My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re readings of the surface.
There are many forms of photography. I consider myself simply a recorder of that which I find of interest around me. I personally have no desire to create or stage direct ideas.
..amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light, I just take pictures…
A model can only be successfully directed by talking her into a mood or attitude. The moment you physically place a limb into position you may as well be photographing a shop dummy.
…I am incredibly suspicious of photographers who specialize in the nude. I feel sure the majority takes these photographs because they want to see a girl without her clothes. They get their kicks from seeing and photographing a naked woman. I am not criticizing this attitude. It seems a harmless enough a way to achieve a sensuous feeling – but I am not convinced that the end result has any merit whatsoever. These men are conning themselves when they try to justify their pictures on artistic grounds. The majority of people are, understandably, afraid to say to a girl: “please come along to my room, and take your clothes off so that I can look at your body.” So they use a camera as an excuse. That’s fine. But they must not attempt to convince themselves, or others, that they are achieving some artistic end. Only very, very occasionally I see a picture of the nude that seemed to be worthwhile shooting purely for “artistic” reasons…
For me the true business of photography is to capture a bit of reality (whatever that is) on film… if, later, the reality means something to someone else, so much the better.
Bad rich amateurs photographers think fuzzy Black&White images of poor people are art.
People who earn less than half of their income from photography are amateurs. This has nothing to do with the quality of their photography.