I am right between the two.
I lived in SF for almost 20 years. Now that I have a camera(s) again, I wish I was still there.
If you are into "Street Photography" you really need to be in a Big(ish) city.
You guys that are in:
NYC
Phili
LA
Boston
Chicago
etc etc
are very fortunate.
I live in a place of 25k people. There is nowhere near the Hustle and Bustle, or the number of characters, or just the sheer bulk of humanity and architecture that are required for street photos.
We do have good opportunities for landscape...and there are trains. We are on one of the smaller, Union Pacific, main lines (the original Trans Continental Railroad). We also have AMAZING sunrise and sunset opportunities for people of color.
Oh, I would say it is perception. It's the same problem many photographers impose upon themselves - "I can't possibly take good/interesting pictures where I live - nothing is interesting there. I must spend thousands of dollars to travel to foreign lands to take good/interesting pictures". Well, learn to see what's interesting in your hometown, no matter how big/small, and you'll take much better pictures in the foreign land when you do go there. I live in Washington DC, which is a medium-sized city. It would be easy to say that in my neighborhood I've seen it all and there's nothing interesting, I need to go somewhere else. And for a while, I did think that way. Then I started making myself walk around my neighborhood (a ten block radius of my house) and photograph what I saw in that ten block radius. And I started seeing all kinds of things. Now, I take much better pictures when I travel because I've learned to see what's in front of me, at the moment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?