Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Terrible Creative is a storytelling podcast for photographers, designers, and creative professionals working through the parts of the creative process no gear review or business course ever covers.
Each episode is 30 to 40 minutes. Solo. Story-driven. Built around mental health, artistic identity, and what honest work costs in a career rewarding performance over truth.
This is not a photography podcast about cameras, presets, or client strategy. This is a podcast about the inner experience of being a creative professional, made for the mid-career photographer or designer who has mastered the technical side but lost the thread.
Hosted by Patrick Fore, commercial photographer, author, and former lead photographer and brand designer for Taylor Guitars. His work has appeared globally for clients like Nike, Petco, and Verizon. He built this show because none of the podcasts he found addressed the real problem.
If you are a photographer or creative professional who feels competent on the outside and quietly lost on the inside, you are a Terrible Creative. This is your podcast.
London. 1886. A respected doctor stands before a mahogany-framed mirror. In his hand, a crystal vial. He’s a man of science, a man of standing. He tells himself he will only do this once.
He drinks.
He doesn’t grow horns. He doesn’t sprout claws. He simply becomes... lighter. The weight of Victorian morality, the heavy wool of his reputation—it just slides off his shoulders.
The first time, it simply requires the right chemistry. A vial. A ritual. But by the end of the story? It doesn’t. Hyde eventually stops waiting for an invitation. He just... arrives on his own.
A model, sitting in a wide open studio, shifts her weight on an apple box under the warm dim glow from the large parabolic umbrella.
"Carlie, can you bring your Chin down for me? Good."
"You’re being a little guarded, Carlie . I can feel the wall you’ve put up."
"Breathe through your mouth... just a hair. It looks more... authentic."
"Carile The shirt is fighting the light. It’s too much fabric—it’s distracting from the vulnerability I'm looking for."
"Just... slide the strap down. All the way. Let’s see the skin of the shoulder. It's for the 'story,' remember?"
"Now... don't look at the lens. Look at me, Carlie. I want to see you."
And Carlie, does.
The first time you do this, you tell yourself you’re serving the Art. By the third time, you realize you’re just serving the Access.
My name is Patrick Fore, and this is The Terrible Photographer where we have honest conversations about creativity, identity and finding your voice.
This is Part 5 of this series that I’m doing I’m calling Heresies. This particular episode might get me into trouble, but I'm here for it. But above that though, this is the episode that should make you feel a little uncomfortable. Perhaps more than any other episode I’ve released.
We’ve spent this series talking about the external forces that threaten our creativity. We’ve deconstructed the gear cults, mourned the death of the still image, and vented our frustrations at the algorithms that turned our art into "content."
But today, we’re putting down the shields. We’re taking a long, hard look in the mirror.
I’m going to be talking primarily to the men in the room today, but this isn’t about gender politics. It’s about Power. Specifically, the unique, intoxicating power we hold the moment we pick up a camera.
How that power is being weaponized. How the "Artist" label is used as a cover for manipulation and exploitation. We're talking about men who use our craft to access and control others—all while telling themselves, and the world, that they’re just "capturing the soul."
This isn't just about "those predators" out there. It’s about the shadow in all of us. Because if you don't think you have a Hyde, you're the one most likely to let him hold the camera.
This is Episode 54, I’m calling The Hyde.
This one's uncomfortable. This one's aggressive. And this one matters.
And before we get into it, here is an important question I need to ask you, especially my male counterparts:
If this episode makes you defensive, ask yourself what you’re defending.
If this is your first episode, welcome. Feel free to jump around—they're in no particular order. And as always, you can email me anytime. My email's in the show notes. I read everything.
So, with all that said, let's get into it.
We all think we know the story. We’ve seen the cartoons and the Halloween masks. But right now, I want you to forget the year 9 SparkNotes version and look at what Robert Louis Stevenson was actually whispering about in 1886 in his novel The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
It’s London. Late October. The air smells of sulfur and coal smoke. Inside a house of heavy velvet and polished silver, Dr. Henry Jekyll stands before a mirror. He is a man of impeccable posture. He is "celebrated." He is the kind of man whose reputation is so pristine it’s become a cage.
He swallows the mixture.
There is no theatrical lightning here. No CGI bone-snapping. There is only… relief. The cage door simply swings open.
The first time, it requires chemistry. A vial, a ritual, a specific decision. But by the end of the book, the potion is a formality. Hyde begins to slip out while Jekyll is sleeping. He emerges during a walk in the park. He stops waiting for permission because, eventually, the "good man" and the "monster" share the same pulse.
