Weekly Poll: People or Places?

[Nicole]

Last week's poll was kind of different because there were a few choices when we asked how much memory you carry when you go out photographing. Most people carried more than 2GB (74% of people actually).

This week we're back to having to pick one choice or the other... and I'd like to know, which you prefer to photograph: people, or places?

People photography, well, that's pretty easy to define, isn't it? Taking pictures where people are the main subject. So, portraits, street photography, wedding photography, anything where everything else comes second to the people involved.

Places, however, that's a lot broader. Places in this context isn't constrained to just landscapes, because there is a lot of detail to be considered within the landscapes. But in this situation, people are not the main focus. And for argument's sake, we'll also exclude animals from this because you can do portraits of animals.

So, tell us, which do you prefer? People or places? Why? Are you just shy or do you prefer pictures without people. Are you a diehard fan of Ansel Adams and therefore you prefer landscapes? Or are you a fan of Annie Leibovitz, so your goal is to take pictures of people like she does? So, vote, tell us why, and don't be afraid to pick one We had a fantastic response last week, so come on and share

[wulf]

Places. Well, mainly various "things", including lots of flowers. It's not people so I guess that leaves me with places. Not least because flowers don't expect an immediate result, so you can take things easy on getting the pictures off the camera, and they aren't going to want prints done...

Wulf

[ike]

Places -

They aren't as fussy as people, they dont complain if you miss the good side, dont complain if you take a while to setup your shot. I really like doing architecture and landscapes so they dont involve people which makes it easier.

ike,

[katkero]

Places. I rarely take photo's of people. Mainly I think because I don't like posed photo's.
If I take photo's of people it's mainly their backside (don't ask me why I don't know why).

[rediguana]

I think places and things is certainly the side of photography that I am more interested in. I think I find it more challenging than taking photos of people. I agree with quite a few of the aforementioned vagaries of photographing people. As I usually fall on the slightly introverted side of the spectrum, I'm generally not the sort that would ask someone if I could take a photo of them.

[AeroRob]

Places for me, although i do enjoy snapping people, it just comes down to confidence ...Oh and the mood i'm in...

Rob.

[peeperita]

places here too...

they are so much easier than people....i can be shy, nervous about the shot, anxious about the set up time, and completely freaked about asking permission.....people move and change expression.....places just stand there patiently smiling while i think out the shot......

that's why the strangers assignment is gonna be a real challenge for me.....

peeper

[Saralonde]

Places - or things - like most people here. I take candid pics of family members, but I am not confident enough to do much more than that.

[jdepould]

People, I've been shooting a LOT of sports recently.

[underexposed]

Well...as a newbie, I like my subject to stay still as long as I want them to. I also like to shoot birds, although they are tougher suibjects than people. I think most reasons for me not photographing people have already been listed by other members.