A few weeks ago, I got the news that a dear family friend had passed away without warning. This lady was very special to myself and my family and I had known her since I was a little girl.
Since my parents are very conservative in both thought and lifestyle, you could count on one hand the people that they felt comfortable leaving me with as a child. This lady was one of those people. My parents knew that while I was at her house and with her family, I wouldn't be exposed to anything that they didn't approve of. She is the only person that I can remember ever watching me while my parents went on dates.
I attended a memorial service for her this past weekend and one of her daughters said that she remembered going into the kitchen as a little girl and seeing her mom's Bible lying on the table where she had just finished her devotions. Then, her son said that the morning she was found passed away, there, beside her bed, stood her open Bible where she had read from it the night before. The common thread was that she had her devotions daily.
Boy. I can't begin to describe the feelings I had as I sat and heard that. Just a few that I can put a name to were thankfulness for having known her, awe at how dedicated she was and over it all, conviction. If I passed away suddenly is that what someone would find beside my bed? My open Bible? I (shamefully) have to say, no.
This lady was sweet, caring, generous, loving, quick with laughter and praise and she constantly gave of herself and her possessions to help anyone and everyone that she came in contact with.
That was not a result of her own doing. It was a result of the time she spent reading her Bible daily.
Without a doubt, the Lord blessed her with those attributes above, however, without her consistency in the Word, I wonder how far the results of those attributes would have reached?
Person after person stood up to testify to how she had impacted their lives. Two young men stood up and called her "mom" even though they were not her children by blood.
The slideshow they showed at the memorial had a picture of the inside cover of her Bible. On the page was written, "Read the Bible til it's dirty & it will make you clean."
This dear lady lived that. And in doing so, she ministered and helped so many others.
The beauty, grace and godliness I saw reflected in her life is challenging me to put God first, give Him more of myself and read His Word faithfully.
Proverbs 31:30 - Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
Sara <3
Showing posts with label challenge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label challenge. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Photograph, The Photographer, or Both
I have been thinking (that can be dangerous so tread softly...). As a photographer, I love it when people compliment me on my images. (Although it shouldn't), first of all it gives validity to the knowledge that I am a good photographer. Secondly, it lets me know that I am touching my viewers thru my work (and isn't that what every photographer wants?). But when it comes to photographs of people, what should be showing up first? What should the viewer be seeing first in those images?
Should it be the photograph (the actual subjects in the image), the photographer (how great their interpratation of the image was, how techically correct it is, how moving it is) or both those things working together that should first capture the minds and hearts of viewers?
While a small part of me says it should be the photographer (because didn't the photographer create the image and record it?) another, bigger part of me says that it should be the image itself that initially captures the audience.
What is the purpose of photographing anything? People, birds, dogs, cathedrals, waterfalls...The list could go on forever.... I think the purpose of a photograph is to capture a moment in time and record the emotional qualities that moment gave.
If that is true, then when someone looks at an image, in a sense, they own it. They see in it things that I can't see. Therefore, it is not how great the photographer is that is prevalent but how an image speaks to the viewer. The photographer captured the moment (and emotion in the moment that they felt) but the primary purpose of the image is not to showcase the talent the photographer has. Does that make sense?
I feel that I am putting all this very poorly but does anyone kinda get where I'm going?
Now, I do believe that there are times when the photographer's talent is the main focus of an image but only in certain cases should it be the most prominent focus. Like at an art exhibit showcasing the photographers work.
There are also times where both the photograph and the photographer work together and should be complimented as such. Maybe with a hard to photograph subject (a child who will not cooperate and the photographer somehow gets them to smile), or when there is a challenge in lighting, composition, etc and the photographer figures it out and creates a beautiful finished product.
Anyway, that's some rambling thoughts for this morning. I hope they weren't too incoherant.
I'd love to get your opinion and thoughts on this idea....
Sara
6:41 PM
I came across this amazing, heartfelt post that is a MUST READ while browsing thru the blogs I follow. In a sense, it ties into this post. But make sure you have kleenex handy, it made me cry!!! It's well-worth the read.
Should it be the photograph (the actual subjects in the image), the photographer (how great their interpratation of the image was, how techically correct it is, how moving it is) or both those things working together that should first capture the minds and hearts of viewers?
While a small part of me says it should be the photographer (because didn't the photographer create the image and record it?) another, bigger part of me says that it should be the image itself that initially captures the audience.
What is the purpose of photographing anything? People, birds, dogs, cathedrals, waterfalls...The list could go on forever.... I think the purpose of a photograph is to capture a moment in time and record the emotional qualities that moment gave.
If that is true, then when someone looks at an image, in a sense, they own it. They see in it things that I can't see. Therefore, it is not how great the photographer is that is prevalent but how an image speaks to the viewer. The photographer captured the moment (and emotion in the moment that they felt) but the primary purpose of the image is not to showcase the talent the photographer has. Does that make sense?
I feel that I am putting all this very poorly but does anyone kinda get where I'm going?
Now, I do believe that there are times when the photographer's talent is the main focus of an image but only in certain cases should it be the most prominent focus. Like at an art exhibit showcasing the photographers work.
There are also times where both the photograph and the photographer work together and should be complimented as such. Maybe with a hard to photograph subject (a child who will not cooperate and the photographer somehow gets them to smile), or when there is a challenge in lighting, composition, etc and the photographer figures it out and creates a beautiful finished product.
Anyway, that's some rambling thoughts for this morning. I hope they weren't too incoherant.
I'd love to get your opinion and thoughts on this idea....
Sara
6:41 PM
I came across this amazing, heartfelt post that is a MUST READ while browsing thru the blogs I follow. In a sense, it ties into this post. But make sure you have kleenex handy, it made me cry!!! It's well-worth the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)