the photos you don't take

I recently stumbled upon the words of a very well known landscape photographer who was quoted in OP magazine: "Good photographers are often defined by the photographs they didn't take."
Thinking about it, I believe it is true to a certain degree, but I would rather say "the photographs they maybe have taken, but never showed...", since I am a person who rather takes one photograph too many, but am very restrictive in showing these. (still I take very few images, since I am stuck to 4x5" sheet film only!)
Any thoughts on this? Can this also be applied to posting? ("...the photos they didn't post.")? Does it make sense to rather shoot a little less and show a little less? (or are these complete different things for you?)

Thanks for taking time to let me know your thoughts!

Georg

There is a lot to be said for slowing down and simply enjoying what is in front of you. Sometimes the rush to produce something for your trip means coming back with good, but not great photos.

And there are days just sitting on a cliff watching the sun set is a far better use of your mental energy that photographing it.

I agree much more with your line of thinking Georg. I would rather take the image and decide later not to show or post it, especially with the advent of digital. IMO, the train of thought expressed by the well known writer seems like a good sound bite, but of little practical value. It's much like saying we're defined by which paths in life we didn't take, which thoughts we didn't think, et al. Respectfully, I think that's a bunch of hooey (That's a technical term! ) Life is not lived in a vacuum of non-actions; instead, it is lived in the real world defined by our actions, decisions, lessons learned, and consequences faced and accepted. I would much rather act and make a mistake than philosophize about the nobility of inaction or indecision.

Disclaimer - Perhaps I've taken his thoughts and meaning out of context since I haven't read the article. Just basing my reply on that one sentence.

Georg, I recently read the same article you are refering to. I agree with that premise, but I don't think that means restricting taking photos of only 10/10 subjects. IMO, many of the photos published in OP are not close to that level of quality, but they are generally very good. I like to take at least is what is considered post-card quality and above, and I weed through my photographs appropriately. Just from a standpoint of remembering trips, some locations have hardly any photos to remind me of my experiences there because I was too picky. I've also been able to take very good photos during late morning/early afternoon with a polarizer, but I think this is neglected a bit because the more dramatic light occurs at sunrise/sunset. I think its also important to challenge onself to take a very good, but perhaps not great, photographs at less than ideal times. It's made me a better photographer when the lighting and conditions were just right.

In terms of posting, I've recently posted some waterfalls that I know were not top tier images, particularly with the ones currently being posted by people shooting from the NW (we all know who they are). I think its still good to hear the critique and just accept it won't get the accolades that some other photographers are getting on their work.

I think its helps to try and check the ego at the door. None of us created what we are photographing to begin with - it would have been beautiful whether we were there to photograph nature or not.

Everyone seems to have an opinion as to what constitutes a "good photographer".

Good photographers just are, and neither the type or quality of gear they use nor their photographic habits proves or disproves anything. We all work by different methods, and the fact is that all these methods are correct.

Michael, 'course you are right, each method that works is good, you might either shoot 5 or 5000 images a day, but it wasn't the opinion of that photographer to try to completely define a good photographer by that one sentence, it is a phrase he uses to make people in workshops aware, that sometimes less is more. (or so I think) I just took that thought further and tried to see how it would affect me and found out, that it is very imporatnt to stand 100% behind a photograph i took to even show it to friends. If I'm not, I either throw it away or file it away in a drawer for at least a year. (I think Jack Dykinga - whose quote that is - wanted to point out it would be a good idea to not even shoot a photograph, you are not convinced of - which doesn't mean the one you take will automatically be a masterpiece)

which leads me to posting: to a certain degree I have one (maybe strange) opinion: I (and each one at NPN who takes time to comment and really try to look at the images) is a kind of photo editor, who reviews photographs not for a specific purpose, but just for the sake of it. Sometimes I feel overloaded by posted images, that are thrown at you without having thought about them in the first place but rather have somebody else do that. This is not to say there has to be a certain quality level, very often i feel it is the total beginners who really take much longer time before "daring" to post one. Much said about commenting not so much about the responsibilities (yes that is what I feel they are, because it has to do with my time) of posting. It is also interesting how very different posting habits one can observe and how it is influencing the various reaction it provokes over the long course. For all photographers working toward a goal of taking nature photography to a professional level, there is a lesson to be learned, just from viewing the posting/commenting process itself...
georg

