2 ms·

I am sure the tourist can take hundreds or thousands of photos, and have every single one of them turn out wrong. It's not as if he was covering every combinat

by Arodex 14d ago

I am sure the tourist can take hundreds or thousands of photos, and have every single one of them turn out wrong. It's not as if he was covering every combination possible of exposition, composition, depth of field, shutter speed etc. The tourist doesn't even know the existence of those settings.

pixl97 14d ago
>them turn out wrong. Define wrong in this case. I mean there are some obvious examples of a photo just being all black or all white. There are things so blurry that you can't identify the subject matter. But in between these extremes exist matters of preference and taste and everything goes subjective as hell. There are very few rights and wrongs here.
- Arodex 14d ago
  Look at the iPhone photography awards: https://ippawards.com/winners/showcase https://ippawards.com/winners/showcase How many of these pictures do you think were just a lucky shot by someone clueless about photography just shooting hundreds of photos? How many of these pictures could even be the result of just shooting at random thousands of photos?
  - pixl97 14d ago
    "look at this list of subjective things" What is more interesting to me, the most beautiful photo of a sunset taken by an iPhone ever, or a mundane quality photo of my daughter taking her first steps?
    - queenkjuul 14d ago
      This conversation is about who would take an award winning photo. It's not about how much you personally like photography.
      - pixl97 14d ago
        Looking in the conversation chain I'm not seeing that point...
  - bluGill 14d ago
    > someone clueless about photography just shooting hundreds of photos? That doesn't exist. The very act of taking hundreds of photos will give anybody a clue. They won't be able to pass a written test - they will have no clue what terms like "depth of field" mean - but they will start to apply the concepts in their photos without knowing the terms. I suppose there is someone who takes hundreds of photos without ever looking at them and thus never starts to develop any sense of what is good. Likewise some people just have more taste than others and so will get better. However in the real world people are taking lots of photos and they are on the way becoming reasonably good. Training alone will not make you a good photographer. Someone already skilled at this can help you look at your photos and understand why it "looks bad". However it takes hundreds - perhaps thousands of photos before you become an award winning photographer in the best case. While someone without training will need thousands of even tens of thousands - but these days a photo on an iphone is cheap enough that getting a thousand photos is not hard.
    - Arodex 13d ago
      >That doesn't exist. The very act of taking hundreds of photos will give anybody a clue. You have a very limited experience of life. Not only does it exist, it is even the majority.

by Arodex 14d ago

pixl97 14d ago

>them turn out wrong. Define wrong in this case. I mean there are some obvious examples of a photo just being all black or all white. There are things so blurry that you can't identify the subject matter. But in between these extremes exist matters of preference and taste and everything goes subjective as hell. There are very few rights and wrongs here.

Arodex 14d ago
Look at the iPhone photography awards: https://ippawards.com/winners/showcase https://ippawards.com/winners/showcase How many of these pictures do you think were just a lucky shot by someone clueless about photography just shooting hundreds of photos? How many of these pictures could even be the result of just shooting at random thousands of photos?
- pixl97 14d ago
  "look at this list of subjective things" What is more interesting to me, the most beautiful photo of a sunset taken by an iPhone ever, or a mundane quality photo of my daughter taking her first steps?
  - queenkjuul 14d ago
    This conversation is about who would take an award winning photo. It's not about how much you personally like photography.
    - pixl97 14d ago
      Looking in the conversation chain I'm not seeing that point...
- bluGill 14d ago
  > someone clueless about photography just shooting hundreds of photos? That doesn't exist. The very act of taking hundreds of photos will give anybody a clue. They won't be able to pass a written test - they will have no clue what terms like "depth of field" mean - but they will start to apply the concepts in their photos without knowing the terms. I suppose there is someone who takes hundreds of photos without ever looking at them and thus never starts to develop any sense of what is good. Likewise some people just have more taste than others and so will get better. However in the real world people are taking lots of photos and they are on the way becoming reasonably good. Training alone will not make you a good photographer. Someone already skilled at this can help you look at your photos and understand why it "looks bad". However it takes hundreds - perhaps thousands of photos before you become an award winning photographer in the best case. While someone without training will need thousands of even tens of thousands - but these days a photo on an iphone is cheap enough that getting a thousand photos is not hard.
  - Arodex 13d ago
    >That doesn't exist. The very act of taking hundreds of photos will give anybody a clue. You have a very limited experience of life. Not only does it exist, it is even the majority.