# Not taking a photo



## W.Y.Photo (May 17, 2015)

It's been a while everyone!! I hope TPF hasn't missed me too much!!

       A thought came over me tonight so I wanted to stop in and hear people's thoughts..

       Are we facing a dilemma of photo taking addiction in the photography community? Has the digital era ruined out ability to slow down and focus on the really important things in front of us?

       The point I'm trying to get at is that a common photographer before digital imaging would shoot a roll a day.. That's 24 to 36 images people!! Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only shoot 20-30 images per day!! I'm beginning to think that knowing when not to take a picture may be an important skill that our generation of photographers is slowly losing.

       Thoughts?


----------



## Forkie (May 17, 2015)

I actually love the digital age approach to photography.  I love that everyone takes photos of everything.  

In future generations, there will be such a comprehensive record of history and photos will have been shared so much and by so many, that I think it will make for a much more understanding, tolerant and enlightened society. 

Whereas, in days gone by news took hours or days to reach the rest of the world, it now takes mere minutes.  People can respond to world events immediately.  Take the Nepal Earthquakes as an example.  The sheer amount of money raised for aid _on the very day_ of the quake was unbelievable.  Money that will go to help the rescue effort and to rebuild those people's lives.  

_Artistic_ photography is the same as it's ever been, I think.  It's just that it's much easier to distribute now and I think that's a good thing.  There can never be too much art in the world.  The more, the better.  Society will be more educated, more expressive and more open minded.  Society will see more beauty than it ever has before and I think that will help develop a much more social world where ideas can be shared and discussed more openly.

The old saying that "A picture speaks a thousand words" is more true today than it has ever been.  We live in a visual world and I think it will be a better future world for it.


----------



## snowbear (May 17, 2015)

There are many things that have grown, become more accessible, or become easier seemingly overnight due to some technological "break through": automobile travel (Interstate highways), writing and publishing, accounting, (personal computers and appropriate software), even gourmet cooking (various kitchen gadgets and cooking related CATV networks).

Yes, we are being "flooded" with millions of images each day.  Many of them are just snapshots without much value beyond the pleasure and memories they give to the takers and their friends, but I'm willing to bet that many people have developed a higher interest in photography or are working to improve their photo taking, as a direct result of digital.


----------



## Designer (May 17, 2015)

Or when to not keep one.  Or twenty.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 17, 2015)

Digital is as digital does.


----------



## limr (May 17, 2015)

There are many reasons why I still shoot film, and actually one of those reasons is because it forces limits in a way digital does not. I like shooting only 24-36 pictures at a time. When I use my digital camera, even though I probably still shoot fewer pictures than many others, I still end up with a lot. The sheer volume of pictures is overwhelming, just as the sheer volume of information that is now available to us at our fingertips can also be overwhelming. Will people appreciate photographs even more because there's so much out there and it's easy to access or even create? Or will they become desensitized and bored and no longer value a really great image because these days, a great image is a dime a dozen? For every person who may discover photography in a way they never would have before, is there another person who is fed up with the barrage of Instagram images and its filters and decides that it's so common as to be meaningless?

I'm not knocking the information technology that we all live with now and the great things it has done, but it's no utopia and there are costs. The constant competition for our attention can actually be harmful for us (for one example: Why the modern world is bad for your brain Science The Guardian I think it's more harmful for some who can't manage it, who get totally caught up and lost in it all. Others manage to set self-imposed limits to mitigate any harmful effects.

So yes, I do think it's valuable for people to slow down and really concentrate on something. For photographers, perhaps that's taking fewer pictures sometimes. Purposely take only one SD card, for example, and be sure to shoot RAW so you fill up the card quickly. For chefs, maybe it's grinding your own spices by hand once in a while. Or for anyone, maybe hand-write a letter once in a while instead of an email.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 17, 2015)

Naw....

Yes.

I still shoot film (and Polaroids, etc.) but do have a digital camera. I tend to shoot more with that but not nearly the numbers many people describe. I've done sports and events and could go thru a few rolls in a day/evening and other times I'll just take a few pictures and the film may be in the camera for some time. I don't think people are necessarily developing proper skills in using cameras because the thinking seems to be they can fix it later,

I don't think many of the photos that we find 'everywhere' will even exist someday. I doubt a lot of people will ever even get them off the phones, or won't continue to maintain their pages on various websites, and will realize they don't have pictures of a lot of the important events in their lives. Eventually people may realize the value of actually taking a picture but I guess time will tell.

Seems like with a lot of the technology there are good and bad aspects of it (smart phones and texting and driving, etc.). It's nice to be able to share photos but there's such an excess right now with the ease of posting photos online. There are websites that seem to be taking advantage of people who aren't photographers to have the knowledge or expertise to realize that the company may be using photos with little compensation for unlimited lifetime usage.

I think some of it will run its course and the still to some extent novelty of it will wear off eventually.


----------



## Gary A. (May 17, 2015)

Unlike most film photogs on this forum ... I had free film. All I could eat. I was tempered only by the thought of development and tried to cap my exposures to four rolls of film per assignment. Not every assignment was a four roll assignment, some were more most were less, but four rolls was a benchmark. 

With digital, I not only shoot as I was trained ... but even more so. I do not shoot many subjects which are static. So I shoot a lot because with non-stationary subjects, you never know what will happen next. But as Designer pointed out ... it is all about the editing ... what to process and what not to process.

I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (May 17, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.



This is my problem, and kind of what set me on the path to thinking about this. I'm spending way to much time In post because of how many images I've been taking and I've also been noticing a lack of quality in my images when I sit there and take 20 pictures of something rather than spending that time to take 1 or 2.


----------



## Gary A. (May 17, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> It's been a while everyone!! I hope TPF hasn't missed me too much!!
> 
> A thought came over me tonight so I wanted to stop in and hear people's thoughts..
> 
> ...


Knowing when Not to take a picture = Previsualization ...  (maybe).

Another of my monologues on previsualization. Seeing the final image in your mind's eye prior to releasing the shutter will go a long way as a primary step towards not capturing crap.

