this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

24 readers
1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
communick@viewfinder.pro
1
Successful shot rate (alien.top)
submitted 1 year ago by HardVision@alien.top to c/photography@viewfinder.pro
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

On average what would you say is your success rate when you go out to shoot? And what’s your experience level?

For myself who has a passion for photography but zero formal training and only purchased my first real camera less than a year ago, I’d say 1% of the pictures that I take are “good” or at least to the point to where I’d share them.

I know a lot comes from just going out and taking pictures but I feel like the gaps between when I go out and take pictures and actually sit at the computer and look at them is so spread out that I can never remember what I did or was thinking last time I was out shooting

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RedHuey@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lol. The old “don’t gatekeep me” defense!

You got into photography a year ago and have no training in it. That’s fine. There is nothing wrong with that and every photographer was once there.

No, you camera cannot climbs mountain, etc. on its own, but what are you actually contributing other than aiming the lens at something? Seriously? What? The answer is not very much, and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. I suspect if someone handed you a manual SLR and 20 rolls of film, you’d not come up with much.

I don’t care what you, or anybody else, wants to do to entertain yourself, but don’t kid yourself into thinking you are practicing photography when you point a fully automated camera, that is doing all of the work other than aiming, and taking 150 burst shots of a bird, so that can later dig out the one “perfect” one from the camera’s work. That’s lucktography. Accompanied by a walk, if you prefer, but you aren’t doing much more.

If you ever want to actually learn and get better, you have to leave this mindset behind, at least temporarily. Repeat after me: “There is no perfect shot out there waiting for me. Only the shots I take.” Practice mindful, thoughtful photography, and you will learn to take actual pictures that you can be proud of. Lucktography teaches you nothing useful.

[–] Galaxyhiker42@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm 20+ years deep with credits of Nat Geo, discovery, etc

I'm in unions and guilds... But fuck it. Some random dude on the Internet says I don't know what I'm doing because I use tech to my advantage.

Guess it's time to hang up my hat and retire.

You're 100% gate keeping.

People should learn from the discipline of film, but if burst mode or high speed photography helps them get more enjoyable shots that play to a wider audience... Then so be it.

Get over yourself.

[–] RedHuey@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a lot further in than you are. If you actually need certain technology to get a particular shot, go for it.

But if you are just taking 50 near identical pictures of the same bird, fully automatic in every way, hoping that one pic in the 50 will be "perfect," then don't kid yourself. You are counting on the luck backed by technology, not your abilities as a photographer. You are practicing lucktography. I don't care how many guilds think you are the cat's pajamas. You are getting great shots by luck and tech, not your skills.

Nat Geo cares about the shot. Not how you get it. They want that 1 in 50 perfect shot. That's what they pay you for. But they publish photos, they don't practice photography.