# How to Avoid Becoming a Lazy Photographer



## nerwin (Feb 17, 2017)

I was reading this article posted on DPS (Digital Photography School) by Adam Welch and it's a great article to read in its entirety but I wanted to share a piece of it that really stood out to me.



> The public, in general, favor that which others tend to favor. Meaning, the opinion of your own photography often hinges on the viral acceptance of others. Nothing is worse than a photo which becomes popular because a lot of people think it’s good.



I think it's a fantastic quote and has a lot of meaning.

Full article here > How to Avoid Becoming a Lazy Photographer


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 17, 2017)

Yes.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2017)

I was a bit disappointed that the article was another 20-something guy telling us to shoot in manual mode, and to use a tripod. I was expecting something a bit more philosophical, I guess! Made me think of one of my old photo instructors back in college....a 60-something dude, telling us to shoot in manual mode, and to use a tripoid for every picture!


----------



## nerwin (Feb 17, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I was a bit disappointed that the article was another 20-something guy telling us to shoot in manual mode, and to use a tripod. I was expecting something a bit more philosophical, I guess! Made me think of one of my old photo instructors back in college....a 60-something dude, telling us to shoot in manual mode, and to use a tripoid for every picture!



Yeah....I can see that after thinking about it. But I still liked part of the article I quoted.


----------



## hamlet (Feb 18, 2017)

I am looking to shoot on full auto from the comfort of my lawn miles and miles away from my target. Drones are all the rage now.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 18, 2017)

I was tempted to buy a DJI Phantom but I don't know how much I'd actually use it. But most likely I'd crash it first day and break it beyond repair, or someone will shoot it, or I'll get in trouble. It's just isn't worth the hassle to me.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 18, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I was tempted to buy a DJI Phantom but I don't know how much I'd actually use it. But most likely I'd crash it first day and break it beyond repair, or someone will shoot it, or I'll get in trouble. It's just isn't worth the hassle to me.


That's why you get a cheap drone, first.  Learn to fly with that, then move up to a better model with camera when you know what you are doing.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 18, 2017)

snowbear said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I was tempted to buy a DJI Phantom but I don't know how much I'd actually use it. But most likely I'd crash it first day and break it beyond repair, or someone will shoot it, or I'll get in trouble. It's just isn't worth the hassle to me.
> ...



I did that, broke all of them lol. I don't think it's for me. The DJI drones have assists anyways which help considerably, made better and longer battery life instead of 5 minutes. It's possible I could learn how to fly them but I'd still be worried about getting in trouble or getting it shot down, especially where I live. I'd hate to get into confrontation over flying a drone. I just don't know if it's worth the hassel.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 18, 2017)

I thought about getting one.  An hour later I had decided not to.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 18, 2017)

snowbear said:


> I thought about getting one.  An hour later I had decided not to.



What was your reason?


----------



## snowbear (Feb 18, 2017)

I'm not really interested in video so there just isn't much of a use for me.  If I owned my own GIS firm, I could see some applications, especially in 3D modelling, but not as a personal venture at this point.


----------



## hamlet (Feb 20, 2017)

Last night i went for some hdr shooting and i noticed that me taking a long break from photography has really brought down the already mediocre stuff i was putting out. I guess it is really important to not become complacent.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 20, 2017)

OK- so essentially the quote is that nothing is worse than a photo that's popular because everybody love it.

Wait- wut?  LOL

That just sounds like "I'm an artist- not a snapshot hack" mumbo jumbo to me.  If my portfolio is partly inspired by Ansel Adams, and partly inspired by Dogs-playing-poker-on-black-velvet, in both instances I'm hoping for images that people enjoy.  Is the premise here that people are stupid, and their uneducated approval is the kiss of death to an artist?

Personally, I yearn for images that everybody loves.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 20, 2017)

Peeb said:


> OK- so essentially the quote is that nothing is worse than a photo that's popular because everybody love it.
> 
> Wait- wut?  LOL
> 
> ...



I have photos that are popular only because someone with a bigger following shared it that only liked my photo because that person liked it not because of the photo was good or not. 

But I think what he is trying to say is don't rely on the acceptance of others to determine if your photo is good or not.