This story isn't Victorian science fiction. It’s a study of the mechanism of permission. It’s about finding a loophole that lets you act on your darkest impulses while still being able to look the "good man" in the mirror the next morning.
I think about that story more than I’d like to admit. Because photography has its own potion.
It this particular potion doesn’t glow. It doesn’t bubble. It just… clicks.
You hang a camera around your neck, and suddenly, the social contract changes. A lens is a glass barrier that grants you the right to do what others can't.
It gives you Permission to Stare. In a coffee shop, staring is a transgression. Behind a viewfinder? It’s "observation." It gives you Permission to Direct. To tell a stranger to move, to breathe, to arch, to yield. It gives you Permission to turn a human being into an object and call it "the craft."
Most of the time, the process is clinical. You’re worried about the catchlight at ten o'clock or the way the highlights are clipping on the silk. You’re Jekyll. You’re the professional. You’re the "Artist."
But sometimes… someone else meets Hyde.
Hyde doesn't bark or growl. Hyde speaks the language of the industry. He says: "I’m not exploiting; I’m exploring." He says: "I’m not using power; I’m directing." He says: "This is Art—if you’re uncomfortable, you just don’t understand the vision."
The camera doesn't make a man a predator. But if there is already something in you that craves the quiet obedience of a room… if you like the way people go silent when you speak… the camera is a very polite way to let that shadow breathe.
The potion isn't the problem. The loophole is. Because the story was never about the monster. It was about the man who wanted an excuse to be one.
Photography is just the potion.
And this isn't theoretical.
Audio Montage Section
BRIDGE: INTRODUCING THE TIERS
Patrick: (Deep breath) There aren't words for that.
To be honest, listening to those clips makes me want to put my gear in a box, tape it shut, and never touch a camera again. It makes the craft I love feel… dirty.
I look at my hands, I look at the lens on my desk, and I think: How? How could you take this incredible tool—this thing meant to find light and capture the literal soul of a moment—and use it as a weapon? How do you look through a viewfinder and see a target instead of a human being?
It’s a special kind of betrayal. It’s using a scalpel to wound instead of heal.
And that’s why this conversation is so goddamn important. Because the men in those headlines didn't just hurt those women. They poisoned the well for every one of us. They turned our "permission" into a threat.
But here is what we have to realize: Hyde doesn't start with a news headline. He doesn't start with a police report. He starts with the small things—the micro-aggressions we’ve spent years ignoring because we didn't want to "make it weird."
This isn't binary. It’s not "Predator" vs. "Saint." It's a spectrum.
And the spectrum matters because most of the guys moving along it don’t think they’re the monster. They think they’re Jekyll. They’re "professionals." They’re "artists." They have the rationales and the stories they tell themselves to sleep at night.
But we have to be brutally honest about the far end of that line.
For some of these men, Jekyll is dead. He’s been gone a long time. There is no internal struggle left; they’ve been entirely hollowed out. What’s left is Hyde, wearing the title of "Professional" like a skin-suit. He doesn’t care about the art. He is simply using the camera as a high-tech skeleton key to get into rooms he should never be in.
At that end of the spectrum, the camera isn’t a tool of expression. It’s a lure.
But the descent follows a map. I’ve spent years watching the patterns. Hyde doesn’t always look like a villain in a cape; usually, he looks like a guy with a Sony and a "vision."
I see him in four distinct tiers:
The Amateur who uses the camera for access.
The "Artist" who uses aesthetics as cover.
The Specialist whose focus is... uncomfortable.
The Professional who uses power to normalize the abnormal.
These aren't speculations. They are patterns that have been hiding in plain sight for a long time. If you've spent any time in this industry—shooting, modeling, or just watching—you've encountered at least one of them.
Probably all four.
So, let's walk through them.
1. The Tourist of Flesh
There's a guy in every city. Several guys most likely.
Recent camera purchase. Model Mayhem profile. "Building my portfolio."
Reaches out to new models. Always "artistic nudes." Always "exploring the female form."
His portfolio is bad. His lighting is flat. His composition is amateur. Over processed.
But that's not the point. I don’t care that his images arrrre amature.
The point is: he gets to be in a room with a naked woman, usually, young, naked women.
Photography gives him permission. To ask her to pose. To direct her body. To stare without consequence.