Quality over quantity is good. Another example: I was shooting President Ford. We were all in the roped off photographer section of a hotel in Newport Beach. We all had motordrives and we knew how to use 'em. Next to me was a guy from Time-Life. I remember him as if it was yesterday. A tall guy in a grayish suit. He had a tripod. He was the only one shooting stills with a tripod. He was the only one shooting stills sans motordrive.  Every single time Ford flinched or sneezed we'd ripped off a dozen frames, all of us except this guy in the gray suit. He waited ... he waited until he saw something unique ... until he saw something he liked ... then click. We were Rambo compared to this guy who was an assassin ... a sniper ... a single shot ... a single click and he got his photo.

I would love to have the confidence to shoot that way. That guy had huevos, big brass ones.

I used to crop in the camera. Even if the horizon was a bit off kilter, I'd toss the picture and look for another to print as opposed to fixing it in the darkroom. All my pictures had those silly and arrogant Henri black borders around the picture. I need to get back to that level of photography.

Yes, shoot less but shoot better. Shoot like the guy in the gray suit.


----------



## unpopular (May 17, 2015)

Unlike SOME people  I never had much money for photography. Shooting 4x5 I'd spend up to an hour setting up the shot. It was a careful, expensive process - that always brought a sense of pleasant anxiety when I exposed the film. Over the 30s waiting for the exposure, I'd go over in my head that everything was checked, that my development times were the right choice, that I did all my compensations correctly.

I've always been a cautious. For me photography is a spiritual experience. I "feel" a location, I don't "make" photos, I see them. I'm not always in that headspace (I haven't been for a while now). I'm not when I'm on family outings - I don't have the meditative concentration when I'm focusing on  my wife and the kids. Naturally, this isn't the only philosophy to have, a studio, portrait or still life or product photographer will naturally have a different approach - for them, they make images.

But I think that having some discipline is a good thing. Sure, we all edit though our photos, weeding out what images are "print worthy". None of us are perfect. But choosing a great image amongst hundreds of "OK" ones is far less likely than choosing a great image amongst hundreds of good ones.

Maybe a bit more controversially, is it really photography if you're just pressing the button and hoping that something comes about worth keeping? Certainly there is a difference between taking successive action shots or obtaining the essence of a model's performance. This isn't quite what I am referring to. Rather, is it really photography if you cover every angle of a subjects indiscriminately and pick the best one? I think that's more of a process of editing.


----------



## Overread (May 17, 2015)

Thoughts:

1) If you're limited to 36 or 10 or 20 or however many shots in a period of time then yes you will become more selective in what and how you shoot; that is both a good and bad thing'
a) Good thing - it means that you'll pick situations where you are most confident in your skill; and also situations where the event is so unique or important that even if you've not the experience in that situation you will still use all you know to take a shot. Chances are you'll slow down a bit since you'll only get one try so you'll try to make sure you meter correctly. 

b) Bad thing - it means that you'll pick situations where you are most confident in your skill. Yep that's a bad thing too because it means that you're playing it safe more of the time than not. You don't try for quick shots; or experiments as much and you might well pass by some great shots because you don't think they'll be as good as they could be and because you're waiting for something good to appear to use that shot for.

2) Nothing forces you to shoot digital nor film differently from each other (save that gunning it in film will cost you a fortune). You can shoot digital slow, as slow as you honestly want. Heck if you really must you can stick a low capacity memory card into it to reduce the number of potential shots you can take. The limitation of film that "forces you" is totally your own mental construct thus you can shoot digital just like it if you so choose. 

3) That guy standing next to you who takes 1 shot all day and walks away - yeah maybe he's a pro and that one shot wins every single prize ever. Maybe its rubbish. If you never see the results you'll never know.
Though I'm willing to bet if the guy has spent the last 30 odd years doing photography that its going to be a pretty good shot - film/digital doesn't matter really - its choice and decades of experience. 

Personally I prefer the freedom digital gives you; yes it means that many of us learn to expose correctly by taking a shot and checking the histogram (film users did this too; that's why they had polariods); yes it means that sometimes we'll take shots, maybe a lot, outside of our comfort zones - but that's a good thing. It's learning and trying new things. 

In general I think that key isn't that film makes you think more - its that you're just lazy when shooting digital. You can think more for 100 or 300 shots a day. Nothing stops you save yourself and your own choice


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > It's been a while everyone!! I hope TPF hasn't missed me too much!!
> ...


i like the idea of this. Unfortunatley i took some years off from photography. so i have a lot of catching up to do. So i shoot ALOT. with different cameras.  I don't do it looking for the perfect shot. I do it because i want to get to the point i have shot so many damn photos it has become second nature. without thought. just do it. Physical memory. something.

So i take a LOT of photos. I want to get to the point that whatever camera i pick up i can go take a photo without even thinking about it and have the majority keepers. The ones that have shot consistently for forty years already have this down. since my photography track record has been inconsistent, i think i need another couple hundred thousand photos under my belt. So far, it seems to be working. The real test is when i slow down to concentrate on a shot. And how easily it comes. It isn't in in the thousand i just took. But in the one that matters grabbing the camera and having it just work. More you do anything, you would think the better you get at it. This is kind of where i am at. Not sure i care too much about what others do. I do self restrict with film. with digital , pretty much go to town. Camera wears out i will get another one it is pretty much disposable. It might be the wrong approach though. Maybe i should just concentrate on one camera, one or two lenses and try to perfect each shot shot. I seem to be on the other path though, shot with whatever, and shoot a lot.

What killed me in photography is i didn't consistently stick with it. Not that i haven't been doing it for years. Just not consistent. I also didnt keep up with the changes, so a wealth of information i missed out on. Plus after photography class originally, i never reached out for more education. so i lack in both experience equivalent to my years from not sticking with it consistently, not improving education wise, and not keeping up to date with the changing times. so i feel i have a couple or few hundred thousand frames to catch up on. If i had found a occupation in it, or made myself stick with it over these last thirty years consistent. i would be much further along. In the meantime, i crank out lots of photos, and most i really don't give a chit it is more of going through the practice than anything. Gaining experience. so when i see something i won't even question it if i can shoot it. Just on experience and sheer amount my answer to the question will be "yes". Some care about individual single photos, i am not so much like that. i care about how easily i just shot a thousand of them and how many are keepers.


