Tourist’s Dilemma
I have been fortunate enough to visit a myriad of interesting locales around the world. At the same time, photography is one of my passions, i like to capture candid moments, special places, one-of-a-kind experiences. So I’m left with a dilemma, a dilemma I feel most people face. Do I enjoy the beauty of what I travelled for, or do I try to take photos, try angles, work the sunlight, in order to preserve the beauty, work on my skills, but also lose the beauty of living that moment. You’re left with either experiencing it yourself in that moment in time, or objectifying it and making it possible for virtually anybody to enjoy it.
I do have a concrete example. As my flickr page can testify, most of the places I’ve been have been pretty heavily photographed and documented in numerous pictures. I have always tried to balance my own enjoyment with the taking of the actual pictures, but I always felt like I might’ve missed out on a lot of things. So I decided that my spring-break will be spent away from my camera. I wanted to keep it down to a minimum and enjoy myself. It was fun and relaxing, but I can’t help feeling bad about missing all those great shots of sunsets, sunrises, palm-trees, horses galloping on the beach, etc. I also refrained from taking photos during the short lay-overs in New York, and I felt I missed great shadows on buildings, great poetic constructions, the daily goings-on, etc. But I had fun.
I don’t claim to be a professional photographer, but having an accessible flickr page can lead to great things. One of my pictures was chosen as an illustration for an article on nj.com, and, had it not been for a slight time difference, would’ve been featured in a slideshow on New York Magazine’s website. Another one is now part of a bunch of pictures depincting NYC landmarks on the new edition of Schmap, featuring Radio City Music Hall. So there’s a great benefit that might outweight the enjoyment of simply taking it all in for yourself.
Which do you think is better, photos or no photos?
David, it really depends of what you are looking to get from your trip. Do you want to enjoy the place, or to take pictures. Both are valid reasons to visit a place, but you should decide what you want to do.
The same thing holds true when talking about people. Imagine you could meet for a couple of hours with a personality. You could use the time getting a great portrait of him or her, or you can spend the time having a great conversation, but you cannot do both at the same time. You could also try to do both in a “serial” manner, in which case you should decide from the beginning how much time you are willing to allocate to each.
My latest approach is: enjoy first, photograph later. The first time I visit a place I just enjoy the place, maybe take a few snapshots to act as “digital memories”, but don’t focus on it. Then, if I visit the place the second time, I may consider booking time in my calendar for a photo shoot. But again, this is just one of the manny possible ways to go
Strangely, I have done the exact opposite, I first take pictures, like when I went to the Dominican the first time, or on one of my multiple trips to NYC. And after I have a good number of them, I sort of stop taking pictures.
David, I think I’ve got a bit of a different opinion on this one. I have been fortunate enough to travel to many places and some of them were quite remote so I don’t think I’ll be getting back there soon. However, like you I always want to take the time to take nice photos and what I found over time is that if I allow a few days for taking photos I actually discover things I would have not seen otherwise which improves my knowledge of the place. If you travel with someone that understands your need for taking photos I would say to go for it and stop from time to time for some nice shots. Of course this is such a personal choice so what might work for me, might not work for you.