Someone once said that "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." This means you have to take lots of pictures to get better in the craft. I don't agree with that. Improving your photography as well as videography skills is often compared to an athlete training. The athlete regularly repeats a number of exercises for certain muscles. Musicians are the same. They train their abilities to play musical instruments by repeating sound sequences and so do singers. All these disciplines repeat and repeat what they do. It has to be the same with photography, right?No. It's not.
Who Said That?
Henri Cartier-Bresson said the statement above. He used to practice candid photography and he was not practicing how a correct exposure is made. He was not practicing posing and directing on a daily basis. He practiced photographing the right moment, not pressing the shutter lots of times. That's why I don't agree with the wording of his statement. It's not training yourself to press the button, but rather training yourself when not to take a photograph.
How To Properly Train Yourself
I started photography as a business; it wasn't a hobby. I purposely decided I would learn the craft in order to make it my business. I learned the basic theory, then I bought a camera. In the beginning my practice was to just go out and take lots of pictures, as they advised. I shot plenty of garbage and had very few keepers. My main question was "What makes the better pictures that I happen to get sometimes, 'better'?", and also, "How can I repeat them?" The answer to that question was: "Stop taking pictures. Sit down and look at photographs and try to understand them."
Writers get better by reading, not by writing. They train their imagination by repeating the process of absorbing stories. They don't just write sentences every day. Their tool is their imagination and that's what they need to train. An athlete's tools are their muscles and they train them directly by repeating exercises. Writers train their imagination and then it flows through the pen; their tool.
After I understood that, I started looking at more and more photographs by professionals that I admired. I tried to understand why they lit them like they did or why they posed the people like they did, or why they chose that camera angle. Instead of taking lots of photographs I started to plan to take just one picture. I wanted to know the technical process ahead of time so I knew exactly how to execute it. Then I repeated the process of understanding photographs and re-creating them. And again. And again.
Having done that, many of my first 10,000 photographs are still in my portfolio.
365 Projects And Similar
Such projects are aimed towards the number of pictures being taken. They do not train the skills of a photographer to create masterpieces. They train them to press the shutter even if they don't know why. So, what's the point?
You are better off planning a project for one month and creating a single masterpiece than 30 mediocre snapshots. Nobody will notice your snapshots, but how about the masterpiece?
Conclusion
Improving your photography is not about the repetition of pressing the shutter regularly. It's about constantly training your mind to understand, visualize and plan the technical execution of every visual piece of art. Watch lots of visual stories and learn to read them; train your eyes and imagination.
Stop taking pictures on a regular basis.
I guess I know what you are trying to say. You just didn't make it clear in this article.
I am technically savvy. I work in IT field and I have scientific approach to photography, yet I will never advice anyone to read about circle of confusion, diffraction or Bayer filter etc. This is something that may overwhelm or distract beginner.
One thing is what works for you and other is good advice for beginners. You need to take some responsibility when writing article for rather popular outlet.
Above all you still improve your photography by repetition. You didn't become successful after first photoshoot.
I learned by example, not by low-level light theory. I have never read the details about Bayer filters, diffraction and others. I simply knew it's not good to shoot on f22 on an f22 lens. Later in the years I understood what diffaction meaned but in the beginning I didn't need that.
I learned what aperture, shutter and ISO meaned. I learned how to use the combination of those. I learned how basic lighting works. That was the basics. I didn't read history of photography or the low level technical details on how cameras worked. That won't make a photogapher good. A good photographer knows how to make good compositions, shape light and expose properly.
I haven't read any of my camera manuals. But I read a lot about composition and shaping light. It was all explained by examples that I needed. I never shot exposure charts and I've never been interested in lab results.
I am all for the real-world practical learning and it doesn't need to have "clicks" ever so often. Training the eye and the imagination is the goal of most importance. This way one can be a good cinematographer, a good photographer and a good painter if they learn how to use the tools for these crafts. Being a good photographer is not being a good user of a tool. It's much more than that. That's what I'm trying to stress in the article, not low-level theory.
You missed the point entirely...
Interesting article and a thoughtful riposte to a common way of doing things. I am a strong believer in finding an artistic vision through practice and study. I spend a lot of time in art museums, looking not only at photographers but at painters and other visual artists (multimedia, video etc.). I also look at movies; the finest cinematographers have much to teach the still photographer. I've found artists who move me - and in doing so, they teach. I don't claim to match them in my own work but it serves to set a goal. That's where the practice comes in. Fortunately (as far as I'm concerned) photography is and is likely to remain an amateur pursuit, but that doesn't mean I'm not striving to do it as well as I can. That's much of the fun.
Cinematographers are definitely those who I've learned from the most.
Terrible headline (almost clickbaitish), but overall, I like what Tihomir has to say. It's not about sheer volume of shots, it's about investing yourself in the quality of the shots you take. There's a balance that needs to be struck. Either way, the headline is frankly incorrect in all but the most literal sense (i.e. someone who simply presses the shutter without giving their own photos a critical look).
