Why are everyone else's photos so much better than mine?

Excuse alanrockwood

alanrockwood said:

Why are everyone else's photos so much better than mine?

Click to expand...

It is not a stupid question. Maybe, just maybe, due the lack of learning that the only important spectator, the only judge, and the only who must be satisfied with your photos is “You”

LAG said:

Excuse alanrockwood



It is not a stupid question. Maybe, just maybe, due the lack of learning that the only important spectator, the only judge, and the only who must be satisfied with your photos is “You”

Click to expand...

I was a lot happier when I learned to stop comparing my work to everyone else's all the time (another vote for reading Art & Fear btw, also On Being A Photographer by David Hurn & Bill Jay).

One of the things I used to notice is my last two or three frames of a film were better than the rest. This was because I took a precise approach to framing and composition which killed any spontaneity, and when I was shooting casually to finish the roll things became more interesting. I find the best photographs emerge from a state of mind between organisation and chaos. Make a space for happy accidents.

blockend said:

Someone mentioned railway photography, which made me think of O. Winston Link. Link was a preparation freak, he'd install a few dozen flashbulbs that were automatically set off by the arrival of a train. He lit the loco, the carriages, the bridge, the buildings and the people watching the Drive-In as it passed. Nothing was left to chance. That kind of stuff doesn't happen by accident, the preparation was as detailed as a rocket launch.

Click to expand...

I remember someone trying to recreate one of Winston Link's shots, or at least in that style. There was a rare steam-train trip, ancient flash reflectors, a big number of 'the very last' flash bulbs, lots of wire etc. and a large sheet-film camera. Lots of organisation and preparation from the photographer and many others for a once-only opportunity. And he forgot to pull the darkslide . . .

blockend said:

One of the things I used to notice is my last two or three frames of a film were better than the rest. This was because I took a precise approach to framing and composition which killed any spontaneity, and when I was shooting casually to finish the roll things became more interesting. I find the best photographs emerge from a state of mind between organisation and chaos. Make a space for happy accidents.

Click to expand...

Excuse me blockend

With that being said, you should move to LF right away! (I am pulling your leg) I undestand your point of view, although happiness sometimes comes first on the list!

blockend said:

One of the things I used to notice is my last two or three frames of a film were better than the rest. This was because I took a precise approach to framing and composition which killed any spontaneity, and when I was shooting casually to finish the roll things became more interesting. I find the best photographs emerge from a state of mind between organisation and chaos. Make a space for happy accidents.

Click to expand...

i think you are also saying you were in the "zone"
its a zone that a lot of people never make it to,

but the more they work, the more they practice the more
of the zone plays "peek a boo" with them. unfortunately to be in the zone
you have to sort of let your guard down at the same time, so you have to have
enough confidence in what you do to be able to be on auto pilot and not think ...
sometimes over thinking everything ( something that EVERYONE does ) is the zone killer ...

CropDusterMan said:

... Here is an interesting quote during a class at Rice University during the 1970's...

"...{Stuff that I'm just now figuring out after all this time}...".

Garry Winogrand, 1975

Click to expand...

Thanks CropDusterMan! That seems to hit home.

I realise that I have been practising the Ken Rockwell "FART" without knowing it. I also do my best to imagine how the photo will look when developed and printed (or scanned). Generally I like to use film who's characteristics I am familiar with so I can imagine how the final result will look. I might see something that could make a great subject for a photograph, but if I have the "wrong" film with me...I might pass.

I can barely remember a time when I couldn't use a camera, as I learned very young...possibly as young as four. I'm unsure when I started to learn how to compose pictures but I do believe it is about seeing a scene and assessing how it might look as a photograph....also knowing scenes that will make good photos, and those that will not. Knowing the right moment to fire the shutter.

There's also a good deal of truth in the idea that getting close to your subject can be important...unless you're doing a landscape.

Many times I have no idea how something will look when photographed, so that's why I do it.

no word play/word games or internet advice wil lreally make anyone take better photographs
it has to do with practice. no one gets good at anything by doing it once in a while

Why are everyone else's photos so much better than mine?

Probably HCB thought that when he saw pictures by Andre Kertesz.

'cuz you're comparing

Vilk said:

'cuz you're comparing

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Other than viewing some work on this site I don't study works of any photographers. I prefer to develop my own style and I don't want to be influenced by any other work.

I believe I have more than a handful of great shots, but that's my opinion. I have too many emotions and memories wrapped up in my favorite images and I'm not sure that would translate to viewers. My images are therapy for me. To help understand where I've been, and see how I've grown as a person. This is why I photograph. I'm not so much worried about how my work stacks up against others.