This is Hyde wearing, borrowing Jekyll's coat.
Tier 2. The Aesthetic Architect
Then there's the guy with actual skill.
He has good lighting. Clean backgrounds. Knows his way around a camera.
His Instagram is "artistic nudes." Carefully composed. Generally well-lit. Technically proficient.
And somehow always 19. Somehow always thin. Somehow always posed in ways that feel... not quite art.
He tells himself—and anyone who asks—that he's "exploring the human form." That he's "celebrating beauty." That this is art. This is his art.
But his portfolio looks like softcore porn with slightly better lighting.
Ask him why he doesn't shoot older women. Different body types. Men.
He'll say: "I shoot what speaks to me artistically."
What speaks to him is suspiciously identical to what a straight man finds sexually attractive.
This is Hyde claiming to be Jekyll.
Tier 3 - The Specialist
Now we get to the tier that makes parents like me lose sleep. I’m calling this The Specialist.
This isn't the guy shooting the local Little League team or the high school football game. This is a very specific, very narrow niche, but very present group of photographers. One that I think is important to address.
His portfolio is a relentless loop: exclusively adolescent girls. Aged 13 to 16. In leotards, in swimsuits, in gymnastics gear. They are in mid-air suspensions, deep splits, or intense, "moody" close-ups.
Now, on the surface, he has his talking points ready. He calls it "capturing the grace of the athlete." He calls it "the art of movement."
But when you look closer, there is a total vacuum of context. No connection to the world of dance. No daughter in the sport. No background in athletics. Just a man with a high-end, high resolution camera and a specific interest in the most vulnerable demographics of youth sports: dance, gymnastics, and swimming. And here is where Hyde shows his hand: The Defensiveness.
If you ask a professional architectural photographer why they only shoot brutalist concrete, they will give you a twenty-minute lecture on geometry and light. But when you ask The Specialist why his portfolio is 100% adolescent females, the answer isn’t a lecture. It’s a reflex.
"This is my job. This is an art form. How dare you question my motives? Are you calling me a pedophile?"
No. I’m asking why you have a specialty that requires zero variety. Why no adult dancers? Why no male athletes? Why not the grit of a soccer match or the sweat of a track meet? Why specifically the sports where the line between "athletic wear" and " vulnerability" is the thinnest?
In this industry, we know that patterns tell stories. And a pattern this specific usually reveals a truth that the "Artist" label is trying to hide.
[CLIP - TIKTOK AUDIO]: "Why were there always male photographers at our recitals? Photographing us in our leotards? And why did our moms hire them? Looking back... that was just weird."
That creator isn't calling for an arrest. She’s just pointing out the "weirdness." And she’s right. It is weird. It’s a situation that isn’t necessarily illegal, but it is fundamentally "off."
It’s the "specialist" using the camera as a bridge to a world he has no business being in.
This is Hyde at his most manipulative—pretending to be deeply offended that you even noticed the pattern. He uses the sanctity of "Art" and the "Work" as a shield, betting on the fact that you’ll be too polite, or too afraid of confrontation, to call it what it is.
But if your "art" requires a specific age and a specific lack of clothing to be "graceful"... you aren't a specialist. You're just a predator with a portfolio.
Tier 4 - The Untouchable.
Then there's the professional. The big name.
Reputation. Portfolio. Major clients. Works with top agencies.
And rumors. Whispers. Models who won't work with him again but won't say why publicly.
The industry knows. Keeps hiring him anyway.
Because he's talented. Because his work is edgy. Because "that's just how he is."
Until one day, the cost of protecting him becomes too high.
Then suddenly everyone claims they "didn't know."
This isn't hypothetical.
Interview from HuffPost - Terry Richardson
0:00-4:28
This is Hyde in full view. And Jekyll standing by saying "I didn't know, let’s not rock the boat.”
In 2012, the Model Alliance released a study that sent shockwaves through the industry. They found that 87% of models had experienced unwanted sexual attention from photographers.
Eighty-seven percent.
At the time, we told ourselves it was a "wake-up call." We promised to do better. But here we are. According to the 2024 #MeToo National Report, the needle hasn't moved. In fact, for women in creative and freelance spaces, the rates of workplace harassment have remained stone-cold steady since 2018.
And the specifics are even more damning. Recent data from late 2025 shows that nearly 90% of models still report being asked to undress on set without any prior warning or mention in the brief. One-third report inappropriate touching during the shoot.