Unfortunately lots of people only pray to the camera gods when they shoot and next time they do the same, and the same. If photos are not good, they are sacrificing their camera by buying a new one, the one a "high priest" uses, and they pray again.
And by writing this headline, I really mean it. I know lots of people who've been shooting for quite long but do not know why good pictures happen and can't repeat them.
Admittedly I haven't read the article but everything I learnt about photography was by making mistakes.
In my opinion taking a thousand photos of the same thing won't make you better; but taking a thousand different subjects in different conditions almost definitely will.
Knowing why you shoot a subject this or other way takes you to the destination much faster (I mean in terms of number of clicks). If we didn't have all that information around, learning from our mistakes would be the only way to go.
Hm. I kind of get the vibe, that there might have been a deliberate missunderstanding of the Bresson- quote in order to flesh out the article;
Like Capa's "if your images aren't good, you're not close enough", simply taking one step forward won't cut it either.
I think H CB's statement was a provocatively phrased generalization of what every experienced crafstman (or craftswoman) knows: To be good at something, you have to invest time, blood and sweat.
And every craftsman knows, too, that mindless repetition won't advance you, either- but that should actually go without saying, like telling a musician that doing scales is better than hitting the same key on the piano over and over again.
Improvement only happens when practice is done in iterations - doing, review, do better. That's how learning is done from first grade school onwards.
And imho, HCB's statement simply reflects on the first 10,000 iterations of that process.
Investing time is something I agree on. Investing in shutter clicks, then the new camera that maybe takes better pictures, and the new lens, and more clicks after that... That's what I don't understand. A man can be better with less clicks but investing more time in digging deeper into a subject matter.
One can get better at driving by getting someone to show them the details. They don't need to crash the car or break it trying to figure out how to drive safely and properly. After they learn to drive properly they may try drifts or other stunts. Having 10,000 iterations is OK if there's not much information around like the situation the pioneers of the craft were in.
This is horrible advice. If Fstoppers is going to start publishing click-bait brainless articles like this I'm going to stop reading the site. Please, have some editorial oversight so trash like this doesn't get published.
The writer of this article doesn't understand the basics of how people learn and improve their skills. He took what Henri Cartier-Bresson said as "just go shoot randomly". That's not what he meant. Every time you shoot you encounter new challenges and problems that you have to solve and learn from. That's how you get better. The brain creates new pathways as you practice, to the point that some skills become second nature.
There's a Youtuber (who I won't name) who's popular for his camera knowledge that claims to be a master, in demand, photographer that has to keep his portfolio secret because he's so good. When he finally started posting photos his work was very amateurish and showed a complete lack of skills. That was because (I suspect) he didn't have any real world, hands on, practice with a camera. Sure, he could repeat all the camera specs, composition theory, and other things he had read in books and on sites, but without going out and shooting 10,000 he couldn't translate that knowledge to something practical.
"Writers get better by reading, not by writing."
No. No. No. Writers get better by WRITING. Every writer I know, from the unpublished ones, to the ones working everyday in journalism and writing magazine articles, to friends who have books published, to Stephen King (who I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to) tell you to write, write every day, and keep writing. Then write some more. Reading helps, but the actual task of writing is what improves you.
You want to be a photographer, take photos. Keep taking photos. Look at your photos, and see what you did wrong and what you did right. Then take some more photos.
Does it help to study other photographers and dissect their work to learn from it? Yes. I do that all the time. I'm currently doing that with George Hurrell's work during the 1930s. But much like a Youtuber who never picked up a camera, what I learn from that is useless until I start practicing what I've gleamed from study. Those first attempts will probably be bad, and then get better as my brain connects what I've learned with my body.
To the writer of this article: A sign that you've written a bad article is how many times you need to jump into the comments to defend it. If your article was really good, and had good knowledge behind it, it would speak for itself.
When we have so many myths and urban legends around us, exposing them always triggers comments defending those myths.
I don't agree with Cartier-Berson's statement because it is valid for the type of photography he did with the technology and available knowledge he had in hand.
Learning to do car stunts should not be made by learning from mistakes but by a proper example. After someone is comfortable with the proper way to do it, they may start experimenting.
A musician who's good at improvisation never started improvising from day 1.
Many people defend the "learn-by-mistake" learning curve which in the days we live is not a good approach.
Writers get to write better sentences by writing. They don't make better stories this way. Storytelling needs imagination which is fueled by something different than writing. Photographers can get better at correctly exposing images with lots of clicking but will not be better story tellers. It's not about learning how to use the tool, whether it's a pen or a camera.
The writer of this article speaks from experience. I preach what I practiced during the years, not vice versa.
As I said in one of the comments, learning by mistakes and making lots of pictures will eventually get you somewhere but that's not the best way to do it. It's like to say a woodworker who has to do lots of crappy furniture "by mistake" before making a good one.
