
I remember it was getting closer to the end of summer, and I had been talking to a friend about cameras and photo composition. This was right after I had ordered my Klik Camera, which was still en route. If I recall correctly, we were texting details about the camera: her friend had been using one, and I had read almost every online article I could find about it. There was a lot of excitement surrounding our conversation, as we both agreed that it was well worth the investment. I remember telling her that she should totally purchase one, too, for her travels and other miscellaneous adventures. Half-truthfully and half-jokingly, she responded, “So… I might’ve dropped, like, 500 bucks in a week…” but even so, she was certainly interested in purchasing one in the near future. That being said, out of excitement, she began brainstorming all the cool and unique places she would take the camera to capture, quote-unquote, “good” pictures. That sparked a question in my mind: Do photos need to be taken in special locations for them to be considered “good”?
With this in mind, I began to wonder, “Why is our default assumption ‘good’ photographs come from ‘good’ places?” I paused the conversation for a moment and looked up from my phone. It took me a second to collect my thoughts, but I realized something fundamental: the “good” in a photograph doesn’t necessarily come from something “memorable” or “important”; it comes from the amount of attention and intention the photographer puts into taking the photo. Sometimes, if not most of the time, a photograph can be beautiful without a massive, famous castle or a giant statue of Jesus (sorry, Rio). You could walk through your flower garden at home and, with enough care and effort, take a shot just as fairytale-esque as the tulip fields in Holland. Beauty can be found in the places directly around you—in the ORDINARY, not necessarily an entire plane ride away. It all depends on how much time you are willing to spend behind the LENS.
-Al Lykon

Leave a Reply