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.
> ...


here is the thing. Ask yourself what you gained taking those twenty photos. And if you shoot film too, that will self limit you on occasion when you do that.

Mostly, if you buckle down and just shoot ONE photo of something. You might find all those times you racked up shutter counts weren't wasted.  The experience gained when you are racking up shutter counts might pay of in spades.


----------



## snowbear (May 17, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.
> ...



I don't take that many shots at a time but I do take a lot of junk shots.  The easy answer is (as a couple have pointed out) learning to edit.  I will quickly run through a set of shots and select what I think are the keepers, concentrating on composition, overall exposure and focus.  Those that pass that test get a closer look and I decide whats going to post.  Everything else is archived.


----------



## paigew (May 17, 2015)

I am 120-something days in on my second 365 project. In the beginning of my first project I shot a crazy amount every day. Hundreds of images obsessing over getting that "perfect shot". As time has gone past I am focusing less over getting that perfect shot and capturing every moment. Now a usual day consists of about 1o-15 minutes of shooting and 30 or so frames.

There are so many reasons why I limit my shooting time. One is to be present in my life, to not always see life from behind a camera. Another reason is because my images are personal, I love them all. As @limr  said the sheer amount is overwhelming. Photography means so much to me, and I view my photography as a labor of love for my children.   I am sad when I think about how many photos I take that no one will ever see. There is no way I can print 100's of images per day and no way that my grown children would be able to sift through hundreds of thousands of digital files. So now I shoot, get a few shots I love and put the camera away. I print the photos monthly for an album/wall display.


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2015)

paigew said:


> I am 120-something days in on my second 365 project. In the beginning of my first project I shot a crazy amount every day. Hundreds of images obsessing over getting that "perfect shot". As time has gone past I am focusing less over getting that perfect shot and capturing every moment. Now a usual day consists of about 1o-15 minutes of shooting and 30 or so frames.
> 
> There are so many reasons why I limit my shooting time. One is to be present in my life, to not always see life from behind a camera. Another reason is because my images are personal, I love them all. As @limr  said the sheer amount is overwhelming. Photography means so much to me., it is an integral part of who I am and I view my photography as a labor of love for my children.  * I am sad when I think about how many photos I take that no one will ever see. There is no way I can print 100's of images per day and no way that my grown children would be able to sift through hundreds of thousands of digital files*. So now I shoot, get a few shots I love and put the camera away. I print the photos monthly for an album/wall display.


this has occurred to me. I second guess occasionally.  Suppose i just stopped thinking the photos matter. It is the skill improvement in taking them that matter. Most of the photos, aren't worth anything. My wife asked me about that. why sometimes i will take five hundred photos and just delete them all. Well, i didn't really take them for the photos themselves.....  and if a photo is that important then there is a  pretty good chance i can just go retake it unless it is from travel or by chance i shot a wedding (which has only happened once so is really not even in the equation)


----------



## Derrel (May 17, 2015)

This thread has multiple diamonds in the rough in it! So,so many interesting photography-related issues, like Paige W's desire to have a life, and to live it, and at the same time to capture good moments...the time to NOT shoot--there's a place for that, a time to put the camera aside (maybe not put it down...but at least 'aside'...lol) and to just BE, to just experience the moment. That's a good thing, to be mindful, and aware, and fully immersed in one's life and experiences, and not fussing about focal length, f/stop, and aperture with a big camera, or any camera. But so many of us love to shoot, so we take pictures of things, maybe too often, or too much of the time. iPhone snaps, Android snaps,big Canon snaps, big Nikon snaps, little FUji snaps, whatever...

That desire to shoot all the time; is it maybe just a desire NOT TO MISS OUT on "getting the shot"? I think in many cases, yes, constantly shooting, or shooting all types of events and situations when other, regular people are NOT using their cameras, might be a sign of_ photographerus intensus obsessionus_, which is a disease there is no known cure for. But it can be ameliorated with a smartphone or a very small digital camera, loaded with a high-capacity memory card; the underlying disease never goes away, but the victim feels better about having the disease...

I dunno...the fundamental WAYS in which photos are both made/taken and how they are used/shared have both changed remarkably in the digital age. Photos made today come faster and more frequently, and are consumed more quickly, and are replaced by newer images much,much faster than old-style photos which were shot on film, then printed, then shown and displayed as prints; photos today are consumed very quickly, and there are many photos made every second, without much delay between the *click* and the *showing*; there is no more, "Your Kodachrome slides will be back in from severn to 14 days." 

There is no cultural reason today for a song with the lyrics, "Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away." Kodachrome is dead, discontinued. Kodak went into bankruptcy. Kodak used to have over 30,000 people in New York, engaged in making film; according to a recent statement by one of their senior execs, they now have about 300 people making film. The old method, of taking far,far,far fewer images on film is an idea that, globally, has been replaced by taking crap-tons of digital snaps. Snaps of coffee; snaps of meals; selfies; snaps of all sorts of ephemeral moments. The idea of NOT shooting, of NOT mashing on the clicker button, is one that is not really widely accepted. I think it is because shooting photos on digital is as addicting as crack or heroin...or other types of behavior/reward activities.

Not saying shooting film is bad, not saying it's good, not saying digital is good or bad, but the actual, observed sociological impacts of digital capture, combined with really high-capacity memory cards and smartphones, in-camera editing and in-phone editing, and instant, global sharing of images--all those things have fundamentally CHANGED both photographic practices, methods, and the way hundreds and hundreds of millions of people use photography, do photography, share photography, and how they create photography. There is no going back...Pandora's Box has been opened...this is like gunpowder once it became weaponized; we left the quaint,pretty fireworks era behind...this is like the Industrial Age for photography now. Common people used to own one or two sets of clothing, made of hand-woven cloth, and hand-sewn, and repaired and repaired and repaired until it became threadbare; after the power loom and the sewing machine were invented, clothing became affordable, and common. We're smack dab in the middle of a similar revolutionary shift with photography.