What Cartier-Bresson and others said was for times when they didn't have the knowledge we do. With the current knowledge, the learning curve does not require so many clicks. I'm not saying it's shorter. I'm not saying it doesn't take time or experience, but experience nowadays is not in the number of clicks but the deepness of understanding the matter. And lots of it can be understood by making fewer clicks.
Nowadays we have drones. How many of us have flown drones professionally for 20 years? Nobody. Learning to fly a drone pofessionally 2 years ago could be advised like "learn from your mistakes". Today you need to have permission as those "mistakes" cost too much, so you better learn from those who know how to do it. You have knowledge and experience available. Better learn from it and after that work on extra skills in unexplored areas.
Following advices like the 10,000 images ones are like starting from a blank sheet of paper without knowing what to do next although there's quite a lot of information today. It wasn't like that 50-60 years ago.
The article is written out of my personal experience, showing my point of view, why I do not agree with certain statement and showing how I have done it and it worked. Nobody argues that my way of learning doesn't work because everyone knows it works. Lots of people argue that my choice is bad and sharing that choice is bad. And yes, my choice is not what most of people are advised to do and still it works. Everyone knows this works.
First of all, I did stunts and I still know stunt people in the film industry. We learned from doing and from making mistakes. That's why we practiced a stunt hundreds of times, to work out where the mistakes are so we can avoid them and have the muscle memory to do it properly. I find it funny you bring up an example like that, because it shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm glad you think what you did works for you. It's still horrific advice. It says to new photographers, "Don't practice. You don't need to practice. Just think about and you'll get good." There are plenty of writers who sit around thinking about writing. They don't go anywhere. The ones who do are the ones who work at it. Every. Single. Day. You can have the best imagination in the world, if you don't learn how to commit that imagination to the page no one will ever read it.
As I said before, studying is a key part of learning photography, but it's only part of it. You need to get out there an take photos. It's great that we have the access to knowledge that we have today. You can learn everything about photography from a book or website, and still be a horrible photographer until you actually start taking photos.
Before doing any stunts people have learned the basics.
The problem today is people don't know the basics and try to learn by their mistakes. That's OK if there's no information around. When there's information around one has to step on the proper track and learn that. After that they step into another universe where it's the creativity. That's where the stunts are. They are not where people learn how to drive. They are for drivers who have trained themselves the proper way, not by learning how to crash a car or trying what this stick or pedal is for.
As I said, experience in photography is not just clicking the button. Shaping light, metering it, looking for compositions is far more experience than taking lots of pictures.
It's better to take a picture after one knows what they may expect than taking a picture (whatever happens) and then studying the result. When going to unexplored areas, there's no other way around. But with well known things there's no need to click and look. That would not be possible with film. It teaches people to think before clicking.
I don't think you have read the article thoroughly where I don't advise people to read, read, and just read. Take a second look. I tell them they need to know what they do before pressing the button or at least have a planned intent what would have happened on this or that setup. When someone plans their click it comes naturally to have less clicks in total. This makes for less pictures being taken and the results may be far better than those who click and wait for the "magic to happen"... somehow. That's because people believe in the AI of technology, not in the good old understanding of shaping of light and composition.
From what I see is people change random settings and shoot. Pick more expensive cameras and shoot. It's just "shoot, shoot, shoot". That's what the article is against.
"Writers get to write better sentences by writing. They don't make better stories this way. Storytelling needs imagination which is fueled by something different than writing. "
Oh, my God...STOP WITH THIS. It is 100% inaccurate BS. Just like John, I have friends who are published authors. They will vehemently disagree with this drivel you keep using to try to justify your misguided advice.
THE ANALOGY IS WRONG - STOP USING IT.
I know that from writers, not from photographers.
Ask them if they only write and do not take the time to read and get inspiration for their writing. Writing is not just writing. The process of writing includes everyday inspirations, as well as diving deep into certain stories. That's the writing experience. They may call it "writing" but it's not just picking up the pen and writing sentences. It's much more than that.
Go online and search for "writers learn from reading" and you will find that "mantra" in many places. Someone mentioned Stephen King here. He also states that "inaccurate bs".
Ask music composers. They will tell you they listen to lots of music. Their "compose, compose, compose" is "listen, get inspired, think, write music, evaluate it". It's not just "write music" using pen and paper.
No, you specifically say that writing only makes them better at writing sentences which is complete and utter crap. THAT is where the issue is. You keep trying to twist these points around by claiming that pieces that are PART of their success are the ENTIRE reason for their success. IT ISN'T. Writers get better by writing. No one ever read their way to writing a great novel. NO ONE. Does reading help? Yes. BUT WRITING IS WHAT MADE THEM BETTER. Writing a lot. Writing stories, creating characters...PUTTING IT ON PAPER.
You clearly don't know these writers nearly as well as you think. Use that exact wording and see how well they agree with you. I guarantee they won't.
Writers indeed get better at writing sentences in terms of punctuation and grammar. That doesn't make for a better story but for improving their level of literacy which is the ability to read and write.