This isn't a "few bad apples." or historical footnote. This is a rotten orchard that we are completely unaware that we’re standing in and not talking about.
But here is the part where I have to be honest with you—and with myself. Because it’s easy to look at those numbers and point at "those guys." The predators. The monsters. The ones who make the news.
It is so easy to look at those four tiers—the amateurs, the "artists," the specialists, the professionals—and think: "Not me." But I have to be honest with you. This isn't just about predators. It’s about Shadow. And not just theirs. Mine. Yours. Anyone who has ever felt the weight of a camera in their hands.
Because Hyde isn’t always a monster in a dark alley. Hyde is more subversive than that.
Hyde is the quiet, intoxicating ego stroke you feel when a model says, "I trust you." He’s the rush of validation that comes from being needed. He’s the high of realizing you can move a human being like a piece of furniture—and they will let you.
It isn't always sexual. Most of the time, it’s just Power. And power feels good.
Listen I’ve felt it. I’d be a liar if I said I hadn’t. There is a moment on every set—brief, quiet, and dangerous—where you realize you are the master of the space. The model is looking to you for direction. You tell her how to move, where to look, how to breathe. And not just the model, the stylist, the hair and make up artist, the assistant. All looking to you for direction. And in that moment, you feel important. You feel in control. You can feel the power go to your head.
That isn't predatory. But it is a version of Hyde.
So this isn't about "those guys over there." This is about a constant, daily self-audit. It’s about asking yourself: What does this camera give me permission to do? Am I using that permission to protect the person (or persons) in front of me? Or am I using it to serve a need I’m too afraid to examine?
Because once you realize the camera gives you power, you only have two choices: You can be a steward of that trust... or you can feed the thing in the mirror.
ACT 2: THE PERMISSION
Photography gives you things most people don't get:
Permission to stare.
In normal social contexts, staring is aggressive. Invasive. Creepy.
But photographers get to stare. That's the job. Study the subject. Analyze the light. Frame the composition.
The camera makes staring professional.
Permission to ask for vulnerability.
"Can you remove your jacket?"
"Can you lie down?"
"Can you arch your back more?"
"Can you give me more sensual?"
In normal contexts, these requests would be harassment.
But photographers get to make them. Because they're "directing the shot."
Permission to be alone with someone in a vulnerable state.
Model. Naked or nearly naked. In a private space. Following your directions.
In what other profession does that dynamic exist beyond doctors without being immediately suspicious?
Permission to control the images.
You decide what gets shot. What gets edited. What gets published. What gets kept.
The model trusts you won't misuse them. But you have all the power.
And the "artist" label provides social cover.
If someone questions your motives: "This is art. You just don't understand."
If someone asks why all your subjects are young attractive women: "That's my aesthetic."
If someone points out the power dynamic: "You're sexualizing my work. This is about beauty."
The camera gives you permission.
The "artist" label gives you protection.
And underneath? Hyde gets to act.
When I bring this up with other photographers—the exploitation, the power dynamics, the pattern—I get the same responses:
"But the models say yes."
"The models want to shoot."
"Some models like the attention."
And it makes me sick.
Not because it's completely false. But because it misses the entire point.
Yes, models say yes. But consent under power imbalance isn't clean consent.
Let's be clear about the power dynamic:
You're the photographer. You control the shoot. You control the direction. You control the images. You control what gets published.
The model? She's following your lead. Trusting your expertise. Hoping you'll make her look good. Hoping this will lead to more work.
You have the power. Not her.
And when someone with power asks someone without power to do something, "yes" doesn't always mean "I enthusiastically want to do this."
Sometimes "yes" means:
"I don't want to seem difficult"
"I don't want to lose this opportunity"
"I don't want to make him angry"
"Everyone else does this, so I guess I have to"
"If I say no, he won't hire me again"
If the energy changes in the room after you ask, you already know.
Think about every other profession where someone has power over someone vulnerable:
Teachers and students. Doctors and patients. Bosses and employees. Therapists and clients. Police officers and a citizen.
In every one of these contexts, we recognize that the power imbalance makes "consent" complicated.
A freshman college student might "consent" to a relationship with a professor. But we still call it exploitation. Because the teacher has power.
A patient might "consent" to a doctor's advances. But we still call it malpractice. Because the doctor has power.
Do you see the pattern here?
But photographers? We act like the power dynamic doesn't exist.
We act like "she signed the release" is the same as "this was ethical."
It's not.