Georg, in terms of economy we can certainly afford to be more reckless when using digital than with sheet film but I wonder how it helps me to be a better photographer if I shoot 25 shots of the same subject and make the same mistakes 25 times? Certainly I take a lot more pictures than I keep but only to cover different angles and focal lengths and try different ideas. I think it's mandatory that I be far more selective in what I post, however, and this is important, I have been greatly helped on a number of occasions by posting an image about which I was quite unsure. Sometime I'll see something in a picture that I like but it doesn't "sit right" and I don't always know why. By posting it and admitting my misgivings about it I have recieved help with cropping to a better advantage, help with tonal problems that I couldn't see on my monitor; on one occasion I tossed an image because nobody saw anything worth saving.

I don't think that posting an inferior image should be any reflection on the photographer as long as it's understood that we are trying to learn from our mistakes.

Bob

Georg, this is an interesting discussion. I remember seeing an online video once of National Geo photographer James Stanfield. It was a great video of him addressing a group and talking about his 30+ years experience in photography. He showed many super images and told many great stories but what I remember to this day is his comment after telling the audience that he had recently captured his 1,000,000th image. The audience clapped, oohed, aahed and then he smiled and shared his feelings on the event basically saying you should see some of the stuff that hits the garbage can! He was trying to get across the point that he learned his craft by doing it, by making mistakes. And mistakes aren't made by not doing things. They're made by commiting oneself to the process and learning from the results in preparation for next time. As the great hockey player, and fellow Canadian, Wayne Gretzky once said, "You miss 100% of the shots you never take". Without reading the article you came across I'm just guessing when I suggest that maybe the photographer in question meant that good photographers learn how to concentrate their efforts. I think that's the appeal for many of LF. The equipment and the economics cause them to work through the mistakes in their minds before they go and expose the film. Making pictures is not always about exposing film or filling up digital cards. I think all of us take pictures in our minds everyday. We see scenes and the play of light and make a photo in our mind's eye even if the camera is not around. We get enjoyment out of the process not just the shared results.

I think I know just what Georg is saying. And it does apply to posting. I take a lot of pictures. I keep a few of them. I show very few of them. I post pictures here so seldom that you don't even know me. It is because I manage to make so few that I can "stand 100% behind."

Buck - I read your post and you got me thinking about the "stand 100% behind" issue. I honestly have yet to post (let alone shoot) a photo I can stand 100% behind. For all the great thoughtful critiquers here I'm still my own harshest. Some images climb higher up the scale than others but I think the beauty of art is that "perfect" cannot be defined or at the very least agreed upon. I think that is why, for me anyway, the greatest joys of art are in the process and not the results. Of course maybe standing 100% behind a photo just means that given the situation, the preparation, the conditions, the technical knowledge at the time etc that in your own mind you did the best you could in maximizing all those factors. It's interesting also to explore why each of us post our images. I definitely don't just post my favourites. In fact I'm most excited when I post an image that I know misses the mark for me because I'm curious to see if others agree. In fact that's what I love most about NPN - the fair thoughtful critiques. The advantage too of posting a greater selection, including ones you can't stand 100% behind is that you might find out that you really are too hard on yourself.

I understand what Georg is asking and I have posted less in the IC forums not because I am shooting less but because I feel more satisfaction from posting what I would hang on the wall.
Just a thought: make more good use of the regional forums to "test" out images you are on the fence about. I wish more people in my local forum who are nervous about posting would use that space for input and create more dialogues.