Reading is what makes them better at storytelling. The writers know that. I've learned that from writers. I just googled it and saw that's a very common advice among writers. Reading is the same as listening to stories. They could be stories at the marketplace, on the plane, talking to a stranger. That's included in the writing process. It's not just sitting on a table and writing day and night, as an analogy for shooting regularly.
Once again, if you don't trust a photographer telling you that writers improve their writing by reading, ask writers. Successful writers. Look some up online if you don't know them personally.
Ask successful photographers if they simply shoot and don't look at anything else than their viewfinder. Ask cinematographers if they watch other cinematographers' movies. Do you think they watch them merely to entertain themselves or to "read" visual art that could inspire them and make them better?
You are completely ignorant to the skill it takes to describe a character, to build a world, to make dialog flow naturally, to build a plot...to make the story flow coherently. You are completely ignorant to the amount of editing needed to make a good story happen...
You clearly do not know any writers and have not discussed this opinion of yours with them. None of them will agree with you. They'll agree reading is important - and then they'll take the same objection that I am. Why you continue to push is beyond me - you're flat out wrong.
Your googling for confirmation is what we call "confirmation bias" and not a single one of those sources will say that writing only makes you better at punctuation and grammar. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Take those exact words to any author and see what they think. Find a writing forum and post those exact words and see what they think.
The amount of push back you are getting isn't because you are challenging the status quo. Its because your advice is wrong when taken literally, and dangerous to new photographers. Its only those with enough experience PRACTICING with guidance that we're able to read between the lines and see what you are TRYING, but not succeeding, in saying.
Take the hint.
All those who are proficent in writing (as well as in photography) spent and are still spending a good amount of reading (visual) stories. Today's writers would not know what a "plot" is if their predecessors hadn't invented the term and the meaning behind it. They didn't learn that merely by writing regularly. Someone taught them what's the structure that is well understood by the readers. Maybe the first ever writer learned that the hard way, as well as the first photographer, but now we learn by example of the people before us.
That's why I say it's not just writing as writing will not take them much further without building their foundation on the ones before them. They need to study that foundation. That will gain them momentum so they can express themselves better and better. They will continue reading stories till their very end getting better and better.
That's what lots of photographers miss today and try to build their own foundation by "shooting regularly". That's the reason a lot of photographers with 10+ years of regular shooting experience have no better results than a diligent young photographer with 3 years of being in the craft, studying it diligently.
Nope - not getting away with that strawman. Try again.
No one EVER said they only got better by writing. No one EVER said they didn't learn what a plot is before writing.
THAT isn't the point. The point is that in order to CREATE a plot, to develop characters, to generate good dialog, you MUST PRACTICE. And PRACTICE is WRITING.
The act of putting those thoughts on paper is not just "grammar and punctuation" as you say. YOU are the one who said that the act of writing has no benefit other than improving sentences, grammar, and punctuation. Those are YOUR words. THOSE are the words in question.
So no more strawman arguments - address those words.
And I stay behind every single word of mine here.
The same for buildling dialogue. That can't happen just by writing. It needs observation in real life or reading. Nobody is able to pull up a good written story without building it out of observation and imagination trained before that. It's not writing. It's reading (observing, studying) and then writing.
I stay behind my words here and those above. Writing merely is writing. It's a tool to express something learned somewhere else, not on the table. Being a good writer is to experience the fullness of the process of creating stories where writing is the end product.
The same with good photography. If it's a well thought process, pressing the shutter and exposing properly is simply the end, not the beginning nor is it the whole experience.
Then you've confirmed you are completely ignorant of the writing process and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Good day.
You do not "stay" behind your words, you "stand" behind your words.
I'm glad we have good editors here at FStoppers, so they don't allow my non-native English mistakes crawl into the article. But they are clearly visible in the comments :)
Thanks for the clarification John. I'll remember it.
If you had actually practiced at writing, instead of sitting around just thinking about it, you wouldn't have made that mistake.
oh wow, that was golden!
'The first draft of anything is shit.' Hemingway said. Writers write and rewrite and edit. The writers I know have shelves stacked with notebooks of first, second, tenth drafts and versions of their work.
No matter how much you think you have it nailed by your previsualization and the "The Think System" (See movie "The Music Man") duruing any shoot the first frames are rarely the best of the shoot as unanticipated things happen on the set or location - the unknown, unknowns.
This is to refine an idea or a piece of work. It's the same when you have an idea for a photograph and refine the posing and lighting, not snapping random frames and asking for random poses in order to get a masterpiece.
What I am talking about is that non-well-thought randomness in the photography world — pressing the shutter without thinking before that.
Masters of photography know how to deal with the unanticipated things and can solve problems. I've never seen a master photographer do random things even though they are caught by surprise.
The same for master writers. They think and write. They read and write. They remember experiences and stories and write. They don't just write, otherwise they would be like a clerk who's simply writing what they are told to.
