What's new

Is exposure to and study of good photography a bad thing?

I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.

See, I find that a little bit fascinating. The fact that that guy looks through them hoping to find "the one" suggests that he does have an idea of what makes a good photo, so why not try to intentionally reach that goal instead of searching for the needle in the haystack?
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
Why are you attacking me? I don't know you from Adam. I'm talking about a friend of mine. Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer. He hit for $10k once with a scratch off lottery ticket, and camera gear was one of the things he bought with it.

You feeling guilty about something, or what?

By the way, "30 years ago"? I had no idea you were so old. Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old? It must have cost you a LOT of money shooting thousands of snapshots per day that you didn't care about pre-digital, eh?
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.

See, I find that a little bit fascinating. The fact that that guy looks through them hoping to find "the one" suggests that he does have an idea of what makes a good photo, so why not try to intentionally reach that goal instead of searching for the needle in the haystack?
I actually don't. I usually just shoot for the sake of shooting. I have photos i have shot i haven't even looked at.
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
Why are you attacking me? I don't know you from Adam. I'm talking about a friend of mine. Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.

You feeling guilty about something, or what?

By the way, "30 years ago"? I had no idea you were so old. Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.

See, I find that a little bit fascinating. The fact that that guy looks through them hoping to find "the one" suggests that he does have an idea of what makes a good photo, so why not try to intentionally reach that goal instead of searching for the needle in the haystack?
I guess he knew what he liked when he saw a particular picture, but just couldn't seem to figure out how to make it happen intentionally when looking through the viewfinder.

He simply couldn't seem to pre-visualize the shot, the way most of us can before even raising the viewfinder to our eye. We see or think of something interesting and walk around it, if only in our mind's eye, looking at the light, the shadow, the juxtaposition with other compositional elements, thinking about the effects of DOF and shutter speed, the proper ISO to achieve them, etc., and THEN we raise the viewfinder to our eye. He just didn't get that part of it.
 
Last edited:
Let's keep things friendly, guys...respect each other's choices and approaches to photography. What works for some won't work for all...that doesn't make it wrong, or worthless or bad. If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring old world!
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
Why are you attacking me? I don't know you from Adam. I'm talking about a friend of mine. Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.

You feeling guilty about something, or what?

By the way, "30 years ago"? I had no idea you were so old. Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
I don't know why you think everything revolves around you, but it doesn't. Sorry to bust your bubble.
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
Why are you attacking me? I don't know you from Adam. I'm talking about a friend of mine. Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.

You feeling guilty about something, or what?

By the way, "30 years ago"? I had no idea you were so old. Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
I consider phrases like, "go shut the **** up and get a life" to be attacks, believe it or not.
 
Let's keep things friendly, guys...respect each other's choices and approaches to photography. What works for some won't work for all...that doesn't make it wrong, or worthless or bad. If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring old world!

I agree. I wasn't trying to make a dig at Bribrius or saying he was wrong. It's just an approach to photography I haven't come across before, so am just trying to understand his approach.

I'm trying to figure out if the approach is a love for photography without a love for photographs, which is what I think I've decided it must be. Whereas I, and 99% of other photographers I know have a love for photographs and the photography part is just the means by which we get those photographs, even though I/we also enjoy and/or love that part too.
 
I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life. He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue. Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit. And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while. The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be. He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess. They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
Why are you attacking me? I don't know you from Adam. I'm talking about a friend of mine. Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.

You feeling guilty about something, or what?

By the way, "30 years ago"? I had no idea you were so old. Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
I consider phrases like, "go shut the **** up and get a life" to be attacks, believe it or not.
And some might consider it a response to a rather thinly veiled insult... quid pro quo!

There's already been one warning for this thread, everyone place nice so it stays open, 'kay? Thanks!
 
I consider phrases like, "go shut the **** up and get a life" to be attacks, believe it or not.
And some might consider it a response to a rather thinly veiled insult... quid pro quo!
So, now you're thinly inferring that I'm a liar because god forbid that I should actually know and be friends with a GWAC in real life, and that I DESERVE an attack for it because for some reason, Bri apparently identifies with my friend Larry.

Amazing.
 
Let's keep things friendly, guys...respect each other's choices and approaches to photography. What works for some won't work for all...that doesn't make it wrong, or worthless or bad. If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring old world!

I agree. I wasn't trying to make a dig at Bribrius or saying he was wrong. It's just an approach to photography I haven't come across before, so am just trying to understand his approach.

I'm trying to figure out if the approach is a love for photography without a love for photographs, which is what I think I've decided it must be. Whereas I, and 99% of other photographers I know have a love for photographs and the photography part is just the means by which we get those photographs, even though I/we also enjoy and/or love that part too.
oh but i DO. I started collecting 1800's early 1900's photos and post cards a little over a decade ago. Stopped for a while but find my self out looking online for something i like again. Same with my own photos. Just like a certain thing and i am "picky". Much a personal thing/addiction/hobby.
 
Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
Agree to a extent.

I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance. Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills". I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.

I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image. Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little. There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is. Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no. And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.

Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone. I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images. I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.

This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.

And if we are to claim that all this is good, then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.

Here is where the difference is. You are placing importance in the subject of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their depiction of the subject. It's composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.

A good subject does not a good photo make.
In my world of photojournalism, it is all about the subject, all about the story. In the world of studio/commercial photography, it is about composition and lighting ... In the studio, it is more important to capture a pretty picture than the telling of a story. (pretty = successful)

I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography. When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.

.... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.

And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom