28 September, 2006 | Leave a Comment

I have become a manic photo-taker recently. I have taken more photos of Paris in one month than I took in London all last year. I’m not quite sure what’s gotten into me, but taking photos has actually helped me feel more connected to the city so I keep doing it. To capture Paris and its sights in images, I’m forced to look at it in new ways. This has been therapeutic for me. I spend a great deal of time “inside my head” — because of the nature of the work I do, because of my writing, because I over-analyze and think too much about virtually everything. Photography uses a different part of my brain and I think that’s been helpful. And the great thing about digital photography is that there’s no film or developing, so you can take as many photos as you want and it costs nothing. I also think my new Flickr account has made a huge difference, because it has forced me to download, organize and edit my photos, which used to be just a huge mess. So thanks to the two of you who recommended I open one.

I’ve come to discover it is very difficult to take good photos of Paris. The city is stunning in its beauty, but this does not translate well into pictures (or at least my pictures). In particular, I have not been able to take even one semi-good photo of a Paris streetscape. So often I’ve stumbled upon a quintessential Parisian view, snapped a photo and then at home discovered it was nothing but dark shadows. Never before have I experienced such a complete disconnect between what I see with my eyes and what the photos reveal. This problem is to do with the light in the city and how it plays off the buildings, I suppose. I’ve written before about how difficult it is to capture the essence of this city in words — the same goes for photos too. It’s maddeningly elusive, this City of Light.

I am a total amateur photographer, though I did work as the photo editor on two books pubished by Simon & Schuster, one to be released next week. (More on that later.) Working as a photo editor didn’t make me a better photographer, though it did teach me how to haggle with photographers, soothe their huge egos and carry their equipment. But I learned very quickly that what a professional does is vastly different from what the rest of us with cameras do. For one thing, their cameras are nothing like ours. Nothing. [The vast majority of photograpers I've worked with will only use film too.] Because of the nature of the books I worked on, we frequently did shoots in people’s homes. And to a fairly basic shoot — of a couple sitting on a sofa, for example — they’d bring a van full of equipment and fill the person’s home with lights and a whole mess of things. And then when we’d get the contact sheets back, with hundreds of thumbnail images, there’d only be a couple usable shots. Which is why they take so many, of course. [In my New York magazine days, I only went on shoots a couple times (which was worth it for the free catered lunch). But even after taking photos of the beautiful people, there'd be hundreds of shots but very few good ones. You'd be surprised how many models and movie stars only look good from certain angles. Ahem. At one teen magazine where I worked, they could only find one decent photo of the magazine's cover model winner, even though they had dozens of pages of contact sheets. I feel it's my mission in life to share these stories.]

There is a point to this rambling. I’m trying to say that when it comes to photography, I am and will always be a happy amateur. And this is important. I realized recently that almost all of my hobbies involve writing somehow — and when it comes to writing, I am very competitive and hard on myself and driven. This does not a hobby make. I do like to travel and I enjoy cooking, but I do not have a kitchen that will allow me to indulge this passion — I mean, I don’t even have an oven. And last year in London was the same. So my hobbies involve writing and books and that doesn’t make me very well-rounded. Taking photos is relaxing for me and I’ve even started to figure out what all those buttons on my camera do. It’s fun to do something that allows me to explore and forces me to admit I have no clue what I’m doing. Sometimes it’s important to just play.

Tags: photography, paris

1. Comments RSS | TrackBack URI

1. Rebecca Says:

   September 28th, 2006 at 8:06 pm

   Honey, I don’t know what you’re talking about with your pictures. They’re beautiful! I especially love the rear view of Notre Dame. I think the buttresses are very beautiful. The picture of Champs Elysees is also very nice.

   Perhaps you mean the ones that don’t make it to your Flickr account though… Anyway, as a confidence booster, the professional photographers for my sister’s wedding (who were former photo journalists and took magazine quality photos of the wedding), took over 3,000 photos. They approved 375 for my sister to choose from, and would not allow her to see the rest, stating that they were not up to their standards.

   This is the beauty of digital. At least you’re not wasting loads of 35MM film!

2. caroline Says:

   September 29th, 2006 at 1:10 am

   i agree with the only use film rule. it accomplishes things that digital never will. i’m fifteen but in these fifteen years of experience i have found only one camera that i care to call my own. the lomography lca- it’s never taken a shot that disappointed me! the lighting and mood is always perfect on it! it’s as if it nutures and milks the light in the photos for all its worth before i print them. my camera is an artist and a poet!^.^

   photography with film is classical, difficult, admirable, has more manipulative techniques, and is infintely more romantic!
   by the way, i super super super love all the photos you’ve posted. they give me a sense of paris and i enjoy looking through them.

3. Anglofille Says:

   September 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pm

   thanks so much ladies! you are too good for my ego.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website