----------



## Joves (May 17, 2015)

I have many times I do not take the photo. Now this was not the case when I switched over to digital. At first I was blazing along and taking shots. It was the whole wow I can take a lot of shots complex. After the first year, and noticing that most of what I shot was crap. I put myself back into the film mindset, and got smaller cards so the shot count was truly limited. The only time I carry an extra card is when my current one is almost done. Now I will admit there are times where I may shoot a lot, but in reality that is rare. 

Now I play with the Picture Control settings since I shoot in RAW+Fine to try and get it as right as possible in the camera. I am picky about what I shoot again, and am more deliberate. This also means I do not sit and do a whole lot of post work. I know that to some that is an anathema in the modern age. I have always hated post work since my darkroom days. I can do it, but I do not like it.  Oh I also still sometimes use an actual notebook to record shots. 

I will say though that there are many times when I am return to someplace that I am trying to get that money shot of that because of digital I will still shoot it, as where if I was still using film, I would not have. So the one thing about digital that is good is that a trip is not a total waste of time, and gas. Even though digital has made it easier, it still relies on the same principle to get the shot, and that is the right light. I do not believe in wasting the effort of raising my camera when it is not right.


----------



## sleist (May 17, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> I'm beginning to think that knowing when not to take a picture may be an important skill that our generation of photographers is slowly losing.



For me, digital has changed the point were the decision is made.  I walk down the street and shoot anything that catches my interest.  It's when I get home that I take out the hatchet and cull the stuff that isn't worth my time.  Every shot you don't take is a missed opportunity.  Don't get me wrong, I don't shoot anything and everything, but shooting everything when I started taught me what not to shoot now so I don't waste as much time when shooting.  And that's what is really being wasted now - time rather that film.

What I think is missing is the ability to self critique - and I'm sure that was also a problem in the film days as well.  It just wasn't in everyone's face like it is today with the internet.  People take a lot of shots and don't spend any time trying to learn what is and isn't good and why.  The successes are happy accidents and internet points reinforce the process. 

Slowing down to take a sh1tty shot isn't going to make a sh1tty shot any less sh1tty.
I'm all for shooting as much as possible, provided you are learning something along the way.


----------



## Gary A. (May 17, 2015)

I have a Fuji X-Pro1. It is a slow camera. It does everything slow compared to my 1Ds.  I had to completely rethink how I shot digital. With my dSLRs I could shoot in a reactionary mode. As in ... "Hey, look at that... ", then boom, boom, boom, I shot it. With the XP1, by the time the camera focused the desired image was gone. I had to remember how I used to shoot film and anticipate the shot. With the XP1, I had to think about what I was doing, think about what I wanted, then get setup and wait until the peak of action then ... boom ... release the shutter. My keeper ratio went up but the total number of keepers went down. In the beginning I missed a lot of shots.  Shooting in a reactive fashion made me lazy. Shooting with an anticipatory methodology is a lot harder, but it made me a better shooter.


----------



## limr (May 17, 2015)

Overread said:


> b) Bad thing - it means that you'll pick situations where you are most confident in your skill. Yep that's a bad thing too because it means that you're playing it safe more of the time than not. You don't try for quick shots; or experiments as much and you might well pass by some great shots because you don't think they'll be as good as they could be and because you're waiting for something good to appear to use that shot for.



All good points you made, though regarding the above comment, I'll say that I'm just as likely to fire off some "what the hell" shots or try different techniques as I am to take a picture that is a known quantity. It depends on the situation and the gear I'm carrying. Some cameras I have are still relatively new to me so I tend to take "easy" shots until I get to know the camera. If I'm using the K1000, for example, a camera that I know like the back of my hand, that's when I'll take the trick shots or the experiments or the quick street shots. The better I get to know a camera, the more likely I am to try to stretch the abilities of that camera.


----------



## Solarflare (May 18, 2015)

Uh-hu.

No the common photographer didnt shoot a single roll _per day_. They just bought enough film and changed the film.

Also: so the 200km/h car is too fast and if I have an accident at that speed I'll be dead for sure. Still that 200km/h car can also be driven with 50km/h and then I'll probably be good for sure no matter what accident happends - unless of course the other car is faster than 50km/h.

Same with digital cameras ... I dont think I'm sad that I dont have to waste a moment to change the film every 36 frames, but instead have the security of being able to take up to about 1000 shots if I see a reason to do so. Still, nothing is FORCING me to take hundreds of shots.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 18, 2015)

Part of the trouble connected to digital photography is that people increasingly live in societies which crave instant gratification, which, of course, digital is able to supply. It can very quickly become addictive, and, as with any other addiction, the more it gets a hook in its victims, the more the victims need to satisfy their habit. Saying that it is possible to be selective about what one takes photos of and to use the same type of restraint as was the norm in the days of film photography is all very well, and perhaps many people can do this, but there are obviously many many more who cannot. 

What I personally enjoy about digital is not having to wait until the roll of 36 is full, which could be frustrating and even led to my wasting the last few frames at times. Nowadays, I can go out and typically shoot 15 to 20 frames and transfer them to my computer when I get in. Ah, instant gratification.


----------



## Buckster (May 18, 2015)

In thinking about this on and off for the past 24 hours or so since the OP, I've come to the conclusion that I really just don't care what anyone else does, individually or collectively.  I don't care if they shoot 1 frame per month or a thousand frames per hour.  I don't care what their skill level is.  I don't care what their keeper rate is.  I don't care if it cuts into their so-called "quality" time that could have been spent doing other things.  I don't care if the world is getting a gazillion times more photos than anyone can see or care about, and I don't care what percentage of them are crap, or great, or never to be seen.  I don't care if "the photographer community" is losing something because digital means not having the limits film had.  I don't care about any of it.

All I care about is that I'm doing what works for me - to fulfill ME.  I don't personally shoot hundreds or thousands of frames per day or per session.  I compose and dial in for a shot, perhaps using a couple shots to get my comp and exposure right; Maybe even a dozen or more shots if I'm setting up staging and lighting in studio, then I get a couple shots max that will be used to make the final "keeper(s)", and I'm done shooting that subject.