Disagree... It's the practice and use of the camefa that makes you a better photographer as you understand what does what etc and you begin to notice what works and what doesn't work. Sure planning one shoot a month and doing it with effort is going to produce great shots but so would doing something such as a 365 project or participating photo challenges such as finding a specific color for the day etc. So tired of people like yourself writing these very subjective articles trying to Push their own philosophy across. This article makes you sound very egotistical and contradictory.
365 projects are too intense for a beginner who doesn't have the time to digest all the new things that they get into. Unless they focus on certain aspects of photography, people will never get better just by shooting different things every day.
Getting better needs focus and determination into certain areas of knowledge and experience. The article never states you don't have to make photographs. It states that being better is not all about taking pictures. It's immersing yourself into the details of the craft and trying to understand (for example) composition which you can do without even taking a shot but simply framing. If the composition is off, pressing the shutter won't make anything to make it better. You will simply have another file on your card.
Pressing the shutter is the final 1% of the whole experience. Lots of people miss the 99% in order to give the 1% to their finger and machine's built-in AI.
"365 projects are too intense for a beginner who doesn't have the time to digest all the new things that they get into".
The most obnoxious thing about you is that you have an opinion for every part of photography and you think you're 100% right on all of them. You're not. the world does not revolve around you or how you do things. You'd have a much more pleasant opinion to read if you'd be a little more humble about... well pretty much everything basicly...
While taking a lot of photos just to take photos will not make you a better photographer, I believe that taking photos with an objective will. I am doing my first 365 project this year. I have been taking photographs for some time now and do, in fact, see my shots progressing in the right direction. I chose to do the Photoblog calendar 365 project in which every day has a specific objective. I like this and find it better than just packing away a camera and burning up a frame a day of something that probably does not matter. With the calendar, it is forcing me to specifically look for something that incorporates the stated goal. It is forcing me to push away from what I normally take photos of and to be creative in doing so. If the 365 project is something like that, how could it be bad? It emphasizes creativity, perspective, thought, and composition. It was 10(F) degrees outside this morning but my objective was "sunrise" and I had zero motivation to fulfill that mission literally. So, I had to find some way to catch that objective in a different manner.
I am 7 photos into it and am already planning my shots differently.
Yes, planning and shooting is the way to go. Other than that is just as you've described it quite well: "burning up a frame a day of something that probably does not matter".
The only objection I would personally have is that with a 365 project I can't shoot much more complex things that require more preparation (e.g. travelling and shooting something in the middle of a clear sky night). And I like all things complex :)
If you want to be an all rounder (some say Jack of all trades…) it's more about the different genres you are shooting rather than the amount of pictures you are taking (and the amount of time you need to press the shutter before you actually understand what's going on)… You can shoot 3000 times the same apple on a table… I don't think it'll teach anything else than the length of time needed for an apple to rot (That's how the time-lapse of "a rotten apple on a table" was invented by the way…) Of course broader is your horizon, broader is your knowledge (and wider are your lenses if you are a landscape photographer), but are the needs of a specialized sport photographer the same as a fashion or wedding photographer? I doubt it… (Though with the trend of extreme weddings nowadays, how knows…) The most iconic photographs have been taken with Nikon F/F2/FM, Leica M3/4/6 or Canon F1 cameras… with only shutter speed, aperture and iso to worry about (and sometimes a wrathful looking man firing at you). You did not need a degree in Quantum Physics to understand your camera. You just needed to know about light and shadows… Now if you want to shoot, shoot, go for it! It's a free world. SD cards are cheaper than films, it would be a crime not to take advantage of it. The main point of my useless (but very funny in it's own way, I'm rather pleased to notice) post is… No matter what, no matter when, no matter how (and that's when it's becoming cheesy…) take pleasure in what you are doing and be CREATIVE… look up to the pros and follow the advice you deem suitable for you to develop your OWN style. The most interesting part of every journey is how you get there… if you get there. Remember, even the pros have looked ridiculous once… I have names…
Anyway, great post Tihomir, it sprung a good debate, and by looking at your portfolio you made your point worth listening to!
I appreciate that Franck.
Okay. I jumped ahead and read the comments first. That was fun. After that I read the article. I get what you're saying lol. "Sit down and look at photographs and try to understand them."
In class at Brooks Institute we discussed images for hours.
Yes. Understanding every aspect of a masterpiece is like attending its author's masterclass.
