Surprising Ways That Bad Images Improve Your Photography

We all want to take better photos. There are countless ways of learning how to do that. Attending courses and workshops, watching YouTube videos, and reading books and articles such as this are traditional approaches. But there is one unexpected way too: embracing bad photography.

I love bad photography. It’s not because it gives me any sense of satisfaction or feeling of superiority, although we all have come across people who think that way. No, I think bad photos are brilliant, not least because I believe I am perfectly capable of taking them.

Why? Firstly, there is the obvious answer: we can learn from bad photos. Why do we think they are bad? What would we have done differently? We can then go out and avoid making those mistakes again.

Secondly, bad photos allow us to challenge our beliefs about what a good photo should be. It’s easy for us to dismiss pictures because they don’t comply with what are arbitrary standards that we accept as good. Just because some famous photographer or art movement has declared that things should be done in a certain way doesn’t mean it is universally applicable. Similarly, just because you do something one particular way doesn't mean everyone else should do so too.

Pushing the boundaries helps us to discover something new and interesting.

Passing Fads Make Bad Photographs

The way we have done things in the past often doesn’t apply to the way we do things today. New art movements have always been met with resistance before they are accepted. Then, after a period of popularity, they become passé. The same applies to photography. There are fads in our art that are forever going out of fashion.

For example, it wasn’t that long ago when photographers were raving about hyper-real HDR images. Selective color was once considered cool as well, as too were signatures on photos. All of those were my pet hates from the start and I am glad to see them disappearing. (If you think that distracting squiggle protects your photo from theft, check out the performance of generative fill that’s coming to Photoshop.) Similarly, something I was once guilty of, the too-heavy use of mid-tone contrast, is now met with disdain.

Consequently, when we look at pictures from 10 or 15 years ago, we often see those images as gaudy and tasteless. Thankfully, those techniques have pretty much gone out of the window and more subtle approaches to developing photos have come to the fore.

There's More Than One Type of Bad Photo

I think there are different types of bad photos. Firstly, there are those shot by beginners that really are not bad at all. They may be underexposed, have wonky horizons, consist of a jumble of distractions, have lines that lead our eyes in randomly around the picture, show a lamppost growing from the top of someone’s head, and are oversaturated, but it is important that we take them.

Those are a few of the types of mistakes that everyone has made along the way. But when someone wobbles when they take their first steps, we don't think of their attempt as being bad. Similarly, our first photos are just the starting point on our never-ending journey of learning photography. That's fantastic, isn't it?

The difficulty though is that novices don't necessarily recognize their mistakes. They don’t see that their pictures have errors unless they are pointed out. Sadly, the majority of non-photographers will praise their images because they don't recognize the mistakes either.

It’s not just beginners. I’ve seen a professional bridal portrait with a road cone lying on its side in the shot, and another where a stray hair was running across the bride’s face. I wonder whether those photographers were encouraged to turn professional by well-meaning family and friends.

Equally, many of those who do offer criticism don't do it with compassion. I know young people who have been put off photography by unnecessarily harsh judging. More about that later.

Learning From Bad Photos

Here are two bad photos.

For me, the second one worked better because the person was not in the background, although I preferred the gull looking to the side. Also, the blue door in the background is a distraction, and I probably should have taken a couple of steps to the right. Usually, If I didn't want them for this article, I would have consigned those to the bin as rubbish.

Is It Bad Photography When the Subjects Are Materially Poorer Than Us?

Some subjects we deem to be immoral. For example, it is generally considered poor judgment to photograph the homeless, as it is seen as photographers taking advantage of their situation to promote themselves. There are counterarguments to this, as such photos can help fight social injustice and inequality. Not only that, many of the photographers I know who do capture images of people who are down on their luck also work to help their subjects.

Recently, an article here by Kim Simpson promoted an exhibition by Martin Parr. His work has been criticized for sneering at and looking down on working-class people. Yet, if you listen to him talk about his work, or speak with those he has worked with, this could not be further from the truth; he shows compassion towards his subjects. Those criticisms are more likely driven by envy. However, I think there may be another reason behind why he and others shoot situations that are outside their usual experiences.

I speak to lots of photographers, and many of them say that they find it easier to photograph people and places they are unfamiliar with than in their own backyard. That is because it is harder to see the appeal of what is mundane to them. Some go on a vacation and happily capture photos of people in the streets of their exotic destination, but they don’t find their own neighborhood as appealing.

Yet, a visitor to where they live would be captivated by it. Photographing things, people, and places that have novelty make it easier for us to find an interesting shot. Furthermore, some photographers have told me that they find shooting in their hometown intimidating.

I guess there is truth in this as yesterday, I was photographing a member of the Royal Family. I found that much easier than I would have done with one of my peers because the situation was unfamiliar to me.

When we shoot the ordinary stuff we see daily, our reaction to the photo is less likely to be excitement because of its familiarity. In our mind, it may well be a bad photo, but your viewers won’t necessarily see it in the same light. Additionally, by honing our photography on mundane subjects, we build up a portfolio of technical, compositional, and storytelling skills that we can later apply to extraordinary subjects. If we can shoot everyday stuff well, then we can quickly apply the same techniques to things that take us by surprise.

Another Type of Bad Photograph Comes From an Unexpected Source

My old junior school headmaster had a saying he used to frequently use at morning assembly,

Empty vessels make most noise.

Mr Drake. Circa 1976

There are photos that are shot by more experienced photographers that, nevertheless, have no meaningful narrative and lack style.

Strangely, these are often shot by a particular type of unsuccessful photographer who believes they are the king of their genre. They vociferously shout about how fabulous their work is while taking the opportunity of putting others down. They are usually easy to spot on the internet by their scathing comments and their uninvited criticisms. Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, they can be judges at photography competitions. If you want to find bad photos to learn from, look at theirs.

Conversely, you will also find almost every photographer who has succeeded in the art has done so because they have a positive attitude toward others. They are supportive and encouraging and gently help others to achieve better. They are often over-critical of their work and deserve praise too. If you consider your photos to be bad, surround yourself with people like that. At the same time, give someone else a helping hand to improve and you will become better too.