# Random Thoughts On Photography



## Nettles (Jan 10, 2015)

The Image Plane | RANDOM THOUGHTS ON PHOTOGRAPHY&#8230;

Once in a while I get down some thoughts on photography - other stuff too. 

Thanks for taking a look. I appreciate it.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 29, 2015)

This is a great read. I enjoy "Lose the dead shots". 

It's a thoughtful and critical blog. We need more bloggers like you.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 29, 2015)

Yes indeed, more blogs that aren't just clickbait equipment reviews would be great.

Composition can be taught, though. Art schools have been doing it for centuries. Photographers, on the other hand, are horrible at teaching it. Composition is a set of principles and ideas (which vary depending on the era and school) which are put together with taste. Taste is hard to teach, and inherently somewhat personal. Possibly one doesn't teach taste, but rather leads the student through a personal learning process. This is why art students copy stuff so much, they're learning technique but also taste.

I could comment on the other pieces as well, but I'll stop now.

(it's not about disagreement, it's about discussion, right?)


----------



## Nettles (Jan 29, 2015)

Thanks so much, William. I really appreciate your kind comments. I put a lot of work in on the occasional posts, though that's not always a recommendation! Must have a look at your website later tonight. Thanks again.

Sam


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 29, 2015)

Nettles said:


> Thanks so much, William. I really appreciate your kind comments. I put a lot of work in on the occasional posts, though that's not always a recommendation! Must have a look at your website later tonight. Thanks again.
> 
> Sam




No problem.

The read was especially good as it gave me that extra push I needed to clean up my website


----------



## Nettles (Jan 29, 2015)

Thanks Photoguy. I appreciate it and your thoughts on composition. Yes, you're absolutely right, I agree. Discussion is good. That essay just expresses something that's niggled at me for years, so I thought I'd get it into focus (no pun intended!) and write out my key thoughts and opinions.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 29, 2015)

"When the dedicated amateur photographer has finally got a handle on equipment and technique, the next looming problem is probably what to shoot" ("Lose the dead shots").

Yes, these guys never cease to amaze me.  Why on earth buying a camera, if you do not know what you are going to shoot ? 
There are those who guy guns not knowing who they are going to shoot, but at least they think they will be able to defend themselves. 
You can not defend yourself with a camera, can you? Especially if you do not know what to shoot... This is not a silly question by the way.

I mean, should you buy a camera if you do not know what to shoot? 
Some would say - a camera will inspire you to go out and shoot something.  But will it, if you are not inspired?

And btw, going back to the quote - how can you be "dedicated" if what to shoot is a looming problem for you? You are dedicated to what exactly??


----------



## bribrius (Jan 29, 2015)

i have a thought, on losing the dead shots. why is it necessary?  who decides what is dead? The biggest problem i see in this medium is everyone concerned about getting through to the viewer, what the viewer might find interesting.  This mentality seems more inherent in photography and wannabee artists than i notice it in my limited experience in the art world.  Again. Who is to decide what is dead?  what if you spend a week on coming up with your interesting photo. And i think it is trash and waste of time?  How is it, everything is so centered in coming up with composition and interest for what amounts to "other people"?.  As a photographer (probably not a artist though i have been called one so who knows), why should i really give a chit if someone likes or finds my photo interesting or not? Is my purpose in life to entertain the viewer? I think not.  Maybe they should go play video games or watch a sitcom. I hate to be abrupt too, but most shots people push for in whatever interest/artistic merit name they come up with to get through to the viewer. simply aren't worth anything anyway.   "wow, what a neat shot"   ... okay.. .. and my goal is to strive for this response from someone i dont give one iota about?  Uhhhh. no.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 29, 2015)

I think the point is to lose the shots you yourself think are dead. That essay strikes me as not quite coherent, to be honest, but the thrust seems to be "stop taking the pictures that you're going to say 'ugh' and throw away anyways" which really means "the best time to edit out a shot is before you press the button".

Which is, well, true, if you equate "best" with "most efficient".

Lots of people are happy with a photograph that is in focus, or which looks a lot like some other image they liked. That's cool. They probably haven't got that many dead shots.

Even if you're super duper artistic and self critical, and work very very slowly, you're going to be tossing 90% or more or your images. The point, as I see it, is to never place yourself in the position of tossing an image because you cannot imaging what the heck you saw there, but rather to be culling on the grounds that while the idea was sound, the image doesn't make it, or isn't as good as this other one.


----------



## Nettles (Jan 29, 2015)

Fair question, Sashbar. I think it takes a determination of sorts to properly get to grips with the expense, a camera's controls, what does what, and even the basic scope of good image-editing software. Perhaps 'determinated' is a word that would better suit getting a hobby well and truly off the ground? 

But mainly I also think that new shooters can spend quite some time clicking away and anything and everything without a coherent approach to the images they're getting and keeping. They're active and focussed but not aiming high enough?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 29, 2015)

Nettles said:


> Fair question, Sashbar. I think it takes a determination of sorts to properly get to grips with the expense, a camera's controls, what does what, and even the basic scope of good image-editing software. Perhaps 'determinated' is a word that would better suit getting a hobby well and truly off the ground?
> 
> But mainly I also think that new shooters can spend quite some time clicking away and anything and everything without a coherent approach to the images they're getting and keeping. They're active and focussed but not aiming high enough?


oh i am getting a real kick out of this. what is "high enough"? i shoot the world around me, could be the sky. That high enough? Maybe a swing set, maybe the sign at the local bar, a boat, could be a street, a building, a parked car for some reason i find fancy with it, a restaurant, a beach, a kite flying, a truck, a grave marker, a wasp, a picnic table, a telephone pole........  is shoot the world around me. Is there a higher cause or reason than shooting where you exist and what you see?