That's just what works for me.  I don't care if it works for anyone else, and I don't feel like it's ever been any of my business to advise or assume that anyone else should do it that way, or any other particular way.  Everybody's got to just do what works for them, whether that's 1 shot per month or 10,000 shots every day.  If they're doing something that doesn't work for them; Making them anxious or tired or bored or feeling out of control or anything else, then that's on them to deal with - nothing for me to fret over or wonder about.

I don't honestly understand all the hand-wringing angst I see over this type of subject matter that seems to come up almost constantly on this forum, but hey, whatever floats your boats.


----------



## waday (May 18, 2015)

Completely agree with @Forkie and @Buckster.

The times they are a-changin'. Keep moving forward, don't get stuck in the past. If you want to slow down, worry about the present. Don't worry about what happened decades ago or what will happen next week. Slow down, worry about today.


----------



## Dave442 (May 18, 2015)

It seems that my efforts to make a fast change of a roll of film was just one more of the things that became useless with digital.


----------



## Overread (May 18, 2015)

Buck - part of discussions like this is sharing how we all do things. How we approach the hobby and relate to it. It's interesting to hear how others do things, how they approach situations or deal with day to day engaging with the hobby.

Sometimes such discussions are purely personal and won't have any real effect upon how we act. Other times we might read someones comment and description of how they do things and the justification for that approach and we'll go "actually that sounds like a neat idea maybe I'll try it too for a bit" and suddenly we find something new. Maybe it just goes into the toolbox of skills; maybe it suddenly becomes a new focus for our hobby. 


Sure how I do something won't instantly  change how others do it, no one expects it to. But sharing that information gives the potential to others to benefit from it.


And yes if you don'e a hobby for 10-20-30 etc... years then chances are you've tried a LOT of things already. Much of what is said is things you've already done; already tried; maybe even inspired in the one talking about it now - so sure the value of learning new insight is diminished. So sometimes the joy is purely in the sharing and furthering of others understanding. Other times there's that gem that outlines something new, or outlines something you know about, but puts a new twist,  a new angle that opens up new ideas and possibilities for you.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 18, 2015)

Why not just buy a really really small memory card that can only hold 50 or less RAW files then that's all the pictures you can take in one outing. Its just like film used to be only better.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 18, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Part of the trouble connected to digital photography is that people increasingly live in societies which crave instant gratification, which, of course, digital is able to supply. It can very quickly become addictive, and, as with any other addiction, the more it gets a hook in its victims, the more the victims need to satisfy their habit. Saying that it is possible to be selective about what one takes photos of and to use the same type of restraint as was the norm in the days of film photography is all very well, and perhaps many people can do this, but there are obviously many many more who cannot.
> 
> What I personally enjoy about digital is not having to wait until the roll of 36 is full, which could be frustrating and even led to my wasting the last few frames at times. Nowadays, I can go out and typically shoot 15 to 20 frames and transfer them to my computer when I get in. Ah, instant gratification.



Instant gratification was around before digital photography. What about the Polaroid camera? Take a picture then magically there it is, in your hand. You could even instantly hang it on the wall when you get home. No editing or printing involved at all. Now that's instant gratification.


----------



## sashbar (May 18, 2015)

Last weekend I spent 2,5 hours on the street with my digital camera. You know how many photos I have taken?
Zero. Zero shots. I even felt a bit proud of it. I am glad I am getting more selective.


----------



## bribrius (May 18, 2015)

sashbar said:


> Last weekend I spent 2,5 hours on the street with my digital camera. You know how many photos I have taken?
> Zero. Zero shots.* I even felt a bit proud of it. *I am glad I am getting more selective.


2,5? well which one? And why?


----------



## Fred Berg (May 18, 2015)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Part of the trouble connected to digital photography is that people increasingly live in societies which crave instant gratification, which, of course, digital is able to supply. It can very quickly become addictive, and, as with any other addiction, the more it gets a hook in its victims, the more the victims need to satisfy their habit. Saying that it is possible to be selective about what one takes photos of and to use the same type of restraint as was the norm in the days of film photography is all very well, and perhaps many people can do this, but there are obviously many many more who cannot.
> ...



Polaroids were too expensive to be mainstream and too small to hang on a wall but, yes, they gave instant gratification to some. As I said, though, this trend is increasing in societies all over the world and back then a Polaroid photo couldn't be shared with more than a handful of people (family & friends, etc.) whereas a digital one can be uploaded to the Internet and seen by millions. Getting likes and nice comments is what stokes the fire of instant gratification.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 19, 2015)

Yeah I get what you mean. It's the social media syndrome. People now think someone actually cares what they are doing every second of the day. Selfies are a great example of how narcissistic we have become as a society. The need for validation from strangers on the internet.


----------



## KenC (May 19, 2015)

I take only a few more photos per outing than I used to with film.  I guess I previsualize and look around before taking anything, as I used to with film.  I agree with those who've said that whatever works for you is good, but I'm not sure that just making hundreds of photos because you can will automatically result in better quality.  It's the mental process that is important, and if you're thinking about what you're doing and why, then your images will get better, otherwise the numbers don't mean anything.


----------



## Gary A. (May 19, 2015)

I am shooting way too much. I am shooting way too undisciplined. I am spending too much time processing. While I am getting what I call The Exceptional Image on most of my photo ops, (at least they're exceptional for me) ... my keeper-to-shots ratio is way too high. The challenge for me, the challenge that this thread has pointed out, is to maintain the total number of keepers with a lower shot count. I am not expecting to go from 100 shots to ten ... but I'm gonna try to go from 100 to 80 ... then with more discipline from 80 to 60. I will never shoot like I did with film ... there isn't a good reason for me to place an arbitrary restriction on total number of shots (I'm running with 32gb cards, lol). But there are many reasons to give the shot more thought ... to shoot more anticipatorially than reactionarily. To have the confidence to release the shutter only once instead of thrice.  When I had disciplined myself to cropping only in the camera ... my images were much better than now. Part/much of that discipline included highly refined previsualization. I would think the better one's previsualization the less one has to shoot in order to capture the exceptional image.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 19, 2015)

I find myself looking through the viewfinder and really questioning if I should push the shutter button or not for this particular shot. I find the more I do this the more selective I have become. I think you can start to determine if the shot is going to come out the way you envisioned. It's also much less annoying when you go home and don't have hundreds of pictures to go through. I also believe the EVF in the Fuji has helped me because you get more of an idea what the image will look like before even pressing the shutter.


