“Little Darlings”, in photography, or any creative endeavor, are works that, for whatever reason, we feel a special affinity for and attachment to.
I have tens of thousands of “little Darlings” in my library.
More often than not, at least for me, it’s the photograph’s backstory that determines whether they become “little Darlings”
Sometimes the backstory of a photograph can influence how we perceive and evaluate it. We might feel more attached to a photograph that has a personal or emotional significance for us, even if it is not technically or aesthetically perfect.
On the other hand, we might overlook or dismiss a photograph that has a great composition or message but does not resonate with us personally. I think it is important to balance our subjective and objective views of our photographs.
Some might argue that “little darlings” are the expressions of the photographer’s personal style and vision, and that they should not be sacrificed for the sake of conformity or popularity. Others might suggest that “little darlings” are the obstacles that prevent the photographer from achieving clarity and coherence, and that they should be eliminated or revised to improve the quality and impact of the work. Ultimately, I think the decision to keep or kill the “little darlings” is up to the individual photographer, and their own judgment of what serves their artistic purpose best.
I’m sorta at an age and phase of photography where I don’t give a shit about what others say of what I treasure or take pleasure in, photography.
I like what I like. It’s that simple. I keep my “little darlings”. Always!
Every one of these photos has a backstory to me that is meaningful, heartfelt, and significant.
It doesn’t matter whether the photographs are technically or aesthetically perfect.
They are my “little darlings”.
Click
Jack