Tihomir, I get the point you're looking to make. If observation and critical thinking are not applied before the shutter click and afterwards during image review then you may plunder along without understanding how to consistently shoot professional images. This involves not only practicing with a camera, but understanding many aspects that go along with the craft. As you have noted, writers don't just write to become writers and storytellers. They use observation, critically think about the nuances of language, vehemently read the works of others and learn the rhythms of effective dialogue and sentence structure (along with the practice of writing). If you write a million words that are unreadable and you fail to understand why that is so, then writing a million more words will not make you an effective writer. You have to understand all of the facets that go into good writing and storytelling. Being published may make one an author, but not necessarily a good storyteller. Taking thousands of images may get you better at using a camera, but it is not an effective or efficient way to get consistently professional images. Studying others, observation, critical thinking, understanding light qualities, dynamic range, etc (along with practice shooting) are needed to fully capture what you intend to capture without relying on luck. It also depends on whether you want to be a professional or just want to be a good photographer. Analogous to sports: If you want to be good at (insert sport) then go out and practice a lot with other competent players in that sport. If you want to be a professional then you train with intent, get a coach, spend hours watching and analyzing other players, etc. In terms of Cartier-Bresson, I think he is being both tongue-in-cheek and honest. The 10k number is just thrown out there, but I think his real point is that if you apply all the observation and critical thinking skills you have used in making x number of pictures then that next picture you make should be better than those before because you have applied all facets of the things you've learned and will make numerous decisions before the shutter is ever released. Professional photography should be undertaken as a craft, not a crapshoot. However, if someone just wants to take pictures then just get out and take pictures (at that point the pictures are good if the person is happy with the end result). I think it all relies on the intent of your photography.
People, read that commnt above.
Very well said, thank you.
And yes, the words of Cartier-Bresson are misleading if taken literally, and that's what I try to emphasize on, because young photographers take them literally. I tried to clarify (maybe I didn't do well) he was not practicing correct exposue but was capturing his way of street photography. I am sure he walked around, waited, pointed the camera and put it down without pressing the shutter. That's what a good photographer would do.
I also think if we still shot on film we'd never thought that statement had anything to do with the number of pictures we take. That being said in the film era, to me it means "It's expensive to be a good photographer." To me it is expensive to attend courses, buy literature, and tutorials, spend time digesting all that information, but it is essential.
I'm glad you wrote that comment. You've explained it so well.
Thank goodness now for digital, but I learned on a 4x5 and remember the cost of each piece of film I didn't think through! I also remember complaining about why we couldn't use digital and just fire off a million shots. After going through the process and using film I understood what I'd gained by applying my brain instead of just the camera. It seems quite a few understand the real idea of the article but can't get past focusing on the camera and making an exposure aspect. Understanding real world lighting and posing don't require a camera in hand; sometimes they require just looking at the back of your hand or understanding greater knowledge of body language. It is definitely expensive and time consuming to attend courses, read extensive amounts of literature, or just use patience and watch the light, but I've also had more "light bulb" moments learning from pro photogs without ever firing a shot. In some regards though, I think it can come down to which field of photography you pursue. I can definitely see how a wildlife photographer or sports shooter may need to take thousands of images to really get timing and nuances of movement down for specific shots (but even those come down to keen observation, which is separate from exposure).
Yes. I agree with you. There are very few genres where firing more shots is justified, and it's not because the photographer doesn't know what to do, but the subject may be specific. For example when photographing a moving human being, a ballerina, you need a great expression and an elegant posture and body position. This may not happen with 2 clicks.
I remember Dean Collins photographing an executive. A true master:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN663ntz6Ek
He did make (4-5 as far as I remember) test shots but that's quite a small number from what's common today. He knew what he may expect and just double checked with a polaroid.
In my experience nothing beats taking photographs to improve. You can read all you like but until you put it into extensive practice you don't get better. Working with light especially you need to see the changes first hand. The same with working with models you need to actually do it, not read about it. I teach many beginners and those that do best are those who go out and take lots of photos and learn from their mistakes.
First of all I completely disagree with the title of the article. If you ever stepped outside of the studio and have done photography with available light under unpredictable conditions, there is no substitute to a lot of practice. Secondly, the article itself does not make any sense. You say that you shot a lot of garbage and had a few keepers. I can tell you that you would have never become the photographer you are today without going through that learning process. And in my opinion that learning process itself is a lot of fun.
The day I don't learn something new while taking photos is the day I put away my camera. If you don't see continuous improvement coming out of your work, I feel sorry for you.
Having a few keepers didn't make me a good photographer. I stopped doing that the first 3-4 months. I didn't learn anything significant. What I've learned the most was the next years when I continued with the approach I described in the article.
Also, most people who comment under the article seem do not understand what I mean by planning a photoshoot and creating well thought photographs. To me the best approach is to make 1 picture than creating 30. I worked with that mindset from my early days and this helped me be slower in the execution but to value each click as if I shot it on film.
Didn't read the article.... the headline is enough to let me know that I do not agree. Taking more photos = practice = improvement = likelihood of better photography
I'm sorry Tihomir: but this article is the "worst."
You don't begin well. You starts with a strawman. "Someone once said that "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." This means you have to take lots of pictures to get better in the craft." But what you said "Henri Cartier-Bresson" means isn't what he meant at all. Bresson wasn't a silly person. If he intended to say what you claim he said, he simply would have said it. But he didn't because he meant something else.
