3 ms·

It is and it isn't. I have a friend who was a professional (wildlife, among other things) photographer in the days of manual cameras. He carried multiple camera

by eszed 2y ago

It is and it isn't. I have a friend who was a professional (wildlife, among other things) photographer in the days of manual cameras. He carried multiple camera bodies, and _very_ expensive glass, but his real secret to getting the National Geographic Shot (which he had done, for real; as in printed in the magazine, back when that mattered) was to shoot a lot of film. And by a lot, I mean a lot. Like, routinely more than 1k frames a day. Which is to say, whilst those constraints were / are real, they are mostly to do with money, and those who weren't constrained by that got the best results.

cjk2 2y ago
Of course it depends on the subject matter. Wildlife and sports are exceptional cases. I recently fucked up a nice shot of a dragonfly because I wasn't machine gunning it (I have a Nikon Z6-ii which can really hammer the frames out but I don't use it like that). But most of the good shots I take are good because I put time into them. Or did a lot of research first. Or went and stood in front of interesting stuff.
- eszed 2y ago
  That's fair. I really don't have an eye for photography - nor, sorry, enough interest in it to spend the time to learn more. I do know that the quality of the photos I've taken, on both my phone camera and the decade or so old DSLR we keep in the closet, took a quantum leap in quality once I stopped thinking about composition (or any of the other things I know exist but aren't any good at!) and just started spamming the shutter. It's definitely a lucky-than-good thing, but damn if it doesn't work. (I even got an honest-to-god National Geographic Shot sticking my off-hand out the window and awkwardly squeezing the shutter button as we drove by.) I admire your attention to craft and detail, and am glad it gives you so much pleasure. My great-grandfather was a keen amateur photographer, and I've inherited some beautiful photos that he shot (and printed) 100 or more years ago: one's within view of my desk right now. I hope your descendants appreciate the artifacts you create as much as I do his.

by eszed 2y ago

cjk2 2y ago

Of course it depends on the subject matter. Wildlife and sports are exceptional cases. I recently fucked up a nice shot of a dragonfly because I wasn't machine gunning it (I have a Nikon Z6-ii which can really hammer the frames out but I don't use it like that). But most of the good shots I take are good because I put time into them. Or did a lot of research first. Or went and stood in front of interesting stuff.

eszed 2y ago
That's fair. I really don't have an eye for photography - nor, sorry, enough interest in it to spend the time to learn more. I do know that the quality of the photos I've taken, on both my phone camera and the decade or so old DSLR we keep in the closet, took a quantum leap in quality once I stopped thinking about composition (or any of the other things I know exist but aren't any good at!) and just started spamming the shutter. It's definitely a lucky-than-good thing, but damn if it doesn't work. (I even got an honest-to-god National Geographic Shot sticking my off-hand out the window and awkwardly squeezing the shutter button as we drove by.) I admire your attention to craft and detail, and am glad it gives you so much pleasure. My great-grandfather was a keen amateur photographer, and I've inherited some beautiful photos that he shot (and printed) 100 or more years ago: one's within view of my desk right now. I hope your descendants appreciate the artifacts you create as much as I do his.