You know how when you're on vacation you're trigger happy? I'm not saying it's a bad thing; I'm one of the gang. I've been known to take a crazy amount of pictures - in high resolution, no less - that have on occasion resulted in a frantic search for additional memory cards. A mad dash to the nearest store in whichever city, and then only do I breathe a sigh of relief. Actually, not even then - I almost always run out of battery towards the end of a long, happily satisfying sightseeing-y day. Of course, Murphy being Murphy, I'll miss the best photo ops just then. Sigh. Such is life. To combat that, I learnt to bring with me a fully charged cell phone; that way there's a (possibly feeble in terms of quality) backup, but a reliable one nonetheless. But just to plug the iPhone here (and no, I'm not getting paid for this), rest assured that the iPhone 5 does an awesome job. Not remotely feeble.
But back to the topic at hand.
I was in the middle of taking the most breathtakingly beautiful pictures at The Twelve Apostles, alternately gasping in awe (yes, it's that awe-inspiring) and peering through my (camera) lens. That's when I realised: do you really see as much as you should? Or do you merely view through the lens? Get the difference? While it may sound like merely a subtle nuance, I'm now thinking otherwise. In our rush to capture the image for posterity, do we then wind up actually seeing it only when home, while sorting through the myriad pictures? Would I have seen more, remembered more if I were to see the place, take it all in, absorb its magnificence - albeit sans a camera? I'm not saying no pictures, all I'm thinking out loud is, maybe a little less camera and a lot more eye.
So at The Twelve Apostles, while my camera did a fabulous job, my mind and eyes worked still better: those waves lapping at the rocks, the pristine sand, that wallaby in the wild, the gull soaring effortlessly into the blue... not all on the camera, and not stuff to be forgotten in a hurry.
But back to the topic at hand.
I was in the middle of taking the most breathtakingly beautiful pictures at The Twelve Apostles, alternately gasping in awe (yes, it's that awe-inspiring) and peering through my (camera) lens. That's when I realised: do you really see as much as you should? Or do you merely view through the lens? Get the difference? While it may sound like merely a subtle nuance, I'm now thinking otherwise. In our rush to capture the image for posterity, do we then wind up actually seeing it only when home, while sorting through the myriad pictures? Would I have seen more, remembered more if I were to see the place, take it all in, absorb its magnificence - albeit sans a camera? I'm not saying no pictures, all I'm thinking out loud is, maybe a little less camera and a lot more eye.
So at The Twelve Apostles, while my camera did a fabulous job, my mind and eyes worked still better: those waves lapping at the rocks, the pristine sand, that wallaby in the wild, the gull soaring effortlessly into the blue... not all on the camera, and not stuff to be forgotten in a hurry.
2 comments:
The way i do it is... i first see the view and only if I enjoy it then i click it. at times even i feel that clicking is being too much but those are very few and far to take note :)
True. :) Can't get into those oh-I-took-the-most-pictures-while-on-holiday contests.
But I'm referring to those who barely reach a monument/ view/ whatever, and then proceed to hog it for eternity. First, pictures of themselves - with hat, without hat, with glares, glares on head, waving, smiling, pouting - and then some more pictures to include family and dog. Neither do they enjoy the view, and definitely don't let you, either. Sometimes, this phenomenon is also compounded by loud shouts and behests to the aforementioned family and dog for taking said photos. Aargh.
Post a Comment