And you use this strawman: this fundamental mis-understanding of what "shoot lots" means, to drive your article. As many people have pointed out, when people do say "shoot lots" they say it with a caveat. "Shoot lots with purpose." It is a caveat that you not only ignore in the article, but you dismiss in your responses in the comments. The reality is that there isn't some big movement to get people to "shoot lots for no reason and you will be a better photographer!" Your article is arguing against a phenomenon that doesn't really exist.
Like you I got into photography for a simple reason: to make money. To run a business. My goal was to get the photography skills I needed quickly: so I did that by "going back to school" to learn the fundamentals of photography. I did many of the short-cuts you did. And 6 years on I'm running a (relatively) successful photography business.
So if you were offering advice on how to quickly become a profitable commercial photographer, then your advice would be quite good: and demonstrably correct. 1) Focus on learning technical skills. 2) Mimic techniques used by successful photographers. 3) Use your pre-existing business skills to market your business. 4) Profit!
But it isn't good advice for people who want to be a better photographer. Photography is a creative discipline. And as a photographer your work will evolve. Your work will change. You will start to find your "style."
But your approach: your advice, stifles evolution. A cursory look through your portfolio shows this. There is one thing that is consistent about your work: it is consistently consistent. These are generic commercial photos. Your staged commercial shots and your headshots and your family photos all have the same look and feel. You may use your "imagination" to imagine an interesting scene: but you will light it and shoot it and edit it exactly the same way every single time. It is of no surprise that you still have many of your first 10,000 photos in your portfolio. Because the next 10,000 are going to look exactly the same as well. When you decide to evolve as a photographer you will simply find another photographer/style that you like and you will mimic them. For a commercial photographer this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your photography will continue to pay your bills.
But as general advice for photographers it simply isn't very good. You can't find your voice as an artist if all you do is mimic and don't try to do stuff on your own. You need to experiment, to screw up, to break the rules just to start finding your voice. You simply don't understand the creative process. You have found a process that works for you: and have made the assumption that it should work for everyone else. But that isn't how it works. I have an assistant who has a fantastic eye for composition, and takes amazing natural light images, but struggles to understand the technicals of "adding light." It all seems like "magic" to her. She can't see how a studio light will impact a shot will look "in her head." She can't -pre-viz it. No amount of studying other photographs or "classroom" teachings helped her "get it." Do you know what did help her "get it?" Shooting lots. Seeing where the light would hit. Moving the light around and trying again. Changing the aperture. Changing the shutter speed. Seeing what those changes did. Changing all of those settings and starting again. What works for you didn't work and would never work for her.
I think of a photographer like Dave Hill. I can't think of any other photographer in the last 10 years who shot with a style that inspired so many other commercial and hobbyist photographers to try and "mimic his look". But if you haven't looked at his work recently, then go look at it now. The difference between his "signature stylised look" and the much more "stripped back" approach of his current work is incredible. Yet if you look closer at the work you can see similarities. That same sense of whimsy. His contrasting use of bold colours. His work has evolved, but his work is still unmistakingly his. In 10 years time: what will your work look like? Will we be able to look at your images and see that they are a "Lazarov?"
You finish your article with this conclusion:
"Stop taking pictures on a regular basis."
And I just shake my head. This just doesn't make any sense at all, especially in the context of the article. What on earth are you trying to say with this statement? "Regular Basis" is subjective. Do you mean stop going on photowalks? Leave your camera at home? Take 5 pictures instead of 6? What is it exactly that you want people to do based on this final piece of advice?
Have you seen Diane Arbus's work? "Have you seen Boy with Toy Hand Grenade?" Have you seen the contact sheets of that particular shoot? Should she have settled for the shot of the boy shown as a "happy child", or should she have continued to shoot until the boy got angry and exclaimed “Take the picture already!” Which was a better photo? Which was more representative of her work?
Photography is a creative and a technical discipline, not just a technical one. What distinguishes the art are not the similarities, but the differences. Your approach is a safe, risk free one that is ideal for business but terrible for creative development. And if we all followed your advice we would have plenty of well exposed, sharp, technically correct photos that look and feel exactly the same.
I'm answering mostly because you've taken the time to write such a long comment. The majority of the comment is related to your opinion on my style and what I have to do with it. I don't mean to talk much about that, but I will still mention some things. See Annie Leibovitz' style. Almost every image you see of hers you know it's she because of the same type of lighting she uses over and over. That doesn't make it bad at all. There are many other photographers who (for example) shoot with natural light and all their images are with the same lighting. That's not bad at all. I've seen lots of photographers who are all over the place and I can't really find what their signature is.
But that's not relevant to the articl at all. Having a style or belng all over the place is a personal choice. Some work with clients and execute only client's vision, others want their style to override client's idea. That doesn't matter. That doesn't even matter if one shoots personal projects with a consistent style or personal pojects in different styles.
Every successful photographer walks the following path:
- Learning the technical side;
- Reaching to a level when they are technically good and can do almost any picture;
- Continue refining their craft by finding means to make signature photos. This could be through specific posing, through specific lighting, through specific lenses, etc.