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2015)

A few modern-era thoughts about the old-time craft of photography, a little_ Devil's Advocate_ here:

There are no more "exceptional images". Every shot is just a minor variation of a photo that has been done before, at some time since the 1840's. That's a fairly new way of thinking about photography...that whatever you shoot, it's ALREADY been done, and no image is "exceptional" any more since it's basically one of about 20,000 visual tropes, just re-hashed by yet another shooter.

And the previsualization load of horsehockey that Ansel Adams used to boost his media image, back in the day...the idea that he previsualized how his scenes would look as finished photos is utterly disingenuous, as a look through his work will show, as images change, often markedly, over the decades....even  Moonrise has been reinterpreted in multiple ways by the man himself...one of his most iconic, most important images, seen multiple different ways. WTF?

Previsualization, as well as the holy grail of perfect Leica-proportioned 3:2 aspect ratrio images, printed with the knock-out borders from a filed-out negative carrier...I was fed that BS as a young man in the 1970's and 1980's...those ideas, *previsualization* and the* knockout border print*, were boasts that have now been unmasked as boasts, and little more. The shot-on-film era was about demonstrating technical mastery over exposure, developing, and darkroom printing; things that today are trivial to achieve because we can literally SEE the results of our exposure, and we can make "master negatives" in full daylight on a computer, and do the most complicated dodging and burning and local contrast control with astounding precision and ease with software. Worrying about conforming to the photographic methods of the 1940's in the 2010's doesn't make much sense. It's like thinking that raising your own sheep to shear and card wool and spin your own yarn will make your clothes "more fashionable" or "more stylish"....uhhhh...not so much.

The idea of shoehorning the real world into a 3:2 aspect ratio for every friggin' scene....that's ridiculous to idealize that...it was arrived at almost by accident by a camera tinkerer. Same with the idea that 4x5 sheet film printed with developing clip marks and film stock identification and brand, or sprocket holes on 70mm or 35mm film make an image "better"...uh, no, all those ideas do is reinforce the idea that "this was shot on film, and here is a peek behind the scenes, this is my fil-um....worship my fil-um mastery."

Just trying to call attention to old, outdated dogma here. Does it really matter if you made the paper that the book was written on? Does that make the writing better? Does one need to grow the wheat to make the flour to bake the world's best pastry? Does one need to coat his own wet plates to be a "real photographer"? Does NOT ever cropping really make "better" photos? And if so, how? Photography has a lot of accumulated junk in the garage that needs to be winnowed down by a disinterested third party who can spot the junk, box it, and then take it to the dump.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 19, 2015)

I still see new exceptional images all the time. The same argument could be made for music but I still enjoy new music. Of course any image can be processed to look many different ways. That doesn't say you can't have an idea of what you are going for at the time of taking the picture. Who really cares what process any photographer uses it is the final product that pleases the person taking the picture and some other people may appreciate as well. Sorry for the poor grammar and run on sentences.


----------



## Overread (May 19, 2015)

If every photo has already been taken in 100 years or so then I shudder to think how the world of sculpting, metalwork, sketching, painting etc.. and nearly al other forms of traditional* art * manage in today's world where everything must have been done 10001 times already. 



As for pre visualisation I see it as a real term and a real thing. The key is that its not really visualising PERFECTLY. It's about know that if you take a photo of a plane with propellers that if you use 1/2000sec its going to be static motion on the blades; its knowing that if the horse is going to come from the left to go over the jump on the right that if you angle at the right spot you should have a chance at getting the angle you want on the rider and horse;

It's really all about having an experience and understanding that lets you have some idea of what the shot will look like; sure its not perfect, but it gives you a guide. Indeed I'd say its essential to learn (though you might not learn it as previsualisation) if one wants to get off auto and also be creative; rather than just shoot every scene within a genre the same (landscape so only wide angle - spots so only fast shutterspeeds unless panning etc...).



(really do we have to keep saying that every other art other than photography is traditional - surely now non-traditional is the realm of digital drawing not a century year old form like photography)


----------



## Fred Berg (May 19, 2015)

Overread said:


> If every photo has already been taken in 100 years or so then I shudder to think how the world of sculpting, metalwork, sketching, painting etc.. and nearly al other forms of traditional* art * manage in today's world where everything must have been done 10001 times already.



Perhaps because nearly all other forms of traditional art espouse originality. As I see it, photography is by its very nature ill-equipped
to do this. I do not wish to suggest that there is no novelty in the activity, only that it is very seldom witnessed. This is why, although I have a long-standing interest in photography, I personally rarely think of it as art. I'm not knocking it and don't think of it as inferior in any way - just different.


----------



## Overread (May 19, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Perhaps because nearly all other forms of traditional art espouse originality



Except they don't
Go into any artistic medium and focus on a subject or disipline within it and I can bet you that you'll find the same as you do in photography. You'll find "lots of the same" which is to mean that there will be a selection of methods, styles, approaches which are "popular" and which are "so over done" and which "everyone is doing" and which "are uninspired boring dull etc..."

It is in no way unique to photography; however because you're keen on photography and because you're directly exposing yourself to more and more and also being selective and more focused in how you engage with it you notice the patterns more readily.


Photography is no more nor less special nor all that different.


----------



## Fred Berg (May 19, 2015)

Overread said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because nearly all other forms of traditional art espouse originality
> ...



The world is full of kitsch, so true!


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2015)

Horseshoe Bend photos - Google Search

Soooooooo muuuuuuch oriiiiigin-aaaaaaaality.    LOL


----------



## Buckster (May 19, 2015)

Thanks so much for that incredible lesson in armchair psychology as it relates to the social network, Overreach!!  Now that you've explained where you and others are coming from, let me try to address the OP more directly and see if that helps you understand where I'm coming from...



W.Y.Photo said:


> Are we facing a dilemma of photo taking addiction in the photography community?


