I have never considered myself anywhere near pro at taking photographs and till now only used mainly Picasa for editing. In my youth the shots I took were close to terrible with a slight improvement when I travelled overseas at the age of nineteen.
Marriage and having children busied shutter use to an extent greater than before, using a Voigtlander camera, then the Pentax K1000. My shots improved marginally, sometimes, in my opinion, outstanding (my wife fell into this category, however nonconformist). I was reasonably satisfied but not with costs as every shutter release cost a bit.
Later on I joined the local camera club. By this stage I thought I was becoming proficient with the pictures I produced. At the group critiques what I put up for evaluation was torn to shreds. I managed to achieve an 11 out of 15 once. Humbled, I went back to the drawing board.
Then came the digital camera with the resultant drop in cost of shutter releases. It was really liberating. The shots sparkled on my monitor, but content still counts. The eye needs to be drawn to a focal point in a shot and the blending of colours needs to be spot-on. Some desire the look of a painting, but in most cases our shots reflect reality, hopefully at least.
What favour did digital do for my photography? It made my mistakes clearer. I am learning not to be seduced by the enhancement that the monitor provides. I think it comes down to decreasing the busy look and the draw of the focal point, which should bring the other elements of the photograph together.
I must reiterate though that after having stated the above that I am only an amateur photographer, and that I may be missing a many points. My criticisms may be off point as well. When taking a shot the first person to please is yourself. Sometimes that becomes more difficult as time goes on.
After using a Voigtlander camera initially, then Pentax, then Fuji Finepix, I am pleased to be back with Pentax.
| 
Similar Threads 
