive. 

Ah, that's how people often respond to seeing the Liberty Bell! 🙂

Edited January 17, 2020 by marbel

[Sallie Mae]

My family went to New York City this summer and we visited the Met. My favorite area of the museum was where there were several by Monet. When I stepped into that area, I was surprisingly moved to tears. I have always loved Monet and to be able to see one in person really made me emotional. I sat on a bench and soaked it in. I never really thought how important it is to have museums. The only way I even knew what Monet looked like before then was through photography, and I'm glad the world can see such beauty through photography. I agree with a PP in that I just wanted to experience it so I didn't take a picture, but I don't mind people taking pictures.

When my college aged son found me absorbing the Monets, he sat and joined me. Later we talked about what a privilege it is to be able to see all the things in the Met. Since we both like sci-fi, we often talk about the future and our ideas of what things could be invented. My ds said maybe, when we can easily transport ourselves, everyone would be able to visit an "Ultra Museum" that would have all museum art in one place. (Just think how much fun that would make homeschooling!)

Though we can't transport ourselves to an Ultra Museum yet, we can see museum art through photography.

[Amira]

I don’t travel much to traditional tourist sites with masses of people, but I have seen a lot of what I consider to be obnoxious or rude travel photography in the Middle East.  The rules are different here regarding photographing people without permission, or taking photos of obvious problems.  It really bothers me when I’m out with certain friends and they’re photographing piles of trash (I currently live in a city that can only be described as very dirty) or taking photos of individual people or small groups, especially of women, without permission. I get why they do it - I would like to have photos that better document my experience here - but there are some things you have to document differently, in my opinion. 

I do take photos in museums here, if they’re allowed.  There aren’t good postcards of the things I want to see, and when all the ancient mosque lamps, or portable mihbrabs, or whatever, are being stored, museums are the only place to see some things.  But there’s only one museum here that’s ever crowded (and it’s always packed, because it’s on the tourist track) so taking photos in the rest often means that you’re standing in a room by yourself.  I don’t often go to the crowded museum, because it’s crowded, expensive, and poorly labeled.

[CAJinBE]

15 hours ago, vonfirmath said:

 

What do you mean "Buy the Book"?

At least the last museum I was at (the Musical Instrument Museum in Phoenix) did not have a book in the gift shop with pictures and identification of all the items in the museum. That would have been much easier than trying to catch on film all the things I wanted to remember.  (or even just all the items on one continent, separated by country)

Most of the places we've visited lately have had a book in the gift shop about the museum or special exhibit with pictures and explanations. The Louvre has extensive books. Even more out of the way places like Francis Ferdinand's castle had nice books of about 100 pages explaining the family history, etc. The Van Gogh museum has an online webshop with tons of selections. I suppose not everywhere does though.

[moonflower]

Am I the only person who doesn't take photos without (my) people in them?  I never take photos of just a landscape or just art or whatever; photography is not my favorite art form and I can get touristy photos, done much better, for not very much money and/or free all over the internet.  It's only meaningful to me years later if one of my family is in it, and certainly the only photos of say my grandmother's or my mom's that are interesting to me are ones with people in them.

But I also don't have a smartphone and take the digital camera out like once every two or three years, so we don't do a ton of photography of any sort.  When we go on vacation we buy each kid and ourselves a disposable film camera to do with as they like.  Then we get those developed.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, moonflower said:

Am I the only person who doesn't take photos without (my) people in them?  I never take photos of just a landscape or just art or whatever; photography is not my favorite art form and I can get touristy photos, done much better, for not very much money and/or free all over the internet.  It's only meaningful to me years later if one of my family is in it, and certainly the only photos of say my grandmother's or my mom's that are interesting to me are ones with people in them.

But I also don't have a smartphone and take the digital camera out like once every two or three years, so we don't do a ton of photography of any sort.  When we go on vacation we buy each kid and ourselves a disposable film camera to do with as they like.  Then we get those developed.