"We" is pretty all-inclusive, and I can only speak for myself.  For me, the answer is "no".  For everyone else in this "we community" - I don't know, I don't care, I don't see why I should - to each his/her own.  Nobody is forced to take more or fewer photos than anyone else, and I just can't think of any legitimate reason why anyone should care how many photos anyone else is shooting.

As for it being a "dilemma", the dictionary defines that as, "a situation in which you have to make a difficult decision."  That being the case, no, I don't have to make a "difficult decision", and I highly doubt it's very "difficult" a decision for others to make either.  Either they prefer to shoot lots of photos and do so, or they don't.  Either decision is just fine with me, and I should think, just fine with them as well, *or they'd change*.

It's the old,
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Then don't do that.  Here's your bill."



W.Y.Photo said:


> Has the digital era ruined out ability to slow down and focus on the really important things in front of us?


Again, "us"/"our"/"we".  I can't and wouldn't presume to be able to speak for everyone who picks up a camera.  For me alone, the answer is "no".  For everyone else in this "we/us/our community" - I still don't know, I still don't care, I still don't see why I should.

I mean, think about this question.  It's asking if the digital era has MADE US incapable of making a decision, of regulating ourselves, of being selective, of choosing what to shoot and how often to press the shutter button.  We CANNOT do any of that anymore.  WE are *OUT* of OUR OWN decision-making loop now, no control at all, thanks to "the digital era".

Really?  Are you drones now?  Machines?  You can't make a decision for yourselves?

No.  I can and do still make my own decisions all the time, thank you very much.  If you can't, I suggest you seek professional help in a certified psychologist, not the armchair variety found all over internet forums.



W.Y.Photo said:


> The point I'm trying to get at is that a common photographer before digital imaging would shoot a roll a day.


Well, that's not true, so your "point" / premise goes right out the window.  But hey, let's not let that stop us...



W.Y.Photo said:


> That's 24 to 36 images people!!


OMG!!!  Gasping for breath here!  Need to sit down!!!  



W.Y.Photo said:


> Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only shoot 20-30 images per day!!


Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only take 20 to 30 breaths of air per day!!  Of course, that's never been the case, but still - get excited about it!!  Gasp!!!  Yell out, "OMGGGG!!!" for greater effect, if possible.  Use multiple exclamation points to really hammer it home!!!!



W.Y.Photo said:


> I'm beginning to think that knowing when not to take a picture may be an important skill that our generation of photographers is slowly losing.
> 
> Thoughts?


Why is that such an important "skill"?  Why should we care if most modern photographers don't use that "skill" anymore?

If some photographers choose to take a thousand shots of a nit without changing a thing from the light to the position to NOTHING, while other photographers choose to only crank out a single shot, why should we care?  If someone chooses to take a thousand shots of a thousand things or a thousand scenes or one thing or one scene, why should we care?  If they process them all or process none, why should we care?

To me, this is like making a big deal of the fact that the current generation is losing the "skills" of using white-out and changing out ink ribbons when typing out their term papers because they're using computers with word processors instead of 1st generation typewriters.  They're not thinking about every word before they type it because it's SO EASY to just correct it later.  Four questions: Yeah?  And?  So?  What?

What is so difficult about adapting to modern technology and allowing it to remove barriers?  Why should we care at all if some folks want to use that new freedom to run wild, while others prefer to put barriers back in place themselves?

Why does ANY of it matter to any of YOU personally?  If a whole generation loses the "skill" of taking fewer shots, does that mean YOU are no longer ALLOWED to take fewer shots, if that's what YOU want to do?  If you were a wealthy baron who lived in the pre-digital days and had the money to shoot a hundred rolls per day and DID, or if you were a pro photographer who shot in any of the genres of the day that required many rolls of film shot per day, would the fact that most photographers DIDN'T have the means to do that prevent you from doing it anyway if that's what YOU wanted or were required to do?

Sorry... still not caring here.  It seems a total non-issue, mountain-out-of-a-molehill discussion to ME.  But I do SO MUCH appreciate that it means SO much more to others!


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2015)

Here's another fresh, original photo subject, with , "About 5,900,200" results.

photos of Half Dome - Google Search

Take the photo? Or just buy the postcards? Delude yourself into thinking you're doing original "art" here with this subject? Or realize what the reality is?


----------



## Buckster (May 19, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Here's another fresh, original photo subject, with , "About 5,900,200" results.
> 
> photos of Half Dome - Google Search
> 
> Take the photo? Or just buy the postcards? Delude yourself into thinking you're doing original "art" here with this subject? Or realize what the reality is?


So, why do YOU shoot?


----------



## Overread (May 19, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another fresh, original photo subject, with , "About 5,900,200" results.
> ...



Probably for the same reasons as the rest of us 

1) Because it doesn't matter if someone else has done it; or will do it; or can do it; or might do it better; or a billion other such terms - WE WANT to do it too. 

2) Because even in the sea of samey similar shots there's always room for a few more creative angles or ideas. Some of is will want to explore them; will want to find them; others are happy to copy or use similar methods - to emulate the works that inspire them.

3) Because its fun


----------



## Buckster (May 19, 2015)

4) To get PAID.

"Samey" as they are to SO MANY OTHERS, I'm making money off plenty of my "samey" landscape and object shots, not just my portraiture work.

Then again, I'm not jaded enough to think that everything I shoot is a waste of my time and effort because it's "all been done before".


----------



## BrickHouse (May 19, 2015)

I really don't care if there's 5million photos of Half Dome. When I shoot it, that photo is MINE. It's the product of MY life and experience, it's the representation of MY experience and travels there. I may be the only one here, but I'm not looking for originality. I don't give two craps about if someone has taken that shot before. When I shoot it, it's mine.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 19, 2015)

I shoot from where I am at the time so that I can capture at least part of what I was thinking and experiencing.
If I see lots of things, I try to capture the thought, if I am distracted and 'see' very few or none, then I get no pictures.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 19, 2015)

Derrel said:


> And the previsualization load of horsehockey that Ansel Adams used to boost his media image, back in the day...t





Derrel said:


> ...I was fed that BS as a young man in the 1970's and 1980's...tho



So why didn't you give up with photography in the 70's when you realized it was all "horsehockey" and "BS"?