Probably you haven't seen everybody else's contact sheets or prints that are little more than a rough artist's sketch. Everybody makes crappy photos. It's part of the learning process. The people who post or show their work show only the best. Keep on taking pictures, and develop your own eye.

With best regards,

Clumsy Eddie(Stephen)

michr said:

I've been giving your question a bit of thought, and when it comes to my own work I've narrowed it down to at least these reasons, perhaps they apply to you also.

Comparing one's work, good and bad, to the best work of dozens or hundreds of people. We're all to aware of our own shortcomings and we only see what others want us to see. It's not at all different from the Facebook effect. Each of us is only one person, only the exceptional outshine everyone (which is why they're the exception).

Which brings us to the second point, we don't recognize we're in the middle of the pack. In most human endeavors, there aren't that many of the best, and the majority is about average. While it's discouraging to know I'll never be the next Ansel Adams, at least I can be assured that I'm better than some. Find some photos that aren't as good as yours. I bet you'll even find some photos by the giants of photography that aren't as good as yours. You can look up contact sheets for some of them online. So I disagree with the literal meaning of your post, everyone just can't be better than you. Even the best can't be better than you some of the time.

Finally, here's something I've been lazy about, but maybe is the most important. Figure out how the photos are lacking and work on it. I'm still trying to nail down the development process myself. So what I'd like to do is have a batch professionally developed and printed. Perhaps the photos themselves are plenty good, but I don't know how to develop or print well. HCB famously didn't print or develop much at all, and yet he's still considered one of the greats by many.

I'll also add that if you're doing the photography, developing and printing those are at least three people's jobs. What one person, perhaps an amateur, could be better than three professionals? I try not to compare myself to all of those who are retired, independently wealthy, or professional photographers. I have the occasional night or weekend to work, perhaps it is the same with you. The more time spent actively learning the better we will be, and some have more opportunities than others, so I just try to make the most of mine.

Click to expand...

The reason that I think it is important for ME to study the masters of Photography's works is they make me realize that the makers were human-beings who made those pictures. So, as a human-being, it is possible (not probable) that I might could do works similar to or maybe equal to their work. This gives me reason to continue with my photography. Doing great work is not impossible for me. Am I doing great work? No, but I could if I would get off my behind and work at it, maybe!......Regards!

OP... you my not be cut out for photography or you may be in the wrong genre.

I wanted to be a fashion / studio photog. But I have no talent for it. So I do what I have great talent at...street and doc work.

Really, I think this has more to do with you seeing all of your mistakes and screw ups, and comparing those to the best shots that you see others have taken.

I have a handful of shots, all taken in the last year, that I am truly happy with. I’ve been practicing, and working on my technique, working on composition, etc for the past four years (when I started getting back into photography).

I think it’s important to realize why we do all of this. For me, I needed something that engaged a different part of my brain. 60+ hr work weeks made coming home and working in my shop not sound too good most days. Photography allows me to tinker, which is what my brain needs to do to learn. Growth is part of the process. Learn from your duds, if you do, they weren’t really duds.

Composition is everything. Here is a link to the best book that I've come across on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581802560/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

pdeeh said:

because you don't have an expensive enough camera

Click to expand...

Yeah! Sheesh, *everybody* knows you gotta have a Leica to make good photos!

tomfrh said:

It's basic statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

You (and me) happen to fall within that 90% from the sounds of it.

Click to expand...

Yes, except that Sturgeon's observation...applies to all of us. The majority of everybody's output is crap.

As others have said, keep trying. The best in any field as those who work hard. Photography is no different.

BradS said:

The majority of everybody's output is crap

Click to expand...

YES !!
even uncle adams said at least the first 10,000 are dung, its just a matter of
making at least 10,001 so before you push daisies, you at least have 1 good one

alanrockwood said:

OK, I know it is a stupid question, but it might lead to an interesting discussion.

(By the way, one of the several reasons I haven't posted any photos at APUG is implicit in the title of this thread.)

Click to expand...

It's not a stupid question, but it might be the wrong question. It might just be you haven't identified your own reasons and interests for taking pictures.

Many times the amateur compares their photos to a pro or rich pro. Although the pro may not be that talented, the pro may be on a different level, just in $ and help and connections.

Look at Mary Ellen Mark's crew for her Twins project...

http://photohostsnapshots.tumblr.com/image/125927444563

She was able to scout out the project years ahead of time and took 2 years to shoot it. She drove down there with 2 vans, a huge crew and loads of equipment. Just feeding everyone is a monster bill, let alone wages and other expenses.