And here's the other uncomfortable truth, something I’ve argued countless times to male photographers of all ages.
18-19 year olds make decisions that aren't always in their best interest.
Listen, I'm not saying they're children. I'm not saying they can't consent to anything.
But I am saying: A 19-year-old model who's been told her whole life that her value is her appearance, who's trying to break into an industry that chews people up, who's being directed by a 44-year-old photographer with a reputation and a portfolio—
That 19-year-old might say yes to things she wouldn't say yes to if the power was equal.
Not because she's stupid. But because she's young. And because the power dynamic makes it hard to say no.
And as the photographer—as the person with the power—it's YOUR responsibility to recognize that.
Not hers. Yours.
The fact that she's willing to do it doesn't mean you should ask her to.
I've had models offer to remove clothing that wasn't on the shot list.
I've said: "We're good. We got it."
I've had models ask if I want them to pose differently. More sensual. More exposed.
I've said: "No, the brief is what we agreed on."
Not because I'm morally superior.
Because I know: She's not offering because she wants to.
She's offering because she thinks that's what I want.
Or because she thinks it'll get her more work.
Or because that's what she thinks "professional models do."
My job, our job, is to hold the boundary. Not hers.
There's a question that changes everything:
Ask yourself: If a video of this entire shoot—every word, every direction—was played back for a room of your peers, or let’s take it up a notch, a judge in a court room - would you look like a craftsman? Or would you look like a man using a camera to get what he wants?
If the thought of a witness makes you sweat, you’ve already crossed the line.
THE SILENCE
A model told me about a shoot once.
Commercial client. E-commerce work. Clear brief.
Photographer was established. Good portfolio.
She showed up. Expected a team. Just him.
First red flag. But she's professional. Continues.
First few setups are fine.
Then: "Can you remove your bra? It's showing through the shirt."
Reasonable, technically. But not discussed beforehand.
She does it. Feels uncomfortable. Doesn't want to seem difficult.
Next setup: "Let's try something more sensual. Client wants skin."
She asks what the client requested specifically.
He deflects: "Trust me, I know what they want."
She told me: "There was this silence. After he asked. Where I was calculating.
Do I say no and risk him never hiring me again?
Do I say no and seem unprofessional and difficult?
Do I do it and hate myself after?
That silence probably lasted three seconds. But it felt like an hour."
She finished the shoot. Felt violated but couldn't name how.
Later, she found out: other models. Same photographer. Same pattern. Same language.
He never did anything illegal. Never touched her. Never explicitly coerced. She technically consented.
But he knew exactly what he was doing.
And he's still shooting.
ACT 4: WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
So why am I talking about this?
Why does this matter to me as a male photographer who doesn't shoot the kind of work these guys shoot?
Because every time a photographer exploits a model, the trust erodes.
And when trust erodes, safety becomes choosing a female photographer.
Not because all male photographers are predators.
But because enough are that pattern-matching is just safer.
That's what happens when trust is broken repeatedly.
The innocent pay for the guilty.
And the craft suffers.
But more than the lost work, this pisses me off because it hurts the craft.
Photography is a tool. Like a scalpel. Like a pen.
And when you use a tool to harm people, you ruin the tool for everyone.
Look, I love photography. I love what it can do. I love the stories it can tell. I love the way it captures light and moment and humanity.
And I hate, hate….. that the craft I love is being co-opted by predators who use it as permission.
And here's what makes this systemic, not just individual:
The industry sometimes rewards this.
Agencies push for "edgy" work. Which often means sexualized.
Brands quietly hire photographers with rumors because they "get the vibe."
The aesthetic and attention based economy we’re in, monetizes youth. Thin bodies. Sexualized poses.
The male gaze isn't just individual photographers.
It's baked into commercial photography.
What sells? Young women. Attractive women. Women posed in ways that appeal to male desire.
There is an undercurrent of economics to all this.
So when a photographer builds a portfolio of sexualized images of young women and calls it "art," he's not defying the market.
He's serving it.
It's on us. Not the models. Us.
We're the ones with the power. We're the ones with the camera. We're the ones controlling the shoot.
The model's job is to show up and trust us.
Our job is to be worthy of that trust.
And if you can't handle that responsibility, you shouldn't be shooting.
MY OWN RECKONING
I need to tell you about a shoot I did early in my freelance career. I was green, hungry, and—to be blunt—I was reckless.