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2015)

BrickHouse said:
			
		

> I really don't care if there's 5million photos of Half Dome. When I shoot it, that photo is MINE. It's the product of MY life and experience, it's the representation of MY experience and travels there. I may be the only one here, but I'm not looking for originality. I don't give two craps about if someone has taken that shot before. When I shoot it, it's mine.



Well, it's a good thing you realize you are shooting cliche subject matter, and you are under no delusions that you are doing groundbreaking work, as so many people seem to think they are. it's amusing to think that somehow there's a great chance to shoot the Golden Gate Bridge in some new way, or the Brooklyn Bridge in some new way that has not been figured out in the prior billion exposures of either landmark.

It's a GOOD thing to realize when you're doing CRAFT, or COMMERCE, and not making "Art", with a capital A...

No sense fooling one's self. The idea is simple: stop telling yourself what YOU are shooting is "Art", and what the selfie-shooting or Instagram crowd or the MWACs are shooting is garbage....you're actually all the same, that's what I am saying. Stop denigrating the "others" while elevating your work to "Art"..because..it's NOT...

Don' t think that by NOT shooting, you are somehow advancing "Art". And don;t try and proclaim that by shooting less, or by NOT shooting, that you are somehow advancing "Art". *It don't work that way...
*
That is what I'm trying to say, and yet we have people that can't seem to admit that yet another shot of some homeless person is not automatically "Art".


We have some members here who have these high and mighty pretensions of doing "Art",when in reality, it is not.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 19, 2015)

Between Derrel and Buckster, they pretty much have the passive-aggressiveness franchise all wrapped up.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 19, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Between Derrel and Buckster, they pretty much have the passive-aggressiveness franchise all wrapped up.



I could not agree with you more sir. I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 19, 2015)

The fact that Instagram exists means we've reached critical mass.

I'm surprised people haven't begun introducing themselves by their IG handle instead of their name.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 19, 2015)

“It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.” 

― Mahatma Gandhi

I'm never sure why people try to keep others from trying to achieve but it seems that it must stem from a deep and bitter disappointment about themselves.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 19, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> “It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.”
> 
> ― Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> I'm never sure why people try to keep others from trying to achieve but it seems that it must stem from a deep and bitter disappointment about themselves.



Sometimes it's not the fact that they have achievements but the constant plea for external validation for their achievements.


----------



## unpopular (May 19, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Between Derrel and Buckster, they pretty much have the passive-aggressiveness franchise all wrapped up.



Poke Buckster long enough, he'll crack. In the end, he's as arrogant as the rest of us.


----------



## BrickHouse (May 19, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Well, it's a good thing you realize you are shooting cliche subject matter, and you are under no delusions that you are doing groundbreaking work, as so many people seem to think they are. it's amusing to think that somehow there's a great chance to shoot the Golden Gate Bridge in some new way, or the Brooklyn Bridge in some new way that has not been figured out in the prior billion exposures of either landmark.
> 
> It's a GOOD thing to realize when you're doing CRAFT, or COMMERCE, and not making "Art", with a capital A...
> 
> ...


 
Let's all be honest here, what I shoot isn't even art with a little a, but it makes me happy. I enjoy the hell out of taking pictures and for the rest of my life get to look back on these shots to help supplement my often failing memory. Maybe that's the freedom of being a hobbyist.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 19, 2015)

It's fun
Just because
Cause I like to


----------



## Fred Berg (May 19, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> “It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.”
> 
> ― Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> I'm never sure why people try to keep others from trying to achieve but it seems that it must stem from a deep and bitter disappointment about themselves.



and yet in your thread The Golden Age of Photography (The Golden Age of Photography Page 4 Photography Forum this was your position: 



The_Traveler said:


> I have a preference based on thought and decision.
> So I come to each image and look at the image as it is.
> And I don't give any credit for effort put into it because that indeed would be a bias,
> If you do give credit for process, that's your decision, based on personal preference - and is a bias.
> ...



Something of a contradiction there. Are you bitter and disappointed or simply up to your usual stirring tricks?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 20, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > “It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.”
> ...



I would have thought the context would have made it clear but......

In the quote, I was referring to how I look at others' work. 
Comments on work as it appears, without regard to the necessary effort, is vital feedback for anyone whether they are working hard to create art or trying to build a skill to be a craftsman.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > If every photo has already been taken in 100 years or so then I shudder to think how the world of sculpting, metalwork, sketching, painting etc.. and nearly al other forms of traditional* art * manage in today's world where everything must have been done 10001 times already.
> ...


i like to paint.
Photography pics i care about the most are special moments, kids pics, catching the moment. Secondary are basics of my life, where i live, what i am doing.  Little history and record purpose.

Third and least important, is when i am doing photography as abstracts, attempted art etc. etc.
Those are pretty much the ones i don't care so much about (but it is entertainment). Anything i shoot with film i generally regard higher in value, least to me. Over digital. Even if it might be a crappier pic.
There is something to be said for going through the practice of doing it. Just like building a model airplane, reconditioning a car, anything. Much of it is the process, which is what makes it a enthusiasts hobby. Often i care more about taking the photos, than the actual photos.  Not very different than someone that might rebuild or recondtion a car only to sell it and start another one..  Part of it, is just in the process. Even if you go back and delete the photo or toss the exposed film into the trash.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


you won't make anyone have greater skills or be a craftsman if you just look at the final image. The final image is the result, not the practice or learning phase nor does it take into account intent and methodology.
Someone can take a good photo on auto who don't know chit just on sheer luck. Also with processing, the final image can vary from what they shot.  That is not craft or skill in shooting.  Art isn't even valued just based on "the final image"  anymore than a house is just valued based on "the final image" with no consideration given to efforts in construction. Your outlook is the opposite of artistry, craft or skill.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Here's another fresh, original photo subject, with , "About 5,900,200" results.
> 
> photos of Half Dome - Google Search
> 
> Take the photo? Or just buy the postcards? Delude yourself into thinking you're doing original "art" here with this subject? Or realize what the reality is?


meh.
Huge fan of reality.
Take the photo with your kid or a friend in the frame it will mean more. konica t4 fuji 400


----------