The author of your statement was probably more narrowly just considering the range of subjects that tend to be taken by serious photographers. For instance if one considered all the images posted on our well used ES&S forum for a week and asked each photographer, "How many of these image subjects would you have taken?" There would be some percentage that would not be taken because they are too different a style or interest. But of those that were, there would likely be a considerable variation between individuals on what they would shoot with their personal camera systems. One would certainly tend to see larger film format users as being more selective. And one would see those with commercial business intentions more selective than the serious hobbyists. I'm certainly in those categories. I often lug my beast around all day and don't take a shot or just one or two. And half of those shots are not expected to be keepers maybe because of mediocre weather and atmospherics but are rather just personally interesing subjects or ones I'm trying to learn something about imaging the subject and wonder how they might look on the light box. But of those that I am trying to make a potentially commercially marketable fine art image of, my selective criteria becomes quite restrictive. If it doesn't fit those requirements, I'm likely just going to pull out my 7mp P&S where there is no penalty of efficiency, cost, material, and little overhead in just deleting its file. I also realize some subjects that look merely nice as an experience will surprise me on the lightbox while others I thought had high potential merely end up looking nice. If I find something really good I might expend considerable time and effort just to get the one great shot. Thus like Georg, I will bother taking more subjects than I expect to work out well though on average the percentage that result in strong images are far greater than work I did with small and medium format years ago. ...David

I believe a photographer (or anyone for that matter) is defined by the work that he/she has "completed". Photographs that were never made, images that didn't get past the editing stage and unfiinshed work don't really count.

I cannot comprehend what it means to define a person based on something they never did. I guess, if you don't do anything, you cannot screw up and that must be good.

I don't know the context of the quote but I can relate to things like photographers who prefer to avoid disturbing a nest or treading on sensitive areas and prefer to not get the shot. This definitely helps define that person to me. The same is true when photographers prefer to skip an opportunity that doesn't inspire them rather than try to force it.

So, in that context I'm not sure the concept carries over to what we post or not post. To me the field experience and the post-process experience are very different in terms of ethics, skills, and implications. When I think about it I'm not really sure that knowing what someone decided not to post will really tell me as much about them as the field examples above.

Guy

I know exactly what this phrase means (although I didn't read the OP article - I was too busy looking at the ads. )

The concept refers to an experienced photogaphers ability to self-edit his images prior to clicking the shutter release. Namely, we look at scene, see what we like, then we look for and understand what doesn't work in the scene. If the latter overpowers the former, we walk away and look for a better composition. Of course, we also live by a second dictum, "If it looks good, shoot it. If it looks better, shoot it again."

thanks for taking the time, was good to hear some more thoughts. always important to me to know how different we all think.
georg

Hello Georg, my opinion on this is similar - and I came to this conclusion for my self as well: What maybe seperates the good photographer from the outstanding is maybe that the outstanding is more restrictive and more strict to himself regarding what he considers good and wants the public to see. While the average shooter - also that snap-shooter, just takes a picture of what is ok, the more experienced photographer just is not amazed by the scene anymore because he has done better already, or has seen better.
For my self I have experienced this. Also, not that I am able to deliver good images in a constant fashion (see my frustration-post), I just do not take photographs of a certain scene anymore because I know it will end up as average or bad anyway. The reason for this is that from time to time I happen to get a shot that excites me and stands clearly above what makes to bulk of my images, so sometimes it just does not make sense to make that shot because it will always be cleary below my best (or the best from others). It is also learning to see the full potential of a scene, or lack there-of. Or knowing that a certain compo just would not work well in a certain light, or will not work at all. For me photography has a lot to do with knowledge - knowing that a scene can get better, is necessary to make the better shot the next time. If one lack this knowledge, he will take the image, because he is at the limits of his imagination and knowledge, not knowing that there is more to get out of it.
But - as a bottom line - I think one shot shoot as much as possible, but only show as less as possible, and take the others as learning-experience.
Gary has put my opinion into better words...

I think that not all scenes are meant to be photographed. Some scenes are to be enjoyed for themselves, for the experience of being there and for the feelings, the emotions they bring. In some situations there is no need to take a photograph simply being there and experiencing what is happening is what is called for. One cannot experience the world only by looking through a camera or by taking photographs. At times one needs to experience the world by simply being there and taking it in.

I agree with Alain. I just passed on a great opportunity to photograph a pair of Lewis's Woodpeckers nesting in a tree next to a country road. They were obviously nervous and flew from the nest, abandoning their chicks as I neared the tree with my camera, so I backed away, got in my car, and drove on. The beauty of those large birds is in my head, just not on photo paper. Maybe next time, not in nesting season.

I also missed my very first bald eagle pair a year ago. As they flew right by me in tight formation, I was so mesmerized by the beauty and colors through my binocs that I forgot to use my camera. Maybe next time...