Ive done some that were forethought, but not deeply forethought. And now when I look back at them I see repedetiveness, and when I tried to do it again, and maybe different, I ended up being repedetive again.
I did take some of moments that are beyond my control and I think I enjoyed those most. They felt more real then anything else I did. As opposed to things set up and waiting for spontaneity to present itself.
I remember seeing a slide of someones street work and liked them, then I talked to someone who had worked with that photographer and she had mentioned how hed stick his tongue out at people, chase children arround till they gave a sour face etc and that totally killed all the images for me for some reason.
Same as another series I saw from a different photographer who wanted to capture the opposite essence of an event, that was showcased with another essence over and over, so much that he didnt wait for that opposite essence to show itself but instead photographed out of context.
im rambling

I don't even analyze work anymore, tired of it, I read from images from experience.

I really want to see you shoot more film, and when we are ready, I can teach you how to complete the process with printing those negatives. There is always something you can do when you work with real images, hopefully we can work with it together.

i had wanted to shoot film for a long time before I got the chance to actually do it. Even after all that waiting it was still so much more than I had expected. Even though there were some obstacles (remember them?!I DO ) it was so great to see those first shots. And its all thanks to you

Hehe I remember! I wanna see those holga frames better, seriously thought they were great.

Don't be such a downer.

--
"When the creations of a genius collide with the mind of a layman, and produce an empty sound, there is little doubt as to which is at fault. "
--Salvador Dali

I'm not! What made you think I was doing that?

hell yes, not even books tell us how to read them and they have letters and words!

absolutely, either as a journalist or as an artist, it should be a process of forethought and construction, otherwise you’re a snap shooter.

of course there are hundreds of styles, some more impulsive than others but this is above all a question of the artist (or the journalist, the "thinker", whatever).

in the other hand, the artist doesn't necessarily need to be a theorist. above all he has technique and ideas and he creates. theory is secondary.

i've bought this book recently, "photography in art, from tool to paradigm". simple yet great read, lots of references and has a couple of essays - david campany, geoffrey batchen, steve edwards, rosalind krauss.

Categorization is a general problem

Just read a big discussion on Lightstalkers yesterday, it was about what a photographer is and what he isn't, who should be considered one and who shouldn't. Such discussions concentrate to much on the ego, on what you want to be seen by others. Since everyone has another view on one's work it's a futile attempt.

I don't have a concept behind taking spontanous shots - it's just that I like to observe my everyday world and sometimes photograph thinks that matter to me or make me think. Of course it's easily understood why someone takes portraits of his friends. But when I shoot strangers on the street I do it because of the situation and my own (inner) reaction to it. [link] may have a "funny" title but my reason for taking that photograph was rather that I stood there observing those people and having thoughts about them - who they are, what they do, how their lives are. I know that sounds a bit philisophical, but then again everyone has these thoughts. So taking a photograph of a scene like that gives me the chance to take me back to that thoughts - and maybe others as well.

I'm not much into abstract concepts which I want to express through my photos. From my perspective I shoot life. And I can't relate to photographs which express abstract concepts (i.e. an interpretation of "love" or whatsoever in a photograph).

I often thought about the properties of the medium itself, how photography is (mostly) based on a fraction of a second, a perspective, on a relation between observer and observed one. That's maybe more into the theory of photography, but that's the only field beyond spontaneous shots that I'm really tempted to learn more about.

Don't know if I missed the whole point of your question now. But to get back to it: I believe that handling the equipement is necessary. And the less you know the more uncertain you are - asking others about their equipement or editing technique for me wouldn't mean that I think he should have done it differently, it's rather that I'm interested what the motivation was to do things as they are - and in a way give me a reference from which I can tell what I would do, knowing what the other had in mind. But at the end of the day photography to me is about conveying thoughts and emotions.

Maybe we could go on now in German

First of all, I don't consider myself an 'artist' or a 'photographer'. I don't think the fact that any of us has registered on an 'art' site and we post images here makes us anything more than a few thousand people with Photoshop and a god damn camera. The word 'art' is as overly used as the word 'love' in today's society.

When it comes to answering your questions, though, I generally just take photos of things as I see them at that very moment. I don't waste my entire day envisioning what I can do to a photo to gain twenty faves or any of that shit, it just comes to me. That doesn't give me the gift if 'photographer foresight' or any of that shit. I do prefer subjects beyond my control for the record, though.

--
^{█ Servo permaneo bovis provestri.}