You miss my point, Tom. The proof sheet is to pick the best of a bunch of good photos, not to sort the crap from the mediocre, or at least that was the way we thought of it in the old days.
Tell me something, Tom, can you look at a print and pretty much tell how it was lit? Can you reproduce that lighting with a minimum of experimentation? Do you know what types of poses look graceful and which do not? For a skinny person? A fat person? How to photography a very shiny object without reflections? How to light a large rotunda? Those are all questions people on this list have asked, usually with the preface, "Some one wants to pay me to do this, how do I do it?" And then there is the question I've never seen anybody ask, "How do I learn to use my camera without even thinking about it?" There are a few here on the list that I know can do that, and probably a few more that I do not know, but I would guess there are not more than 20-25 out of the 600+ folks. When you have learned how to do that, you will find that you really do not like fiddlely cameras. Anybody, especially with todays cameras, can shoot 2000 frames of something and get 10 decent photos, it is another thing to shoot 10 and get those same 10 photos. A really good photographer is not sorting diamonds from a pile of rocks, he is sorting flawless diamonds from a pile of diamonds. Don't take the above a put-down, take it as a challenge. Tom C wrote: > If I was getting paid for every hour I was doing photography, I suppose a > higher perecentage of my shots would also be better. Since I'm not getting > paid for it, and am often in a hurry, on my way to/from a paying job... > > I wasn't suggesting that it was a law of averages, but your words are at > odds with what I've heard at least several celebrated photographers say. > > I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement: > >> I guess I do not care who feels insulted, but if every single photo >> (that you work at making) is not technically and esthetically salable >> you are not competent. > > How can that be? I write software and am pretty good at it. It doesn't mean > that I can't make a mistake and have the end product not function as > designed or envisioned. Having that be the case does not mean I'm > incompetent, simply human. > > I'm not insulted, but I do believe you are wrong. If what you say is true, > there would be no need for proof sheets and editing, and the 'professionals' > are the ones who make the most use of them. > > > Tom C. > > >> From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: OT - Taking Your Photography To The Next Level. >> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:15:44 -0500 >> >> As long as we understand that the top photographers toss-outs are better >> than our best, that is true. >> >> It really bothers me that folks think great photographs are a product of >> averages, of luck. A competent photographer does not produce many duds >> (as long as he is working at it, if he is old and lazy like me, he gets >> a lot of them, but not because he doesn't know better). >> >> I guess I do not care who feels insulted, but if every single photo >> (that you work at making) is not technically and esthetically salable >> you are not competent. Now that does not apply to experimental stuff, >> that is learning, and goes on forever, but your everyday photography >> better be pretty damn good if you think you are a photographer. >> >> I suggest folks get a Speed Graphic and a Polaroid back. If you think >> being able to shoot a lot for almost nothing improves your photography, >> you will be surprised at what knowing that every time you press the >> button it is going to cost you $2.50-$3.00 ($5.00 with flashbulbs) will >> do for it. >> >> -graywolf >> >> >> Tom C wrote: >>> I thought it contained some useful reminders. What he fails to mention >>> though, is that no matter how good or celebrated a photographer one is, >> the >>> majority of photographs are throwaway and never make the portfolio or >> get >>> exhibited to others. >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