It was a fitness shoot. The client wanted to build her "influencer" portfolio. She suggested we shoot at her apartment complex gym. I said okay.
Mistake number one: I showed up alone. No makeup artist. No assistant. I couldn’t afford them - she was only paying $500. There wasn’t any witness. Just me, my gear, and a 22-year-old woman in a private room.
We started normal. Squats, warm-ups, standard fitness stuff. But then the energy shifted. She said she was sweating, that the shirt was in the way. She took it off. She was in a sports bra—technically still in the lane of "fitness." I kept shooting.
Then the poses got provocative. Not "fitness" provocative—suggestive. And then, it happened. She sat on the end of a weight bench and started to move her hand down her shorts.
I froze. I asked her what she was doing. She looked surprised. She asked, "Do you have a problem with it?" I said, "Yeah. This isn’t the scope. I’m not comfortable with this."
I packed my bags. I got out of there. But as I was driving home, I wasn’t feeling like a hero. I was feeling like dumbass.
THE FALLACY OF "BUT SHE STARTED IT"
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. I’ve heard it in conversations with photographers. Someone right now is saying: "See, Patrick? Sometimes it’s not the photographer. Sometimes it’s the model."
And you’re right. It is.
Sometimes the person in front of the lens has their own agend. Sometimes they want to push boundaries. Sometimes they want to use the "model" label to explore things they shouldn't be exploring in a professional setting. Or worse, they are looking for something more destructive like to harm or extort.
But here is the hard truth we have to swallow: It is still your fault.
I fucked up that day. Not because I did something predatory, but because I was lazy. I was too cheap to hire an assistant. I was too "cool" to insist on a third party. I was too stupid to realize that by being alone in that room, I had removed every professional safety rail.
Anything could have happened in that gym. It would have been her word against mine. I had the "fancy gear," but I had zero protection.
I let it continue longer than I should have because I was experiencing my own version of the Fear Response—I was afraid of the confrontation. I wanted to "keep things light." I didn't want to be the "un-cool" photographer who killed the vibe.
That is Hyde in his most pathetic form: The Coward.
STEWARDSHIP VS. STUPIDITY
Most of the "horror stories" in this industry don't start with a villainous plot. They start with unprofessionalism. They start with a male photographer who doesn't want to pay a MUA for a four-hour booking. They start with "let's just shoot at my place to save money." They start with a refusal to send a shot list because "I like to be spontaneous."
When you strip away the professional structure, you are inviting the shadow in. You are creating a vacuum where power can be abused—either by you or against you.
If you are the one with the camera, you are the steward of the room. That means it is your job to build the fence. It is your job to say: "We don’t shoot alone." It is your job to say: "If it isn’t on the brief, it doesn’t happen." We use our power to protect the model, yes. But we also use our power to protect the integrity of the craft. Because every time a shoot turns "weird"—even if the model initiated it—the entire industry takes a hit.
If you’re too lazy to set boundaries, you’re not a professional. You’re just a guy with a camera, waiting for something to go wrong.
Here's my protocol now:
Never shoot intimate work alone. MUA or stylist on set. Always.
Shot list or moodboard sent 48 hours in advance - must be signed. Wardrobe discussed. No surprises.
Contract specifies what won't happen. Not just what will.
Before the shoot, we talk about expectations. Review the moodboard.
Model can end shoot anytime. No questions. No pressure.
My goal is simple, No Surprises - ever. On both side.
Not because I'm virtuous.
Because I learned from failure.
And because I know: power corrupts. And I have the power.
So I build systems that protect the model. And protect me from myself.
I don't know if I'm Jekyll or Hyde.
I just know I'm a mixture of both.
And photography gives me permission to let one of them act.
Listen Hyde never disappears.
The camera will always give permission.
The power will always feel good.
The responsibility never goes away.
I don't trust photographers who say they don't have a Hyde.
I trust the ones who admit they do.
And build systems to contain him.
This isn't about perfection. It's about vigilance.
Every photographer has power. Power always distorts perception.
The work requires constant self-audit.
Not once. Continuously.
Why this subject? Why now? Why them?
What does this give me permission to do?
Am I serving the shot? The client? Or am I serving my shadow?
If you can't answer honestly, you shouldn't be shooting it.
In Stevenson's story, Jekyll loses control.
Hyde starts emerging without the potion. Takes over more and more.
Until Jekyll can't come back.
At first, he needs the potion.
By the end, he doesn't.
Stay curious. Stay courageous. Stay terrible.