[Wheatfield]

..... most of us also come to the conclusion that our photos aren't ever going to approach the artistry of some of the greats of the past.

I've been doing photography for 50 years and in that time I have managed to take maybe half a dozen great photographs that are equal to anything shot by the old masters over hundreds of thousands of images.
Some would say that is a terrible success ratio, and perhaps it is, but it's not going to stop me from trying.

I treat photography the same way my neighbor treats fishing. He doesn't fish to catch fish, he does it because he likes sitting in a canoe on a lake. The fishing pole is his justification, and if he catches dinner, that's a bonus, he gets to have fresh fish for supper.

Hobbies are a relaxation endeavor. It's what we do to empty our minds of the useless dross that day to day living tries to distract us with. It really doesn't matter what we do for a hobby, the important thing is that we do stuff that brings us some sort of inner peace.

For some people, that is fishing, for others it's rebuilding a rusted out hulk into a working automobile, or gardening, carpentry or any other activity that gives some sort of inner satisfaction.

I feel sorry for people who don't have hobbies as they don't have that outlet.

[csa]

One other thing that keeps my interest up. Due to medical problems, I've had little chance to use my equipment. This was so depressing, as I finally had the perfect kit (for me), and it sat there, looking as forlorn as I did. Now that I'm able to take a few photos, now; doesn't matter to me if it's a beautiful deer, sunset, birds, or even just a blade of grass; it's so fulfilling to have that camera in my hands once again.

We don't miss what we have, until we don't have it.

[Fenwoodian]

post deleted.....

[Lord Lucan]

and most of us also come to the conclusion that our photos aren't ever going to approach the artistry of some of the greats of the past

The wrong conclusion in many cases. I believe that the great photographers of the past can be over-rated, or at least can be equalled by unknown amateurs, and I say that as someone who has given talks on photographic history. While the likes of Steigltz, Cartier-Bresson, and Ansel Adams did take some brilliant photos, not everything they did was necessarily outstanding, but books and articles about them often include mediocre examples as if they must automatically be good if taken by one of those greats.

I see many photos on this forum that are the equal of the work of some of those greats. For example a while ago I saw one here that would have passed for one of Cartier-Bresson's more outstanding shots - the same slightly surreal quirkiness and eccentricity of the subject, and caught at a "decisive moment". I made an appropriate comment to the taker and he responded that he had not heard of C-B until then

---

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 05-31-2023 at 09:16 AM.

[35mmfilmfan]

One other thing that keeps my interest up. Due to medical problems, I've had little chance to use my equipment. This was so depressing, as I finally had the perfect kit (for me), and it sat there, looking as forlorn as I did. Now that I'm able to take a few photos, now; doesn't matter to me if it's a beautiful deer, sunset, birds, or even just a blade of grass; it's so fulfilling to have that camera in my hands once again.

We don't miss what we have, until we don't have it.

Good to hear that you are able to resume your interest (hobby ? obsession ?) after your health issues - long may it continue.

[bob5050]

Case in point: this is a pretty standard view in one of the most photographed cities in the world, but for *me* it takes me back to that morning when my wife and I walked half way across Rome, virtually alone, during an idyllic sunrise, to get to a memorable tour of the Vatican before it opened to the general public.

Someone else's photo, no matter how much technically better it might be than mine, can not do that for me.

That's about as nice a shot of Rome as I've seen. Well done.

[Rondec]

The wrong conclusion in many cases. I believe that the great photographers of the past can be over-rated, or at least can be equalled by unknown amateurs, and I say that as someone who has given talks on photographic history. While the likes of Steigltz, Cartier-Bresson, and Ansel Adams did take some brilliant photos, not everything they did was necessarily outstanding, but books and articles about them often include mediocre examples as if they must automatically be good if taken by one of those greats.

I see many photos on this forum that are the equal of the work of some of those greats. For example a while ago I saw one here that would have passed for one of Cartier-Bresson's more outstanding shots - the same slightly surreal quirkiness and eccentricity of the subject, and caught at a "decisive moment". I made an appropriate comment to the taker and he responded that he had not heard of C-B until then

I guess I'm thinking that most of us have a very low "batting percentage" when it comes to great images. If you get one great image every couple of times out, that is probably a really good rate.

