Really bad photographers

[Roger Hicks]

Every now and then, I go through the work of a really bad photographer who thought he was quite good.

Me, in the 1960s and 1970s.

I'm still not anything like as good as I'd like to be, let alone as good as the best. But I think I've got better (I'd have had a job getting worse, though I've seen some who could give me tips).

Who else looks back on their earlier photography with 1% pride and 99% embarrasment?

And who else sees the best of themselves and the worst of themselves in others' pictures?

Cheers,

R

 

[Oh Two]

Mia Culpa? NOT!

Mia Culpa? NOT!

Roger, you must be having a bad day, feeling old, counting wrinkles in the mirror, or having hard time not getting laid.

As a tunesmith I discovered long ago that I'm just not that interesting of human being for me to identify with my art.

My God, if I were to be judged by my subject alone (much less the execution of my craft) I'm sure I would be in the same box as reprobates and psychopaths.

One cannot make anything that holds a mirror to his world without first having a mile's worth of aesthetic distance.

 

[MickH]

To be honest Roger, I think I took much better photographs 25 years ago. I had a Praktica MTL3 SLR. I also had decent eyesight!!

 

[Merkin]

I am the same way. I tend to photograph in batches and spurts. I am generally happy with each temporal chunk of photography I do at the time when I do it, and then I look back on previous efforts and where I thought there were twenty good images, there are more like three.

 

[FS Vontz]

I used to keep 1 in 5 images. Now it's closer to 1 in 150 images. The worst part is, they're better now.

 

[Sparrow]

60's and 70's ... I'm embarrassed by last years' stuff, except for one or two every few years that I am actually quite proud of, the idea of death ... death as the final editor concentrates one's mind

 

[oftheherd]

Well, as for me, I think I used to take better photos, because I took more and had a more practiced eye. I never considered myself a good printer though.

As to famous photographers, some of Ansel Adams are really good, others just don't do anything for me. In fact, I think some are just plain not good. I also never was all that impressed by HBC. But since so many disagree, I suppose it shows my tastes (or lack there of).

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am the same way. I tend to photograph in batches and spurts. I am generally happy with each temporal chunk of photography I do at the time when I do it, and then I look back on previous efforts and where I thought there were twenty good images, there are more like three.

'Fits and starts' Spoonerizes well: stitz and farts.

I've long felt like that.

On the bright side, there's always the occasional picture you come back to, out of the three-out-of-twenty, which makes you think, "Hey, maybe there's hope yet: I'm not too bad at this, just occasionally."

@ Mick: well, yes, there is the eyesight.

@ Stewart: all too often, yes. But I think there is a slight underlying trend of improvement. We have to believe that, though, I suppose.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I still like this one, taken over 30 years ago.

An 8-year old child of one of the Students at University, A Spring Festival. I taught her how to use the Nikon F2a and took this picture with the Nikon F Photomic and 43~86 zoom. Panatomic-X in Microdol. Somethings you do not forget. And her name is "Zoey". Figure she must be 40 now.

 

[pschauss]

Most of my basic knowledge of photography, I learned at the age of about 9 or 10 when my father bought me a simple box camera from Sears. It has been mostly refinements since then. When I look at some of the best pictures that I took when I was young (age 10-20) I do not believe that what I take now is significantly better from a composition point of view.

Here is one that I took when I was 10, scanned from a print.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Sometimes a photograph is neither good nor bad but an historical document.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Lately I have been going back through nearly half a century of pictures, some personal, some shot for clients, and posting them on my blog with info about the photos, subjects, etc. They're mixed in with current work.

I really don't see much difference in my style from then to now. Maybe others do

I got tracked down by a guy whose wife I photographed forty some years ago. They'll be in Miami in a few weeks and the plan is to visit the same locations (as much as possible of course). She still weighs the same, her hair is about the same length. It'll be an interesting shoot.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Al,

You must have started out more competent than I, because I can certainly see that I'm not as bad as I was.

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

Sometimes a photograph is neither good nor bad but an historical document.

I have trouble with this and my 'old work,' people like my old stuff but I think maybe they like the nostalgia. I have never liked cars in my photos, but when I look at my old images with cars now I like them. I'm confused:

 

[Carlsen Highway]

Twenty years ago I wasnt quite sure what a good photograph is. Nowadays I know pretty much whether its right or wrong.
I do better work now, but I recognise work that I did earlier that was good - but I didnt realise it. And of courese there are the ones I thought were brilliant that are not.

I spose one must remember also that photos that you have looked at a million times, you are completely unable to judge anymore. Youll just have to take your own (younger) word for it.

 

[robklurfield]

Ah. The esteemed Rev. Spooner late of Oxford rears his mixed up head. Once, when introducing the Queen of England to a gathering at Oxford, rather than saying "Three cheers for our dear old Queen," instead said, "Three cheers for our queer old Dean."

Anyway, some of us are too hard on ourselves, and thus probably better than we realize. Others are too easy on themselves and probably quite rotten.

Frankly, I've never been happy with anything I've ever shot to the point where I didn't see room for significant improvement in technique. On the other hand, I am often quite pleased to remember the subject of an image even if I didn't capture it quite the way I saw it.

Me, bad? Yup! Bad enough to quit? No way. I enjoy this, bad or not. If I thought I was good, then I'd be worried.

'Fits and starts' Spoonerizes well: stitz and farts.

 

[wgerrard]

My biggest photography regret is not using a camera for about 30 years. I remember opportunities for great photos.

These days, I'm wondering if my old eyes are the problem. I'm thinking maybe I need to get an autofocus camera and move on. I've also noticed that framing a photo just right is something that's important to me, so maybe a rangefinder isn't the best tool for me.

I'm thinking about taking my little GX200 along on my next few opportunities and use it to shoot, on full automatic, equivalent shots of everything I shoot with one of my film cameras. Comparing the results ought to be useful.

 

[back alley]

i know what i like more these days.

 

[Bob Michaels]

<snip>Who else looks back on their earlier photography with 1% pride and 99% embarrasment? <snip>

Roger: I concluded I simply lacked talent in the mid 80's, after photographing quite seriously for about ten years. I sold my cameras and enlarger, threw away all my negs and prints (except for a few important family photos) and did nothing for about 15 years. I still think it was the correct thing to do.

I am not certain I have much more talent now but I am able to live with that limitation much better.

 

[-doomed-]

I concede to the fact that I am not great

I concede to the fact that I am not great

I shoot a bunch of terrible photos but on the odd occaision I shoot things I feel are great. The ones I feel are great get the least attention and the ones I hate people love. I agree with Rob, if I thought I was great I'd quit because in everything there is room to improve and learn. If one becomes comfortable the photos become stale and repetitive. Maybe I'll improve over the years and look back to see if my photos really are that bad. I can only hope to be like Al Kaplan and others who are happy with works old and new, as life is too short for regrets.