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

[Pieter12]

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.)

The question is, why do you think that way? If it is about technique, that is something you can improve with knowledge and practice. Otherwise, I would say look, look, look, look. Look at the photos you admire that are in the same genre as you are shooting. What makes them good? The lighting, the composition, the subject? Most of those are within your grasp (maybe not the subject, but you can try). Then before you take a photo, look, look, look. At the light, the composition, the subject. Be conscious of the edges of the frame, of the angle you are taking the photo from. Take a class or workshop. And shoot a lot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Take photographs with a friend who is also taking photographs. Ask at each area before leaving, "What did you see? What did you photograph?"

 

[NB23]

Magical thinking is your best friend. Think that you’re the best. Nobody will prove you otherwise...

 

[alanrockwood]

The question is, why do you think that way? If it is about technique, that is something you can improve with knowledge and practice. Otherwise, I would say look, look, look, look. Look at the photos you admire that are in the same genre as you are shooting. What makes them good? The lighting, the composition, the subject? Most of those are within your grasp (maybe not the subject, but you can try). Then before you take a photo, look, look, look. At the light, the composition, the subject. Be conscious of the edges of the frame, of the angle you are taking the photo from. Take a class or workshop. And shoot a lot.

I think it is mainly about composition and partly about selection of what to photograph. I think I do a few things right by habit. My process often follows roughly the following steps in roughly the following order, but not always strictly so. After selecting what to photograph I typically look at the background first to be sure there aren't any disturbing distractions. Then I use my feet to try to find the most interesting angle, checking the background as I go. Then I frame the picture, using the maxim that too close to the subject (either by physical distance or by zoom) is usually just about right, also trying to use the rule of thirds as a crutch and also looking at the type of lighting being presented (front, side, back). Then I select the shutter speed/aperture combination, usually to get about the right depth of field (large or small, depending on the situation) but sometimes to get the right shutter speed (usually faster).

One problem I often find is that my selection of subjects and composition tends to end up looking static, whereas other people I know (who are often less proficient technically) make pictures with a more dynamic look, even when photographing static objects.

For people-pictures the process is a bit different, and I sometimes end up with a good photo, party by luck and partly by luck. (Did I say "luck" twice?) Also partly be good management. These are generally spontaneous situations rather than studio pictures, which I don't do at this time but would like to do in the future. I have picked up a few tricks for improving the ratio of good/bad people-pictures, but to keep things brief I won't go into them here.

By the way, I am strictly an amateur.

Also by the way, in my looking at old family pictures (many of them from in-laws) I have come to the conclusion that in a hundred years no one will be interested in my attempts at artsy pictures, but they are likely to be very interested in my pictures of family and friends.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most of my best photographs were taken either when the camera was not loaded with film or the lens cap was left on.

 

[pbromaghin]

90% of everything I've ever done is crap. It has to be true.

 

[pbromaghin]

After seeing all the crap that Allen Rockwood has posted, I have to say that the 90% rule is crap.

I wish I could produce crap like he does.

 

[MattKing]

Alan (the OP):
Did the 1.5 years this thread lay dormant make a difference to you ?
It occurs to me that if looking at other people's work makes you want to continue taking photographs, then it isn't all bad.
I do, however, think that a better question is: "Why are most of my photographs not nearly as good as the one or two (or 10 or 100) that I am happy with?"

 

[alanrockwood]

Alan (the OP):
I do, however, think that a better question is: "Why are most of my photographs not nearly as good as the one or two (or 10 or 100) that I am happy with?"

I never thought of it that way before.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.)

take a closer look; they aren't.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

One problem I often find is that my selection of subjects and composition tends to end up looking static,

Are you passionate about the subject matter you choose? Do you have a set of ideals about what you are doing with your photography?

 

[removed account4]

I wish I could produce crap like he does.

wish i could see his work, i always like looking at crappy photos !

 

[pbromaghin]

wish i could see his work, i always like looking at crappy photos !

Wait.

What?

Who was I thinking of? Some other guy, one who put up some really great stuff.

 

[removed account4]

Wait.

What?

Who was I thinking of? Some other guy, one who put up some really great stuff.

no clue
all i know is the OP has no work in the gallery or a website so i can't see anything he is talking about
and i thought you somehow were able to see the images and they weren't crap but good. good sheet !

 

[pbromaghin]

It was some guy who did trees and rocks. You know. Stuff like that.

 

[Black Dog]

The harder you work, the luckier you get...