The "shoot, shoot, shoot" misunderstanding is during the first phase. I don't agree that's the correct way of reaching a technical "literacy". It will get you somewhere but not on a commercial grade, being able to solve problems. Why? Because these photographers don't know if a masterpiece will take them 5 minutes or 5 hours. They have all the time in the world obviously. I think we have to value our time the most. There ae much more important things in our life than photography. It's just a companion.
When the photographer reaches to that technical-savvy level, they are like the musicians who know how to play music and now is the time to start composing their own music. This is the level where the photographer is able to "play" with lighting, composition, and settings in a more creative way, because they know what they do. They know the rules and they can break them. Being diligent into the technical side doesn't hinder the creativity.
Let's say it's true that I don't know any other lighting than Rembrandt. Rembrandt "lit" mostly with that type of light quality and he's famous for that. He didn't "develop a new style" (according to your comment). But this master did quite a lot of different ideas with the same light. That's what I try to do. I (for example) use just 1 light and execute a 1000 different ideas. Knowing 1 type of lighting is enough to be a great photographer because your imagination can generate unlimited number of ideas. This again doesn't contradict with what I said: It's not "shoot, shoot, shoot", but here I know my Rembrandt and I try to think of different ideas that I execute because they are already pre-visualized in my head. They are not random shots.
Even going out for a walk is not an excuse for random photos. A good photographer takes a photograph because they want to capture that specific moment the way they want. They don't pray to the camera to take the best picture even though they don't know what to do.
Being technically savvy is of great importance to be creative. Being creative when all the technical side of the execution is "in the back of our head" is a great liberation. The creative person may focus on the story and emotion rather than being locked in the technical world.
And again, yes, I don't agree with Cartier-Bresson's words. He wasn't just shooting. He knew when to shoot. Being a pioneer in the street photography he probably discovered lots of the principles we now take for granted. That doesn't mean we all have to reinvent the wheel and "shoot, shoot, shoot" 10,000 images to understand something already being known.
Style and keeping one's style doesn't have anything to do with the "shoot, shoot, shoot" mantra.
Wow.
Just wow.
It is quite amazing how you manage to avoid nearly every point I made: but focused on what was the most mildest of critiques and claimed that that critique was the "majority of my comment."
Lets just get this straight. The majority of my comment was not related to my opinion on your style. That is simply not true. I did make commentary on your work. But it was a handful of sentences that you have blown out of proportion.
And that is the problem with both the article you wrote and your impassioned defense of your position through these comments. You have blown things out of proportion. You are arguing with yourself. There isn't some big movement to "shoot, shoot, shoot." And when you do hear people say "shoot, shoot, shoot" they are saying it in a very different context to the one that you think that they are.
But here you are: telling us that "you don't agree with Cartier-Bresson's words". That Leibovitz uses the same lighting "over and over." That every successful photographer "walks this path."
You are acting like you are an expert at this. But if you are going to "talk the talk" then you need to be prepared to "walk the walk". I normally don't like offering unsolicited critique. But you are making some big claims. And you have nothing to back up any of your claims except your own work. And what your work shows is that you have a fantastic technical ability with both the camera and your lighting. You can pre-visualise. (Pre-visualising isn't a skill that every photographer has. I can't do it well. I've had to learn how to do it. I'm still learning.) Your image are well composed and you have an excellent command of whatever editing suite you use.
But your images don't say anything. They have no soul. They are generic commercial photos. They are a step up from stock images. I'm sure your clients pay you well for them. But the process that you lay out: it will always and inevitably lead other photographers to the same place you are right now. I have no connection with your subjects. The bride in your portfolio is interchangeable with the model behind the typewriter.
Figuring out who you are as a photographer just doesn't happen in your head. It happens in moments of experimentation. In moments of frustration and despair. I am six years into my career making money from photography and I still don't know who I am as a photographer. I despise most of my work. I don't have a "style". And yet I have an above average understanding of the camera fundamentals. I understand everything that you think a photographer "should know." I am as "technically good and can do almost any picture". But I've still got so much to learn.
And I'm still shooting lots. Six months ago (apart from paid work) I wasn't shooting at all. I hated my camera. I had to force myself to start shooting again. And now I'm starting to love it again, just a little.
Becoming a great photographer cannot be distilled into a formula. If it was as easy as you claim then there are plenty of people with tremendous technical ability who should be world-famous photographers. But it doesn't work that way.
There isn't a single, easy path to becoming a successful photographer. There are a million different paths. We are all on our own private roads. I privately mentor a number of photographers. One of them started out wanting to be a pet photographer but now wants to shoot commercial. Another started out loving to shoot landscapes but is now following another path. I think we are all glad that you found your path. But you don't have all the answers. You really are just at the start of the journey. Don't make the mistake of thinking you are at the end of the road. And stop making the mistake of thinking what worked for you will work for everyone else, because it won't.