On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Eric Weir wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In my opinion taking a lot of shots does not improve one's photography >> any more than throwing a 1000 darts at a dartboard blind folded >> improves one's game…. >> >> I'm probably stating the obvious, but getting good shots is usually a >> matter of having a good eye for composition, paying attention to >> technical details, shooting in the right light, using the right tool >> for the job, knowing one's gear. > > Yeah, you definitely are. > > You don’t need to size up the situation? You don’t need to look through the > viewfinder? You don’t need to think about what you want to accomplish? You > don’t need to check your settings? You don’t need to think about what > settings are called for in the situation given what you want to accomplish? > You don’t need to check the results you’re getting and adjust? > > How stupid do you think I am? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > [email protected] >
I am not sure where you are coming from in your response to Tom, Eric. He was stating some fundamental truths, presumably to bring the discussion back on center. There are two separate notions confabulated here. One is: what does it take to improve in one's photography. The second is: what does it take to take a good image. The answer to the first question is that you need to practice, study, observe, practice some more. That means taking many shots, thoughtfully, then examining the results and thinking about what went right and what went wrong, then going back and doing it again (hopefully applying some of the lessons learned from the intervening study and reflection). In the process of taking your first 10,000 or first 100,000 images, some will most likely be "keepers." Good subject, good composition, appropriate settings on aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, no camera shake, no glare. etc. The more you shoot, the higher your odds are of getting those special images that you will treasure. Taking lots of shots can not only help you get better, it can also help you get lucky. Presumably we all want to rely on more than luck. What it takes to learn a craft, to gain the skills, is not what it takes to execute those skills. Yes, photographers who have moved from beginner to novice to journeyman to some level of expertise will still practice techniques, study and reflect on the results. But they don't need great volumes of images to enable that study because they have learned to look at the subtleties that make the difference between a good picture and a great one. So, yes they are still in a learning mode, hopefully always will be, and most of what it takes to learn as a novice is still true of what it takes to learn even after becoming an expert or master. But going into the studio or into the field is something else. Setting aside the special case of fast-moving wildlife or race cars or athletes, getting good shots isn't about taking a lot of shots. It is about choosing the right subject, the right composition, the right lens, the right level of artificial illumination when called for, appropriate settings for speed, aperture, & ISO. When you have all of that right, there is no need for more than one shot. Take it and move 3 feet and recompose and do it again. Which is what I thought Tom was saying in fewer words: quality of process beats quantity in the long run. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