----------



## Hermes1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Nice article some truths there.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 20, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > OK- so essentially the quote is that nothing is worse than a photo that's popular because everybody love it.
> ...


I wish he'd just said that then.  You shoulda written that article, Nerwin, now THAT I would read and benefit from.

As a photographer and a guitar player, I just grow weary of people slagging on 'popular' things as inherently deficient.  By definition, something is 'popular' because a lot of people find merit in it.  This BY DEFINITION means that it certainly must have at least some merit.  

Personally, if I had an online following of several million fans- I would presume that I must be doing something right.  Conversely, the fact that I DON'T have such a following does not automatically mean that I am a brilliant misunderstood genius.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2017)

As far as popularity goes, and people assigning or giving a "Like" to photos, cat photos, puppy photos, and baby images get huge Like volumes. So do erotic and "modeling" images. Depressing photos get very few Likes. Skin (soft-core erotica,etc,) can draw a lot of Likes. Horrible, horrible landscape images with frothy waterfalls, poofy 10-stop neutral density cloud blurs, landscapes with green forest ferms with the green level jacked to +11.0, pretty sunrises, pretty sunsets, bikini gals...all of those types of photos can accumulate huge numbers of Likes, especially on the big aggregator sites, like 500px, for example.

Russian teenagers, about 20% of them photographed half naked and pretending to be 25...we saw how many Likes that guy's photo stream drew not too long ago.

The big aggregator type sites draw huge numbers of people who copy one another to a "T"...they seek the same exact cameras, lenses, ISO levels, the same software, the same processing "workflow"...it's basically a craptastic clone factory at one level, although there are also serious photographers on those sites as well.

I "think" what the guy who wrote the article was trying to write, and he writes only marginally well, is that there is a huge swath of photography work on the web--and a LOT of it is soft-core erotica; kitschy overprocessed landscape work, and also plenty of Puppy Dogs and Kittens stuff that draws at the heartstrings, but which has very little photographic merit or originality. I think he was trying to warn people not to fall into the easy trap of doing craptastic work that is guaranteed to draw tons of Likes, no matter how good the work truly is. "Serious" work on 500px is hard to find; the craptastic clone images float to the top of the bowl and swirl around.


----------



## zombiesniper (Feb 20, 2017)

Would have read the article accept the website threw up a full page add of some sort. Lost interest after that.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 20, 2017)

Derrel said:


> As far as popularity goes, and people assigning or giving a "Like" to photos, cat photos, puppy photos, and baby images get huge Like volumes. So do erotic and "modeling" images. Depressing photos get very few Likes. Skin (soft-core erotica,etc,) can draw a lot of Likes. Horrible, horrible landscape images with frothy waterfalls, poofy 10-stop neutral density cloud blurs, landscapes with green forest ferms with the green level jacked to +11.0, pretty sunrises, pretty sunsets, bikini gals...all of those types of photos can accumulate huge numbers of Likes, especially on the big aggregator sites, like 500px, for example.
> 
> Russian teenagers, about 20% of them photographed half naked and pretending to be 25...we saw how many Likes that guy's photo stream drew not too long ago.
> 
> ...


Now THAT is a reasoned and thoughtful explanation of what (probably) the original author SHOULD have said.

Well done.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 20, 2017)

I think it's okay to take craptastic photos every now and then, but just don't get caught up in it!


----------



## Peeb (Feb 21, 2017)

So, is this guy a mediocre photographer with a genius for taking popular snaps, or is he an excellent photographer with work that just happens to be popular?  http://timesofsandiego.com/arts/2017/02/09/why-facebook-fawns-over-evgeny-yorobes-photos/


----------



## steveWFL (Feb 25, 2017)

dude nailed it.  we can argue all day about the shadow falling on the subject wrong or this and that about every shot posted.  but “If your photo elicits emotion, without a human or ‘cute’ subject, then you are a master of your craft.”

personally though, I like shooting models a whole lot better than backyards and sunsets but thats just me


----------



## Mysecutage (Mar 11, 2017)

hamlet said:


> I am looking to shoot on full auto from the comfort of my lawn miles and miles away from my target. Drones are all the rage now.



Great idea! Good photographer is a lazy photographer - he/she makes camera to take perfect pics, and if it fails then apply some photo editing)))


----------