----------



## Nettles (Jan 29, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Even if you're super duper artistic and self critical, and work very very slowly, you're going to be tossing 90% or more or your images.




Perhaps it's just part of my personal make-up but I'm usually dissatisfied with most of my shots, even though I share them somewhere! I've taken comfort over the years in those accomplished professionals who talk about binning over 90% of their work -- back in the days when slides hitting the bottom of a bin was a common sound.   

Just today I was in a tizz getting some snow shots here in Scotland, but on the laptop I felt they were rubbish. It's no comfort that I enjoyed the experience...


----------



## Nettles (Jan 29, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Nettles said:
> 
> 
> > Fair question, Sashbar. I think it takes a determination of sorts to properly get to grips with the expense, a camera's controls, what does what, and even the basic scope of good image-editing software. Perhaps 'determinated' is a word that would better suit getting a hobby well and truly off the ground?
> ...



I can take your point to an extent. So much is in the eye of the beholder. I came across a blog a couple years ago where a photographer was shooting an abundance of stuff around him, like his coffee cup at a restaurant, his unmade bed, his window, etc, etc. He seemed to be having a blast! It seems though that this approach to photography is a dilution of what it can be in essence. Or am I easily bored out of my tree?!

So that photographer (he uses a camera) had zillions of shots that satisfied something inside him, but it wouldn't work for me. I'd be a tad embarrassed to be honest. But he got more favourable comments than me!


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 29, 2015)

I find myself having similar experiences to both of you.. I don't think it is a bad thing to photograph anything that makes you feel something.. In fact I think that's the essence of photography. On the other hand I tend to be very critical of my own work and most of the images I've actually shot will never see the light of day.

Its like the Ying and the Yang of Photography, Formality vs. Expression or Thoughtfulness vs. Instinct...

I think there is something to be said for both perspectives and in my opinion going to the extreme of the spectrum in either direction can dilute your work.. constantly refraining from shooting because of minor flaws in an image or space and constantly tossing any image that has a small defect can make you pass by a lot of thought-provoking and amazing photographs while shooting and accepting anything and everything you see can become a restless endeavor that could make a person miss opportunities to sit and contemplate a scene or an image critically.

Not to say either of you are speaking in those extremes.. Just that I think every photographer who really cares what they are doing falls somewhere on a spectrum between them. Sometimes moving to different areas of it throughout their life.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 29, 2015)

Nettles said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Nettles said:
> ...


i usually cull for basic errors. After that is done i cull based on how much i value the photo and what it means to me. Since what i view around me is my most important consideration. Where i exist. It puts a odd spin on the culling process.  As i am more likely to toss out a more "interesting" photo and keep a photo of the house down the street i pass every day, or the store i shop at. One of the questions i ask myself before i shoot a building, bridge, whatever around me.

 Is "do i have a photo of that yet?" Has little to do with anything other than recording what is around me, and the people i see and how they live. Things with more artistic merit i am inclined to cull out before generalized photos. When i shot a lot of abstracts and went through that phase. i was depressed looking at them wondering why i didn't photograph the item without trying to make a abstract of it. Because as a abstract it didn't mean anything. As they are not a accurate interpretation of what i actually exist within. so a simple photo of a picnic table i sit at repeatedly by the pond might be kept, as it holds a value to me. That nice bw i took of of that tree i processed will most likely go in the trash. As it isn't really a accurate portrayal of the tree and i only sat under the tree once. 

 There is a direct connection, between where i live, how i live, those around me and how they live , and what i keep for photographs. so in ten years, i will have a photograph of something that was actually part of my life to look back on.  This is where the snapshots start holding more value than anything else.  The phases i went through making a photo "interesting", i usually regretted after as they held no value to me. It nolonger was what was there as it existed.  sometimes i will still pull a artistic or abstract. People can say "nice photo". It was fun for the moment.  But i really don't care about that one. i keep the real one for myself. The further from reality it goes the less it directly pertains to me. Less value it has for me.  Some of my most valued photos, i was walking through the city, placed the camera on the sidewalk randomly in front of me and put it on a timer while i looked out. Just a random shot, taking a photo of what i was looking at that moment. so now i can look back at that photo, remember standing there, and replay whatever was around me. Life going by.  My photography is a entirely personal thing, with little to do with others entertainment.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 29, 2015)

Bribrius, that is a very intriguing perspective. As my work is more about describing either my inner self or my less literal views of the world I can hardly relate.. but It's admirable to me that you stick to your own style and reasons rather than giving in to what the majority of people are doing with photography. That type of drive is what has turned a lot of photographers (William Eggleston comes to mind) into game changers.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 29, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Bribrius, that is a very intriguing perspective. As my work is more about describing either my inner self or my less literal views of the world I can hardly relate.. but It's admirable to me that you stick to your own style and reasons rather than giving in to what the majority of people are doing with photography. That type of drive is what has turned a lot of photographers (William Eggleston comes to mind) into game changers.


i still do some artistic things on a whim. No doubt my photography could still use some work in areas. But generally my outlook is: You are born, you live, you die. So i try to capture the beginning, the end, and everything in between.  Accept it for what it is. Love it for what it is. And not romanticize it. I am the only person i know of that went in for a stroke and photographed the m.r.i machine before they ran me through it. I might be a little different than a normal hobbyist. Just my take on it. Everyone is different.


----------

