The photos left behind...

So most of you probably haven't heard of this, but the Aussies around here probably would have.
3 of the ABC (Australia's) best newsmen were killed in a helicopter crash last year, a reporter, a cameraman, and a pilot. Read about the full story here. Anyway, the last images and stories they were working on have just been released as a book (that first photo looks amazing). Nice tribute to the three of them.

Anyway, got me thinking about a bit of a morbid subject, what would you like to happen to your pics if that were you? Would you want them published (including possibly raw-processing and manipulations on unfinished shots)? Delete the whole lot? Would you want to be remembered as an artist in this way? Are your photos even worth thinking about, there's a lot more important things like the wife and kids etc (Or are you like me, once the shutter's been pressed then the fun's been had, move on to the next shot and don't look at most of them again?)

I'm reminded of Franz Kafka, one of the greatest writers of about 100 years ago. He left in his will specifically for his friend to burn all his books and manuscripts and writings. Instead, this friend published them, so now the rest of the world knows how great a writer he was. How would you feel?

Anyway, no specific questions, just musings, I open up the floor to the rest of you...

To start with something a bit OT, I have long wanted to see and photograph Lake Eyre in flood, but it so far hasn't happened. With 4 floods in the last 3 years and then 11 years a dry salt pan, this is a trip you just cannot plan.

My general lack of creativity led me to watch and record (this is legal in Aus) documentaries on photography. Many of the documentaries in my collection are about famous photographers and how their work is interpreted, hyped and sold for every increasing profits by dealers.

A few years back somebody found a suit case of Robert Capa negatives, most of these pictures had never published, yet they are now sold as limited edition prints. If the photographer didn't think that they were good enough to be published, then they shouldn't be sold. They should be kept as a free historical archive of the collected works.

Now days you see unknown photographers being made famous by others, as they rack in the money. See the "Disfarmer" documentary, but make sure you watch the last 10 minutes for the rub.

My photo's are for me and the ones I love. I often go back and look at the photos I have taken over the last 10 years of digital. I have all the "Best" on the home NAS so that they can be viewed (TV, Computer, Phone etc) at any time. Although the term "Best" should be called "Best at the time", as some make me cringe.. did I really take that shot.

For those who are not Nerds like me, I would recommend putting your best photos on a home network, it's just like having a time machine. With one press of the remote you can look back on great memories.

For me there is no difference between a great photograph and a great painting. Just as Vincent would only stop painting when he stopped breathing, the passion to create is everything.

I don't care what happens to any of my possessions once I'm gone because they have no value. Although the thought of me being seen as another Disfarmer does make me laugh. If there is a retrospective of my work it should be called "Nobody every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public".

Tony

There is a similar story of a woman who worked as a nanny in (http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/) the CBS news piece on the bottom of the page explains much - but it is an interesting question they end with on if she hadn't published them, why do we feel compelled (other than many of the images are compelling) to publish them now?

The interesting thing about a good photograph, particularly a street px with people in act of living, is that the moment will never happen again, yet it is recorded for all time.