Does anyone else take woeful photos? (all the time)

Does anyone else take woeful photos? (all the time)

  • I am happy with many (or most) of my photos

    Votes: 99 20.2%

  • I am happy with some (a few) of my photos

    Votes: 289 59.1%

  • I am unhappy with most of my photos

    Votes: 82 16.8%

  • Photography is for me, it's private, I don't show my work to others

    Votes: 9 1.8%

  • None of the above

    Votes: 10 2.0%
  • Total voters
    489
Maybe it's your accounting background. An accountant can't be "close enough" with his figures, a hobby photog can be. If it caught your eye, it was worth shooting.
I once sat in an airport waiting for a flight and shot 47 digis of feet walking by dragging suitcases. Silly and all trashed but I passed the time.
 
I tend to be pleased with my vacation-SLR pictures, especially nature and landscape stuff; that's my comfort zone. I am still struggling with RF photography (but I persist), portraits and street scenes. I live in NYC which has so much to offer visually, but when I go out with a camera I seem to lose my ability to "see".

I just returned from a few days in London where I pushed myself by only bringing my M2 and the XA (results are pending). Next month I am traveling to Mexico and will do the same (M2 and Bessa R3A), although in this instance, my wife will bring the dSLR for her use, so I know I can fall back on that if I get too flustered.

Derek's advice above is very good. Study your images and figure out how it could have been better (imagine what a better version would look like). I tend to push the depth of field thing, shooting at f2 or f2.8 when f4 or f5.6 would still have given me the isolation factor I am looking for. Pick up a few photography books of the style you like (Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell if you like nature/landscape, HCB for street and portrait) and study what works. Try to emulate (or copy as an exercise).

Now I will go out and use my own advice 🙂
 
If I go out shooting and get one real keeper from a roll, I'm tickled pink.

However, lately when I go out shooting to document something, like for a neighborhood walk-through for a blog entry, it seems like 60-80% are good enough to be used and many of those I don't use are like alternate takes and near dupes of what I do use.
 
Old press photographers with plate cameras usually only could make one shot, and that shot had to be good. They knew how to get the shot.
 
It seems that I sometimes take photos that I wish I'd shot on film. Shooting in digital seems to take some of the life away for some reason and this is one of those pictures that just should have been captured on film.

For example, there's this:

carvinen_1.JPG


Our cat, sounding just like he looks to sound in the picture.

Can't wait to get a few Olympus 35 RCs. I should have four of them arriving within a week to two weeks.. 😱


-Sale
 
dmr, blog photos are the BEST! Nobody expects great art. Either you're writing about something you want to tell people or just to preserve the memories for yourself. Probably the most fun I had with my blog was when I was photographing the adventures of my toy monkey Monkette around town and around the local political scene. Go to Google image search and search fo "thepriceofsilver" and Monkette. According to her (the toy monkey) she was responsible for running the succesful re-election campaign of Mayor Kevin Burns and getting the North Miami Chamber of Commerce to include bananas on the fresh fruit platter at Chamber functions. The blog is an ongoing project but Monkette isn't always there.
 
I never had given it much thought of my photos being anything special, just take them for my own form of therapy 8>)
Recently I started posting some in the Gallery and started to get comments and ratings. It's nice to find out others I respect take a look and appreciate my contribution. I must say this has given me more confidence in my shooting and has inspired me to keep taking pictures and developing on my own vision.
 
Most of my stuff is crap but nothing makes me happier than being out shooting. All of my shots, good or bad, are memories of my enjoyment of those moments of happiness. If a good shot results, than the feeling is heightened. It's really about enjoying the journey, not the destination.
--------
My Flickr
 
Darkhorse said:
Why four of them though? One for color neg, one for reversal, one for B&W and one for a higher iso?
Click to expand...

My aim is to only keep one or perhaps two, but to service them all lightly (seals, general cleanup, perhaps customize one with more exotic leather/leatherette) and sell the rest.

See, it all started when I saw a "nice" one on the 'bay. I put in a decent bid. Then another one came up and I put in an offer that I was pretty sure would not go through. While waiting for responses and such, I discovered another one with a reasonable buy it now-price and one from Germany that wasn't sure to be perfect, but seemed like a reasonable deal for a lightly serviceable unit that I could learn with and later, hopefully, re-sell.