I definitely agree that there are great photographers on the Forum here and that some of the photographers of the past had some less than stellar work. I will say, that for St. Ansel, the whole process of photography, early in his career -- packing mules to take a long trail into Yosemite, then setting up really heavy gear and the after process of development and printing, makes me respect him more than those of us who began in the digital age.

[StiffLegged]

I guess I'm thinking that most of us have a very low "batting percentage" when it comes to great images. If you get one great image every couple of times out, that is probably a really good rate.

Ansel himself reckoned 12 keepers in a year was a good batting average, and photography was his full-time occupation.

I definitely agree that there are great photographers on the Forum here and that some of the photographers of the past had some less than stellar work. I will say, that for St. Ansel…

He wasn’t a Saint, he was a man like you or me. He made many images I still enjoy looking at, some I especially rate and some I don’t see the point of. Same with other famous photographers, HCB in particular - there are photographs by him I simply don’t understand. What those of us suffering photographic blues forget is we only get shown the best work of the greats, not all their duds, mistakes or failures. I have a short list of successes I’m really pleased with and a large heap of the mad, the bad and the useless, but still hope to find more subjects to add to the short list. That’s the fun of it!

[Rondec]

Ansel himself reckoned 12 keepers in a year was a good batting average, and photography was his full-time occupation.



He wasn’t a Saint, he was a man like you or me. He made many images I still enjoy looking at, some I especially rate and some I don’t see the point of. Same with other famous photographers, HCB in particular - there are photographs by him I simply don’t understand. What those of us suffering photographic blues forget is we only get shown the best work of the greats, not all their duds, mistakes or failures. I have a short list of successes I’m really pleased with and a large heap of the mad, the bad and the useless, but still hope to find more subjects to add to the short list. That’s the fun of it!

I was being a little facetious when calling him "saint." I think the big things that he contributed to the world of photography were centered around his role as a teacher and his zone system. Certainly, he wasn't perfect, but he did produce beautiful images and conveyed his techniques to others so that they could build off of the things he did.

As with everyone, he had a lot of images that were less than stellar.

[Wheatfield]

One thing I have noted about my own photography is that my keeper rate increased every time I moved up a format. The larger camera didn't make me a better photographer, but the effort required to make an image did increase substantially, as did the cost per image, so I was more careful about when I pushed the button.
35mm film was cheap and came in a small package so I could carry lots of it, and as I worked in a lab, processing was free, so if I wasted a few rolls of film I didn't really care as I was still having fun taking pictures. I have both my keepers from 35mm hanging on a wall in my house.
When I moved to the Pentax 6x7 my keeper rate went up as I was expending a lot more effort to get the camera to where the picture was, film was more expensive, had to be changed out more often, and processing was either more expensive (we sent 120 out for processing), or in the case of B&W took longer to process as fewer rolls of film could be processed at once.
Moving to 4x5 I tried to make every picture a keeper since I was now limited to shooting a few dozen shots before I had to reload film holders, film was more expensive and processing was either greatly more expensive or more time consuming as my JOBO only held a couple of reels at 6 sheets per reel.
The processing time factor was huge compare to being able to process 6 rolls of 120 or 10 rolls of 35mm at a time.

Being forced to slow down by these external factors greatly improved my photography. I became much more aware of what was going on around my subject as a great subject can be ruined by a bad background, and the mechanics of shooting with large format are far more time consuming, so the tendency is to pay more attention to detail.

I'm always astounded when I read about someone going out with their digital camera and shooting several hundred (sometimes over a thousand) images in one day. I can't imaging going out and doing that as I would be taking no time for myself to just enjoy where I am.
Photography is my excuse to take a walk in the woods, sit beside a stream or be in the company of a pretty woman. I get nice images from it, but I never allow the photography to distract me from why I do it in the first place.

