When I was working before retirement, I also found it easier to do my job than find meaningful personal stuff to do. Work is already directed for you. You know what has to be done and you have to get on with it. And it ends and some point either at 5pm or when the project is complete.
Not so with hobbies. You have to direct yourself, set objectives, and set aside the time to do it. In many ways, it requires more imagination and dedication.
I depends on the job one has. I’m a retired high school teacher and taught in an area with no mandated curriculum (drafting and computer programming) so it was up to me to direct myself, set the objectives, manage the time, use my imagination and dedication, not to mention assessing how the students were moving toward “perfection,” and it never ended at 5pm nor was the project ever done.
The technical part of photography is pretty much automatic for me, I spend my time and effort on the composition, accurate framing and catching the right or best moment.
“Perfection is the enemy of progress.” -Winston Churchill.
I think it goes back to someone's mother who said, "My son is perfect." Now everyone is competing with her son.
I think it goes back to someone's mother who said, "My son is perfect." Now everyone is competing with her son.
A perfectly exposed, developed, and printed image of a boring subject, is just that, boring. An image that grabs you, even though not technically perfect is still the better image.
But strangely, boring subjects can prove fascinating when photographed. Take the work of Peter Mitchell, for instance.A perfectly exposed, developed, and printed image of a boring subject, is just that, boring. An image that grabs you, even though not technically perfect is still the better image.
But strangely, boring subjects can prove fascinating when photographed. Take the work of Peter Mitchell, for instance.
Exactly so. That makes the photographer an artist, yes? In Mitchell's case, a single photo might not seem remarkable. But the entire photo-essay is pointing out something to which most people are blind.An argument could be made that the subject is not in fact boring, just that the viewer lacks imagination to see it in a non-boring way until someone else comes along and points it out.
At first I thought this was just a wind-up question. But then I wondered, 'What is it that's missing from all my reject photos?'. In the past I rejected many on grounds of poor technique, but as my technique became more consistent I realised that content is really the decisive factor (I include viewpoint, composition and timing in 'content'). Now I would say that selection of content both pre- and post-exposure is everything. It's what makes each photographer's 'voice'.
I am a fan of Elliott Erwitt. His book 'Unseen' consists of images that failed the first cut. It includes quite a few that were undoubtedly below par technically: out-of-focus or otherwise blurred, drastically under-exposed, or massively grainy. But because the content is striking, a bit of strong printing has played down the imperfections, and the content speaks.
But strangely, boring subjects can prove fascinating when photographed. Take the work of Peter Mitchell, for instance.
You're back‽Well that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
But strangely, boring subjects can prove fascinating when photographed. Take the work of Peter Mitchell, for instance.
You're back‽
Evidentially, there are no indications that it is a doppelganger.
You're back‽
Is that said with incredulity, or joy, or dread?
And the existential question is, of course, how can you be sure he was gone?
I'm just thinking why? Why now? New moderators? None of my business really I guess. Though still very mildly curious.
Is that said with incredulity, or joy, or dread?
And the existential question is, of course, how can you be sure he was gone?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?