-Sale
 
A hell of a lot of "cadid news" photos are set up and posed, often moving the people to better lighting or a better background. Business executives, people in politics, show business, etc. soon learn how to look natural and casual, and/or the photographer poses them and coaches them, then when everything looks right you fire off maybe 3 or 4 quick frames to make sure that everybody's eyes are open. Even in this digital age no editor wants to waste time scrolling through a hundred shots pf the same two people shaking hands while presenting a framed certificate of appreciation. There might be no film expense but time is money.
 
"Publishable" = "Good"

"Unpublishable" = "Bad"

I asked myself. I took pictures for a living.

Roger Hicks said:
No. The 'one shot' had to be competent, and publishable. There's a big difference between that and good. Ask anyone who's taken pictures for a living.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Weegee used to move the corpse until it looked gruesome enough, and he liked to put the corpse's hat next to the head.

He'd put a gun in the picture too. He used to carry a prop gun for that purpose.

Sometimes he'd put a cigarette or a lit cigar in the corpse's mouth.

Al Kaplan said:
A hell of a lot of "cadid news" photos are set up and posed, often moving the people to better lighting or a better background. Business executives, people in politics, show business, etc. soon learn how to look natural and casual, and/or the photographer poses them and coaches them, then when everything looks right you fire off maybe 3 or 4 quick frames to make sure that everybody's eyes are open. Even in this digital age no editor wants to waste time scrolling through a hundred shots pf the same two people shaking hands while presenting a framed certificate of appreciation. There might be no film expense but time is money.
Click to expand...
 
Sauli Särkkä said:
It seems that I sometimes take photos that I wish I'd shot on film. Shooting in digital seems to take some of the life away for some reason and this is one of those pictures that just should have been captured on film.

For example, there's this:

carvinen_1.JPG


Our cat, sounding just like he looks to sound in the picture.

Can't wait to get a few Olympus 35 RCs. I should have four of them arriving within a week to two weeks.. 😱


-Sale
Click to expand...
Why would it have benefited so much by film capture? 😕
 
I'd suggest getting a quality digital camera with enough manual control. You can shoot infinitely basically for free, and (if you are mindful about it as you go along), things will improve. The key is that parenthetical.

Or not, if you're totally hopeless. I am at painting and guitar. But then at least you'll know. And you may find some value in it anyway.
 
Ahmed Poltroon said:
"Publishable" = "Good"

"Unpublishable" = "Bad"

I asked myself. I took pictures for a living.
Click to expand...
Dear Poltroon,

A picture can be publishable, but far from good in any sense other than news value (electrocution of Ruth Snyder) or illustration (the vast majority of pack shots). For that matter, would you seriously argue that most 'grip and grin' shots (politicians holding hands) are 'good'?

A picture can also be good as a picture, but of little interest to an editor (most landscapes, non-advertising still lifes, or portraits of non-celebrities).

Tashi delek,

Roger
 
Last edited:
Fergus,

We all have varying standards, but if you don't like any of your pictures while enjoying the process of photography, then I'd say there is something wrong and you ought to figure out what that is.

For my part, I don't think too hard about my "hit" percentage. Long as I'm able at least part of the time to get something of the images I had in mind, I feel satisfied. Can't expect masterpieces as amateur of only a couple years of serious shooting.

This is my favorite recent rangefinder-shot photo:


Olympus XA, Fuji Superia 400

There's many things that could be improved, but it captures a fair bit of the mood I felt at the time and place, and considering the circumstances (never enough light), it came out quite alright on the technical front as well. I was thusly happy. This isn't really a lofty goal, and I think any amateur photographer with a level-headed perspective should be able to get this level of satisfaction from some of their shots.

I'd ponder the question of what pictures you do like, and what would it take for you get some of those qualities in your own?
 
On the old time newspapers, if a editor sent you out to get a shot, and you came back with what the editor wanted, it was good.

My definition of "good" was getting a usable photo when sent out to shoot one that allowed you to keep your job, and usually getting it in one or two shots, tops.

With the equipment of the day, coming back with anything at all was often a feat by itself.

Just look through a copy of "The Illustrated London News" of 1917, for example.

The Ruth Synder shot was great, not just "good", albeit heavily touched up. It transcended any other definition. Similar "great" photos were often Composographs of love nests and dead persons, and not really photos at all.

Here's an iconic photo. Probably half the people on earth can recognize it. Not good in any technical sense, but a great photo, instantly recognizable. Of course news value has to be factored in, but gripping emotional appeal is the main criteria.

omahabeachjpg.jpg


(Here are the guys who DIDN'T get a great Ruth Synder Photo)

NSAPMI56_EXTR.JPG



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom