Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Liam Clifford, Jul 3, 2017.
Take part in this week's poll.
In the spirit of things I've chosen the 'any distance' option - although I'd add the proviso that it'd probably have to involve a bit of a stay-over somewhere afterwards (and that they'd need to sell decent beer!).
I say 'in the spirit of things' because I don't drive - but I'll take the question as applying to buses, trains, aeroplanes, hovercraft, monorails, stagecoaches and any other suitable modes of transport!
I have frequently made round trips of 200-300 miles to get a photo that I envisaged - not infrequently having to repeat the trip several times because the light was not quite right when I got there!.
That is why amateurs like us often get better photographs than many professionals - we do not have to "balance the books" and can spend silly money and silly amounts of time in pursuit of our hobby. ("Silly" obviously being a relative term according to personal resources.)
This is a question more about what you are prepared to do to satisfy your desires, than about Photography.
It can also be a measure of the priority photography takes in your life.
Most day to day desires can be satisfied with very little travel.
However photographic subjects are spread far and wide and some travel is inevitable.
If you want to shoot a kangaroo in the wild, you must travel to Australia.
On the other hand many photographers never go much outside their local area.
Photography caters for ever taste and appetite, travel is just a by product of this.
What they said ^^^^^
First poll in a long time that I couldn't answer, seeing as I don't drive, never have done, doubt I ever will. I know, in this day and age . . . .
But being interested mainly in street photography I only need to go where there are people, preferably a crowd, so living in Edinburgh suits me fine, although I have been known to take the train through to Glasgow just for a change of scenery
Ah! The best thing to come out of Edinburgh - the Glasgow train.
I answered any distance because if I wanted that badly to take a picture of something I would. I could equally have answered no distance because by and large I take a camera with me and take what I find. I would say 50 miles radius defines a day out - very much further than that you spend more time driving to and from than walking about looking at what you came to see.
About fifty years ago my father, suffering from lung cancer, took my mother to a trip in the Peloponnese in the process getting a picture of the Lion Gate at Mycenae That pictures now hangs in my cottage and I I have spent 50 years wanting to go there and get my image, which I did recently. Ok I know it's not in the UK and I did not drive but I certainly travelled a fair distance to get it.
Incidentally father's image was in B&W and mine is in colour but I rather think that the monochrome one is the better image
This is one of those questions that are somewhat ambiguous, I'd drive any distance but it wouldn't be just for the image, it would have to involve much more than that. One year we went to Fairbanks to photograph the aurora then went to California and Death Valley, it was a two week trip. We have also been to the Bristol Balloon Fiesta, again including a night in a hotel and a visit to the zoo, the furthest just for photographs was a drive from Santa Fe to Albuquerque and back for the Balloon Fiesta (its about 100 miles each way almost the same as here to Bristol)
A couple of trips to Skye (from Edinburgh) were premised on the chance to see the aurora, but wouldn't have been made *just* for that. As it turns out we didn't see it there, but subsequently have seen twice less than 600m from home (and also on most recent Skye trip, albeit faint). I haven't answered the poll because I just wouldn't drive anywhere solely for a picture; I rather prefer to try to photograph whatever comes my way instead of investing time, money and effort on the idea of a perfect image.
Separate names with a comma.