You might be. 😁 I love to do photos of my people, especially at some beautiful site, but I also like to capture many things that may be little-noticed details. In Montpellier, I took around forty photos of doors and windows, just because I love them. I took a photo of my shoes beside the little brass emblems embedded in the streets. I also love to take photos of famous landmarks from a different view than the usual one. I have a photo I love of the Eiffel Tower, as seen from Tuileries garden. My shutterfly album from a Disney trip when my kids were small has a beautiful photo on the cover: Cinderella’s castle from the park-like walkway to the side. The front view usually seen if stuffed with people but the side park is devoid of people entirely. 

[SKL]

4 hours ago, moonflower said:

Am I the only person who doesn't take photos without (my) people in them?  I never take photos of just a landscape or just art or whatever; photography is not my favorite art form and I can get touristy photos, done much better, for not very much money and/or free all over the internet.  It's only meaningful to me years later if one of my family is in it, and certainly the only photos of say my grandmother's or my mom's that are interesting to me are ones with people in them.

But I also don't have a smartphone and take the digital camera out like once every two or three years, so we don't do a ton of photography of any sort.  When we go on vacation we buy each kid and ourselves a disposable film camera to do with as they like.  Then we get those developed.

I have a travel companion like that.  It honestly annoys me as it makes the whole experience about taking the photo vs. experiencing the place.  I, on the other hand, am good with just one photo with my kids in it at the major locations.  I love photographing nature and other things that are just plain cool.  I don't need a million photos to remind me what my kids look like.  😛

[vonfirmath]

6 hours ago, CAJinBE said:

Most of the places we've visited lately have had a book in the gift shop about the museum or special exhibit with pictures and explanations. The Louvre has extensive books. Even more out of the way places like Francis Ferdinand's castle had nice books of about 100 pages explaining the family history, etc. The Van Gogh museum has an online webshop with tons of selections. I suppose not everywhere does though.

 

Oh the museum had books. That had SOME things in the Museum. But it didn't have everything (or close to everything) It was just on various topics. So the pictures were still needed to make sure I had a record of what I wanted to remember (And I have done google searches to learn more about some of this and not found it all on google either so I'm very glad to have my pictures, even though I didn't get good enough pictures to remember all the names 😞 )

 

I did buy a video about the recyled Orchestra of Paraguay. I'd read _Ada's Violin_ and was fascinated.  Then they had many of those instruments AT THE MUSEUM with clips of the music. And the DVD is a documentary I am hopeful to get to hear more of the playing and learn more about it.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by vonfirmath

[vonfirmath]

One interesting thing. AFTER I got back from Phoenix, I was re-reading old letters from one of my sponsored kids (in Guatemala) and I saw that he wrote "We have special music here in my country in it is La Marimba (national instrument) it is a very nice music and we listen to it with my grandmother."  In another letter he told me when he went to his grandmother's she was teaching him to play a special instrument.

But until I went to the MIM, I just skimmed over these passages. Now I go back to the pictures I took in "Guatemala" at the museum and I can see an actual Marimba and picture him next to an elderly lady learning how to play it and it makes me feel closer.

 

(Guatemala is the first country I want to go to and visit. The original plans were to do it in February but that has been delayed until 2021 now)

 

[Momto6inIN]

5 hours ago, moonflower said:

Am I the only person who doesn't take photos without (my) people in them?  I never take photos of just a landscape or just art or whatever; photography is not my favorite art form and I can get touristy photos, done much better, for not very much money and/or free all over the internet.  It's only meaningful to me years later if one of my family is in it, and certainly the only photos of say my grandmother's or my mom's that are interesting to me are ones with people in them.

I like both. The landscapes and quirky close ups of details evoke different memories when we look at the scrapbooks than the ones with my family in them, and I like the balance of both. But often even with a sweeping landscape shot I'll find a way to put at least one of my kids in a corner of it somewhere 🙂Buying a postcard or a book of professional photos doesn't evoke any of the feeling of being there like the photos I take myself do, even if technically they are superior photos to my amateur ones.

Not saying you have to take those kinds of photos in order to remember a place - just explaining why those of us who enjoy photography might take them 🙂

[mumto2]

I generally prefer to have my people in the picture and those are the meaningful ones.   These days my people aren’t always with me but my ability to take a picture frequently is.  I might snap a picture of something to show my people, the picture probably will be kept because I started paying extra and have quite a bit of storage now.😂.  I do make exceptions all the time but I don’t take nearly as many scenic shots now.