Were you ever surprised by how good you are?

[ktmrider]

I know the title of this thread is a bit egotistical but I just uploaded photos from my 90 day trip to Europe last fall. I am surprised by two things: how good some of them are (which I took) and how good the M9 is.

I see people saying film slows them down and one of the nice things about film is getting the results back from the lab. Well, if you wait almost 10 months before viewing the imagines the results are the same as getting film back from the lab.

Now, it is time to do some editing and getting my daughter to help me figure out where we were when I took the images. And misplacing one SD card sucks as I cannot find anything from Scotland and Great Britain. Lessons learned prior to my next trip RTW in September.

And I do not mean to brag but the results were very pleasing.

 

[Addy101]

RTW? Round The World? Why not calling it what it is instead of those abbreviations that just make people guessing? :bang:

Anyway, as we speak I'm editing my photo's from my trip to Iceland last May and some of the pictures are great, but others less so. Basically, I've got the basics right, but that little bit that makes a real difference? Not quite there yet 🙄

 

[Steve Bellayr]

The greatest compliment: "Please bring your camera."

 

[Scapevision]

I always see my photographs as not good enough

 

[Rayt]

This thread is meaningless without photos!

 

[Lauffray]

No can't say that's ever happened, initial enthusiasm usually gives place to indifference. I'm pretty certain I'm unable to make a balanced opinion of my own "work".Though I have been surprised how well received some of my photos have been

 

[noisycheese]

Were you ever surprised by how good you are?

LMAO, nope. 😀

 

[Bill Clark]

Oh, I'm really not that good. That drives me to work on making better photographs the next time. And the next time, after time.

 

[tomtofa]

Were you ever surprised by how good you are?

Once, but it turned out I was mistaken.

 

[ktmrider]

Interesting but the images I think are great when I finally process them do not really excite me at the time of taking the photo. Sometimes, although rarely, photos I think will be great are. It does not happen often enough for me to consider myself very good. But after 45 years, sometimes I get it right.

 

[OurManInTangier]

All of my photographs are spoiled by the fact I was there. Other people's pictures are always more interesting, even if only by virtue of my not being present at the time.

 

[Tijmendal]

That's good to hear. Only a couple of times I've felt I've taken a nice picture right away. Most of the time, I think everything I make is bad. But then after a couple of months I start to be able to look at my work a lot more clearly and realize that I'm maybe not as bad as I suspected in the first place.

I do shoot film and mostly develop my images 2 weeks-2 months after shooting. I scan immediately, and then let them sit for half a year at least. I always do a quick one-over, but have found that I'm almost always disappointed by them when first looking at them.

 

[John Bragg]

I am pleasantly surprised at how consistent I have become. I am also frequently surprised by how good the photography of others is. Most often, the only difference between the output of a "Pro" and an "Amateur"shooter is the payment element. In fact, many who shoot for "pleasure only" are better photographers. In my opinion, consistency is the key. One may have a good eye for a picture, but quality relies on being able to reliably translate that vision to a finished picture. Using familiar materials and equipment is vital in this. Rather than chopping and changing, the best photographers usually choose one film and developer and strive to perfect that workflow.

 

[johnnyrod]

Only occasionally. Mostly the romantic notion of snapping away like a carefree David Bailey, expecting the great image the viewfinder presents to be borne out on paper in a way that will only blow your head off, is disabused at the point of getting the prints back and realising I've buggered up the framing, or the exposure, or missed something ridiculous in the background, all the usual things. But once in a blue moon there is the conjunction of that expectation when pressing the shutter, the final good result, and even knowing that it will be a good result, and all the rest is then just fine. Forgive me the low rez and poor scanning, the print is a lot better:

While I did check all the usual settings, I otherwise took it like Weegee - in, click, out, no thought of it not being just right.

 

[rbsinto]

I'll dispense with the false modesty bull****.
Do I think that I'm a good photographer?
Yeah. I do.
After spending so much time over the last 38 years practicing it, I'd be incredibly disappointed if I didn't think I was any good.
However, to me that really means nothing at all if my very talented photobud peers think I'm not.

 

[Brian Legge]

No false modesty, just honesty -

Nope, not at all. My work is mediocre with the occasional lucky shot. The better mediocre shots get shared online, the lucky shots get printed and hung. My rate of better-than-mediocre is frustratingly low. I think I average about one to two shots a year worth printing.

 

[John E Earley]

I regularly cry myself to sleep contemplating the enormity of my photographic brilliance.

So no. I have never surprised myself.

 

[Paulbe]

John E--you're tooooo funny, Dude! A real renaissance man if I ever saw one! I, OTOH, have been pleasantly surprised at some of the shots I got while on a tour of Italy last year.
As the saying goes--if you want to take more interesting shots--stand in front of more interesting subjects. Italy was interesting!
Paul

 

[mfunnell]

No false modesty, just honesty -

Nope, not at all. My work is mediocre with the occasional lucky shot. The better mediocre shots get shared online, the lucky shots get printed and hung. My rate of better-than-mediocre is frustratingly low. I think I average about one to two shots a year worth printing.

Well, there's printing to hang on the wall (I have few enough of those) at one end through to printing 6x4s to stick in a cheap plastic pocket album (I do a lot of that; mostly to show photos to people who were there) and much in between. For the most part, anything I've put online I've printed; mostly at 6x4. But I like prints, even small ones, even of photos that aren't especially brilliant.

...Mike

 

[peterm1]

When something pans out really well, mostly I just put it down to serendipity and pure dumb luck. Very occasionally though I go, wow, I really nailed it. But I have to admit that usually that's after post processing the heck out of an image to get it just how I want it. And its worked.

I am a firm believer in the words of the old adage, that genius (not that I am one) is the infinite capacity for taking pains. Hard work and attention to detail is where it is at mostly in most careers, professions and avocations. Eventually you may be able to be an "over night success" but usually only after 10-15 years of hard graft.

Actually on further thought too, I should say that when I get a good image straight from the camera although I will still work it over in post processing usually when the image is something that surprises me pleasantly its one where I have paid attention to the basics - composition, aperture setting, exposure, etc and I have picked the moment well. The last of these are usually more instinctive but the other factors are deliberate and planned. So maybe even at that stage its not altogether pure dumb luck. Some of it is paying attention to the basics as well as the ability to have an "eye" for the image and what works.