A few years ago I was planning to shoot The Twins Festival where Mark shot. Luckily for me I checked with them ahead of time before driving a couple states over to shoot it. They told me I needed to pay a $1200 freelance credential fee to take photos there. I told them I was not using the pix commercially and just shooting for my own use. They said it didn’t matter…$1200 or you get thrown out. So, money / connections stopped that project in its tracks.

A lot of the great photos produced throughout history were due to the photog being able to travel for projects. If the photog does not have enough money to travel, then they had better work like Ralph Eugene Meatyard and produce iconic work in their own backyard. Of course, even if the photog has $ to travel they still need skills to produce great work.

When a photog has $, they can maintain a roomy studio with a couch, fridge and A/C to work in. They can hire a publicist, professional models, an art director, assistants, secretary, makeup artists, hair artists, fixers, location scouts and managers, grips, post process artists and a truck load of strobes, cams, reflectors, diffusers, tripods and the rest…it all takes lots of $$.

I read about a bird photog that spent thousands of $$ hiring a charter boat and tons of chum bait to attract birds. Others hire helicopters and planes for aerial shots. Look at what this photog and crew brought with him for his project…what a cargo bill!

http://photohostsnapshots.tumblr.com/image/123547096728

Sometimes $ can also buy cooperation. Eve Arnold paid $1000 to a fixer to get access for shooting the black Muslims in the 1960’s. That was a lot of dough back then – WSJ says it is $7,700 in today’s money.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204257504577150641295316770

As people get squeezed more and more and have a harder time getting by, it is not uncommon for subjects to ask for an honorarium to allow photography and interviewing. So given em a few bucks if it will buy cooperation.

I gave this guy $1 for a pix...I liked his sign! He would change signs throughout the day.



When it comes to developing projects and experimenting it takes $ as well. Money helps with professional connections. Money buys the best prints, PP'ing, project development and advertising…and isn’t it true that the high and mighty gravitate toward the rich / famous? Money also buys time. The poor photog that works 2 jobs just to get by does not have much time or energy left for shooting.

slackercrurster said:

Many times the amateur co

Click to expand...

One should compare oneself to their peers. It is unreasonable to go out and on the first roll of film take photographs better than Ansel Adam, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz or Dorothea Lang.

Good advice here. Not too sure why your pictures aren't as good as everyone else so I can't help you there.

All I can do is comment on my own experience and I am still working this all out for myself. You will probably have to do the same.

Getting good takes lots of practice. Getting really good takes a lot more practice. Getting really, really good... You get the idea. Think Olympic athletes. They work at improving their skills everyday.

Just practicing is not enough. It also takes a lot of self examination and critique. You have to know what you are doing right and what you are doing wrong. Continue practicing what you are doing right and stop doing whatever it is that you are doing wrong. Most of us need help from other people to learn what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. If you just keep practicing what you are doing wrong you will get really, really good at doing it wrong.

It also helps to work with the same equipment and materials. It is hard to get really good at doing something if you keep changing what you are doing it with. The perfect camera, the perfect lens, the perfect film, the perfect developer, the perfect paper or printer. None of this really exists, it is just a myth. It is a bit like Bigfoot, fun to read about but not very useful. Just use what you have and get really good at using it.

If you want to take good pictures you have to take a lot of them, or hire someone else to take them. If you want really, really good pictures... Have you taken more than 10,000 pictures yet?

If you want to get good at developing you have to develop a lot of negatives, or hire someone else to develop them. If you want to get really, really good...

If you want good prints you have to print a lot, or hire someone else to do it for you. If you want really, really good prints...

Editing is also a skill and to get really good at editing you have to edit a lot. Edit your own work and practice editing the work of those people you think are masters. They all make mistakes. But don't toss anything out unless it is a mistake or out of focus.

I review the photographs of photographers that I admire. Not because I want to be like them, I just admire their work. My work is different than theirs but I would like to think that they might enjoy looking at my stuff.

The most important thing is to put myself out there. Print, publish, make my work known. Nobody gets great until they have published their work. Ansel would be a total unknown if he had never published his work. So would Dorothea Lange. Vivian Maier was a total unknown until someone else found and published her work. That was sheer luck.

Unfortunately I am not very good at that last one. But I will keep working at it. I don't think I can depend on someone else finding and publishing my work.

Finally, you do have to believe in yourself. If you don't think you can ever get really good...you are probably right.