I read on this forum a month or so ago the opinion of a photographer (it was Chris Jordan, if I recall correctly) that the actual act of photographing was so stressful that the only reason he did it was for the end result, the photographs. This was directed towards outdoor photographers who have to deal with stressful conditions in the field. At the time, I thought that this position was overkill- sure, there was some stress involved with planning and conditions beyond my control, but the travel and time spent outdoors was as much a reward as the photographic end results. However, I am increasingly finding myself bogged down with all the stressful things that one must deal with before the act of photographing the landscape- packing the car, driving hundreds of miles, sleeping outdoors with minimal conveniences, lugging heavy gear miles on trails, having weather turn bad, having the light be terrible, dealing with distracting and sometimes hostile onlookers, having equipment break, etc. The list could go on and on- which brings me to my questions. First, how much do you photograph for the actual experience, and how much is it for the end result, the photographs? Honestly, would you still be doing outdoor photography if there were no photographs resulting from it? Second, do any of you have any advice or words of wisdom on dealing with this type of stress? Thanks, and good light!
Bookmarks