I suppose this is why I don't do "street" photography. I have no love of crowded downtowns and avoid being anywhere near them. Other people do seem to like that hustle and bustle, but I get more than enough of that in my life and when I have the chance I prefer to be somewhere quiet where I can enjoy a few minutes of solitude where I can enjoy natures beauty in whatever form is presented to me.

[jacamar]

I like a lot of Amsel Adams pics but I never really "got" the zone system. Sure you can divide the shades into categories from light to dark but there's no guidance as to how much of each and where to put them - and what needs dodging or burning. Like other guidelines, there's a big gap between the idea and the intuition/vision to implement it in an artistic way. And as Freeman Patterson says, often the art is in the way you break the rules.

[JohnMc]

..but there's no guidance as to how much of each and where to put them..

And as Freeman Patterson says, often the art is in the way you break the rules.

There's tons of guidance but the conditions for each exposure is somewhat unique as is the desired output. Breaking rules is great, right up to the point you want to replicate results.

[Kiwizinho]

Being forced to slow down by these external factors greatly improved my photography.

I found the opposite. When I acquired my first digital P&S 20 years ago this year, I took more photos, and learnt what was good and bad. I didn't stop shooting film for quite a few years after that (and may yet go back to it), but the film images I did shoot improved dramatically, although I have to admit I did slow down and take fewer film images, but concentrated more on what I was doing when I did.

I'm always astounded when I read about someone going out with their digital camera and shooting several hundred (sometimes over a thousand) images in one day. I can't imaging going out and doing that as I would be taking no time for myself to just enjoy where I am.

Even with digital, I've never been that trigger happy. I still shoot with intent, even if I don't always achieve what I want and have to make numerous attempts. A hundred photos in a day is a huge number for me, and that's only likely to happen when I go somewhere I've never been before, and can't be sure when I'll have the opportunity to get back, so I'll try really hard to get something memorable.

Photography is my excuse to take a walk in the woods, sit beside a stream or be in the company of a pretty woman. I get nice images from it, but I never allow the photography to distract me from why I do it in the first place.

If I'm walking 4-5 hours each day over a weekend with a heavy pack on a remote trail, I don't want to come home with only one photo, and sometimes it's impossible to predict what will be the most photogenic. It's definitely not a case of 'spray and pray', but sometimes I might photograph a scene that I think looks nice, then further on find something even better.
For familiar places, I'll always take a camera, but not always take a photo, or sometimes just a single one if I think there's something different that merits it.

[StiffLegged]

I like a lot of Amsel Adams pics but I never really "got" the zone system. Sure you can divide the shades into categories from light to dark but there's no guidance as to how much of each and where to put them - and what needs dodging or burning. Like other guidelines, there's a big gap between the idea and the intuition/vision to implement it in an artistic way. And as Freeman Patterson says, often the art is in the way you break the rules.

You’re right, you really didn’t get it!

I’ve told this story before, but the first time I really tried using the zone system photographing snow scenes the resulting negatives were the densest I’d ever seen. Despite my initial despair, they printed magnificently. The zone system isn’t a rule or rules, it’s a method for determining exposure; like ETTR when shooting raw. You don’t use it when SOOC results are wanted like shooting transparencies, you do if darkroom work is intended - and I enjoyed the time in the darkroom. That’s where the artistry came in.

[Wheatfield]

I like a lot of Amsel Adams pics but I never really "got" the zone system. Sure you can divide the shades into categories from light to dark but there's no guidance as to how much of each and where to put them - and what needs dodging or burning. Like other guidelines, there's a big gap between the idea and the intuition/vision to implement it in an artistic way. And as Freeman Patterson says, often the art is in the way you break the rules.

The Zone System is pretty simple.
Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.
It works because B&W film is quite sensitive to changes in development time as exposure increases.
Increasing or reducing the development time has much more effect on the highlight areas than the shadow areas.
I wrote a bit of a treatise on it one time. I'm not sure if I still have it though.

The idea is to keep whatever detail is desired in both the shadows and highlights.
The Zone System is purely technical. It does not address the artistic at all. It gives the photographer predictability regarding how the negative will print and what the final print will look like on whatever paper he has calibrated to.