There’s a contradiction that’s been nagging at me for years, and I’ve only recently found a way to articulate why it’s a false one. Photography feels, to me, like private work. The observing, the deciding, the moment of capture: all of that happens inside my own consciousness even when I’m surrounded by hundreds of other people. It’s meditative in a way that’s hard to explain to non-photographers. But then photographs exist as things that want to be shared, or that we feel pressure to share, or that escape into the world regardless of our intentions. Once they’re out, they’re genuinely out. They get interpreted in ways we didn’t intend, circulate in contexts we didn’t choose, and now get scraped for AI training without our knowledge or consent. I used to find this contradiction annoying. Eventually I realised I was treating two fundamentally different things as one.
Process and photograph aren’t the same object. They’re causally related but separate, with different purposes and different lives entirely. The process-object is the activity of photographing itself: going out, observing carefully, making decisions about what to capture and how, pressing the shutter. This has intrinsic value independent of whatever results from it. The photograph-object is what gets created: the image as a thing that can be viewed, circulated, interpreted, used. Once it exists, it’s already separate from the process that made it.
The photograph-object is inherently shareable even when it isn’t shared. Its existence as a viewable image means it could circulate, could be seen, could have effects beyond the photographer’s experience. That potential exists whether it’s ever acted on or not. When photograph-objects do get shared, they escape the photographer’s control. They enter contexts the photographer didn’t choose, serve purposes the photographer might reject. Sharing a photograph on Instagram means it stops being just your photograph. It becomes content for a platform, potentially training data for AI systems, raw material for algorithmic processing that you have no visibility into. The photograph-object acquires its own life, entirely separate from why you made it or what you intended.
This loss of control can feel like a violation of the process that created it. But it isn’t, because they’re separate objects. The process-object can’t be stolen or transformed or used for purposes you didn’t intend. It isn’t shareable. It exists inside your consciousness, and nobody else can access what you were experiencing, the internal work of observation and choice, simply by watching you raise a camera. What looks like public activity from outside is actually private experience. You can photograph for decades in crowds and the work remains entirely solitary.
The clearest evidence for this sits at the extreme end of the spectrum. Vivian Maier photographed compulsively for decades, accumulating tens of thousands of images, showed almost none of them to anyone, and left most of her film undeveloped. What makes her case philosophically useful isn’t that it’s typical, because it plainly isn’t. It’s that it’s possible. She called herself a photographer while sitting on an archive that had virtually no social life, which tells us that the process-object is sufficient to constitute a photographer even under the most extreme conditions. The fact that she’s now famous, that her photograph-objects eventually escaped into the world after her death and generated an entire cultural conversation she never participated in, only sharpens the point. Her process-object was complete on its own terms. The posthumous public life of her images belongs to a different story.
Most photographers, of course, don’t operate at Maier’s extreme. And here the distinction requires some honesty, because the process-object and photograph-object aren’t always as cleanly separate in practice as the theory implies. Anticipating an audience shapes the way you photograph. You compose differently when you’re building work for publication. You make different choices about subjects, timing, and approach when you know images will circulate. The feedback loop is real: photograph-objects going out into the world, getting responses, generating reactions, feeds back into how you approach the next process-object. Acknowledging this doesn’t collapse the distinction, but it does clarify that the separation is conceptual rather than absolute. What the distinction gives you is a way to understand which values belong where, not a guarantee that the two objects never influence each other.
The practical value of the separation becomes clearer when you look at where photographers tend to go wrong. Some become protective about not sharing work at all, treating any exposure of photograph-objects as contamination of the process-object’s private meaning. But sharing a photograph doesn’t betray the process that created it, because they’re different objects. You can’t share the process; it happened inside your consciousness and isn’t transmissible. When you release a photograph, you’re releasing something that was already separate from you the moment it was made. The process stays intact regardless.
The opposite failure is equally common. Photographers who photograph primarily for process find that external success with photograph-objects delivers very little: gallery shows, publications, social media following, all of that engages the photograph-object but does nothing for the thing they were actually seeking. You’ve succeeded at something that wasn’t your real purpose, and the emptiness afterwards is diagnostic rather than mysterious. It tells you which object you were actually after.
Digital culture and AI have made this distinction more urgent rather than less. Social media creates constant pressure for photograph-objects to have immediate social life, and maintaining any privacy requires active resistance against infrastructure designed to make sharing frictionless. The photograph-object’s potential social life becomes almost impossible to ignore even when you’d prefer to keep images private. AI training has made the photograph-object’s independent life more consequential: once shared, images don’t just circulate, they get transformed into training data, used to teach machines to generate synthetic images, contributing to systems that may eventually replace human photography as a commercial category.
If photograph-objects can be fed into that pipeline, the process-object becomes more valuable as the thing that can’t be extracted from it. Machines can produce photograph-objects that are visually indistinguishable from photographs made by humans. Whether they can replicate the process-object is a genuinely open question, and anyone claiming certainty in either direction is overstating what we know. What we can say is that the process-object, the experience of sustained attention to the world, of choosing what matters, of being physically present in a specific place at a specific moment, is not what AI systems are trained on. They’re trained on the photographs. The process remains somewhere else.
I photograph primarily for the process-object. The value is in going out, looking carefully, making choices, experiencing sustained attention to the world. Some photograph-objects get shared because they serve purposes: communicating ideas, connecting with other photographers, documenting things that matter to me or to other people. But sharing is optional and secondary. The process would continue with exactly the same value if nothing was ever shared, because the making is the point.
That doesn’t mean I’m indifferent to photograph-objects. Some of them matter to me. Some I want to protect, share carefully, or use for specific purposes. But treating them as separate from the process means I can engage with them strategically rather than as extensions of private practice. The process stays mine completely. The photographs can be public or private, controlled or not, successful or not. Those are different concerns operating in different registers, and the distinction between them is what makes it possible to photograph sustainably in an environment where photograph-objects increasingly escape into uses their makers never intended.
The contradiction I felt between solitary process and public objects was a confusion between two things that were never the same. You can photograph entirely for yourself and occasionally share photographs. You can value private practice and release some results into circulation. You can maintain the solitary quality of the process-object and engage strategically with the photograph-object’s public life.
They’re different objects. Understanding that difference doesn’t resolve every tension in photographic practice, but it does clarify what you’re responsible for and what you’re not.
#Photography #Opinion #IMayBeWrong #PhotographyTheory