Do you cry?

[Heroique]

Really just curious – do photographers here shed tears?

I don’t mean from all the “pain” we associate w/ LF photography – like stumbling w/ a heavy tripod in the field, trying to focus old eyes on the GG, losing an expensive lens, or breathing fixer fumes in the darkroom.

We already know you cry plenty over that.

I mean the spontaneous, involuntary tears when seeing (experiencing) an exceptional print – portrait, still life, landscape, architecture. You know, that welling-up in the eyes, in response to depth, balance, harmony, mystery, reverence, etc. Perhaps it was one of your own prints fresh from the tray or printer, or a particular print by a Master in a book or museum.

What caused it to happen? Should it happen? Was it due to the subject matter, the lighting, the presentation, your state of mind at the time, a combination?

No need to be embarrassed – we’re grown-ups around here – please tell us more...

;^)

[Vaughn]

No, no tears over photos. But other things do move me to tears...usually stuff relating to kids -- being a father seemed to have started that. And sometimes thing that I am reading can be so beautiful and moving that it moves me to tears. But strangely, not photos (yet).

[jcoldslabs]

I've cried watching a movie, reading a book and listening to music but never over a photograph. Not sure why.

Jonathan

[Heroique]

Makes me curious if only “high” arts induce this aesthetic reaction, but not still photography.

[Greg Miller]

Makes me curious if only “high” arts induce this aesthetic reaction, but not still photography.

I have witnessed people crying when viewing an exhibit of mine that was basically a documentary project. This was totally unexpected from my perspective, but the subject matter elicited very strong emotional memories for some viewers.

But there are many emotions besides crying. I thnk we have all witnessed people going "whoah" when viewing a photograph. That is evidence of eliciting a fairly strong emotional response.

For most of my work, I believe that I have failed if I do not elicit some emotional response in some viewers. I have created a list of guiding principles that I follow when photographing. #1 on the list: You must feel something when you take a photo; otherwise the persons viewing your photo will feel nothing

[Greg Miller]

Makes me curious if only “high” arts induce this aesthetic reaction, but not still photography.

I also think that there are many commonalities between photography and music. For one, there are many examples of musicians who are technically brilliant, but fail to connect emotionally (musically) with the music. There are many examples on the reality TV shows like The Voice, and American Idol. Those musicians tend to get voted off pretty early and never win because they just sound sterile.

There are also many examples of photographers who are technically brilliant but the prints lack any emotion, so the viewers have nothing to connect to.

[jcoldslabs]

For me I think it has to do with the development of emotion over time. Each of the media I mentioned (movies, books, music) is experienced over the course of minutes, hours, or days. If I become emotionally vested in a character I can be moved to tears when that character dies, mourns or loves. But a still photograph is just that: still. There is not enough time in the viewing of a still image for me to be moved to tears. Any emotions evoked by a photograph are evoked very quickly and then remain static.

Jonathan

[Roger Cole]

I have had tears triggered by still photos, but not really the photos themselves. Example: an online friend from a pilot forum I also participate in has a small daughter, just over three years old now, who had a malignant brain tumor removed in 2010, found when she was just 18 months. Just a few years back this would have been 100% terminal but now her prognosis for full recovery and a normal life was good, and they thought it was in remission. It just came back. She had surgery today. She did very well with the surgery but no word yet on results, prognosis, etc. except that whatever the surgeon found she will probably need more radiation; they knew that going in. Seeing her photo on Facebook today definitely got me misty eyed, but it was all to do with what I knew of the story, not the photo itself so much.

I think that's probably it. A still photo can be beautiful, ugly, moving, but in and of itself rarely tells enough of the story to move to tears. W. Eugene Smith's Minamata series could do it, but again not a single image in isolation without knowing the story.

[mdm]

A very good photograph dosent make you cry like a book or film because it is the cry. Like the scream painting that has just sold for so much, it may have a scream on the canvas but the painting itself is the real scream.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Could I ever cry over a photograph? Maybe if it did a painfully honest and realistic job of portraying a real-life horrific event against humanity... or maybe if I sold a photo for a million dollars... yeah the latter would surely make me cry.