Are you satisfied with your photography ?

<p>I was sifting through some of the "Best Portfolios" and "Best Photographer" images on this website and after that experience I started feeling rather small, real small(Just call me shorty). I came to the conclusion that I'm not satisfied with my photography at all.<br>

As long as I have been doing this I dont think I can match that type of photography. I mean those guys are at an whole nother level that I don't think I'll ever reach. How did these people become so talented ? Or is it something inherent in them ? Do they practice day and night. Do they carry a camera every where they go ? Was it training, schooling. Constant practice, experience what ? </p>

 

<p>Harry, I think it's like that old saying "We can't all be good at everything, but everyone is good at some things". </p>

<p>We can probably ask the same question about musicians, architects, inventors, designers, and never get a conclusive answer. </p>

<p>Satisfied ? Of course not. I would be ready for another world, if it happens. Sometimes I shoot "my best photo ever", but always hoping the next is better.</p>

<p>Surely not satisfied, but not yet willing either to accept I can never match the what some of "the best" can do. There is always room for growth left, and I rather aspire for the best and keep trying.</p>

<p>At the same time, there are some types of photography where I know I will never be really good - simply because it does not fit me or the way I (prefer to) work. So for that, I guess one has to be realistic about who you are and what you do, and what you can expect of yourself.</p>

<p>And if the "Best photographer" and "Best portofolio" is determined by ratings, then I'm not aspiring it ;-) Or less tongue-in-cheek, "best" is also a matter of taste of course.</p>

<p>How they got there doesn't matter (I presume) but how you get there (if that's where you want to be) does. Fundamentally you have to analyse the work of those photographers you feel you should aspire to and determine what it is that makes their work so much 'better' than yours.<br>

For instance, landscape... I see some fantastic landscape pictures taken of the Grand Canyon - is it realistic for me to emulate them... well not when I can't get to the Grand Canyon. Okay if we look at one of those shots can we discern what it is about the photographers approach that I could adapt on a landscape near me. It will be light, it may be colour, it may be framing. What can I use. Light. Colour can be affected by tod, weather, etc. <br>

If you don't have a long lens to do the nature stuff, how else might you achieve it? Get closer, learn about the subject etc.<br>

If you attempt to duplicate the 'better' photographer's approach to their photography you become a clone, reliant on what they do next to progress. But if you think about how they achieve a shot in a photographic sense and fill your gaps (or more likely adapt) your own skill set, you will become a more able photographer, at the very least.<br>

I knew a guy who used to take some fantastic badger shots (here badgers are furry creatures about the size of cats with a black and white striped face), you would think he was a fantastic photographer, but in truth he had a badger holt at the bottom of his garden, he used to feed them peanuts and it took it next to no effort.</p>

<p>I will never be truly "satisfied", but I will always work to become better in what I do</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Absolutely, no. The learning curve never ends. Besides, satisfaction, whatever it is, would steal that element of surprise and pleasure you get from that one, rare shot that turns out so much better than you expected. I'll trade satisfaction for serendipity anytime...</p>

<p>I think it's the fate of true artists to never be fully satisfied with their work. The best picture is always the one that has not yet been captured... </p>

<p>for the amount of time i put into it and the satisfaction derived, yes.....</p>

<p>There's different kinds of dis/satisfaction. Some people here are unsatisfied because they went into PN's "Best of", compared their work to that, and as the OP said, felt "real small". Others have the kind of dissatisfaction that comes from not resting on one's laurels (or thorns) and longing to do better.</p>

<p>It seems awful to go through a life in photography, look back and be only dissatisfied. The process, or way of life should be satisfying in some way(s). Comparing oneself to others, specially on PN, with its rating system, is a sure-fire way to make oneself feel miserable. This is not to say one should not look at the work of others, of course. </p>

<p>Cross-pollination, learning, seeing what's out there, love of the medium, curiosity, and picking up on ideas to further develop, hybridize, deconstruct or steal are good reasons to look. When I worked nights at a 1-hr lab to learn first-hand about the snapshot aesthetic, I never thought myself superior to what I was seeing, nor do I feel inferior when looking at prints from a Master.</p>

<p> I am who I am, what's mine is mine and on any given day I can only do my best. Do not get me wrong: I overreach with the best of them, and push myself to exhaustion, but I am at peace with where I am at the moment, and yes, I dream, strive and work hard to do the best I am capable of. The lifestyle/process is satisfying to me.</p>

<p>I would almost ask the inverse question: Suppose you were the top-rated photographer on PN. Would you be satisfied then? Or if you were listed in the Masters-of-Photography site?</p>

<p>Luis I agree with you, surely. However, if I was (am?) listed in the Master-of Photography site, I would stop taking it seriously and ask them to correct the obvious mistake.</p>

I have moments of satisfaction...but they quickly fade. But rather than being dissatisfied...it's more accurate to say that

I just get bored and find myself anxious to press forward into the next phase of my work. Anything that remotely

approaches complete satisfaction is too akin to complacency for me...and that's fertile ground for stagnation. I'm most

satisfied with my work when I feel that anxious restlessness pushing me to break new ground...something that

unfortunately, I don't feel I've done for quite some time. Thanks for the post, Harry! It's served as a wake up call. It

has reminded me that I've been too focused of late on selling "perty" pictures...instead of creating art...which was my

whole purpose in becoming a photographer.

<p>I had not really paid much attention to the 'top photographer' or 'top portfolio' categories before your post, but I did so as a result of it and found some very nice images but also many that did not really appeal very much. Previously I had accessed only those portfolios that were of some persons I had engaged with in conversations in the forums and whom I had become interested in by their ideas or outlook, and also occasionally I have also looked at the portfolios of POW photographers that also retained my interest. When I sifted through the top portfolio category you mentioned, I felt that what I was seeing was quite similar to what I had been seeing at the twice yearly photo expositions of my former camera club or the province wide yearly salon, such as the appearance of a few hundred member selected slides on a light box, and the multitude of their various styles or approaches, or the same on observing the walls of hung prints. Lots of different subjects and approaches, some showing very good technical ability, others captivating or thought-provoking subjects.</p>

<p>I think that any photographer who takes his work seriously can make the photos that you admire. It is certainly not out of your reach, unless you feel you are unable to match the basic skills required for technical proficiency, understanding of light and colour and a knowledge of basic compositional guidelines (I hesitate to say rules, as the latter are often effectively broken). I have a definite green thumb in gardening, so I leave that pleasure to my life partner and limit my activity to simply turning over the soil for her.</p>

<p>What is perhaps harder to achieve than a well crafted photograph is a type of photography that is very personal to yourself and which effrectively displays how you see the world about you. And how you see the world is going to be different from how others do so, and once you achieve that vision you will probably be less impressed by finely crafted images and more so by those which speak to you or to others in profound terms of communication. This is the type of target that I have not yet reached, but a challenge which certainly satisfies me and lights my fire much more effectively than having my work in anybody's top portfolio or top photographer selection (that has happened in my past in other venues, but is not important to me today). I would certainly second most of what Luis has said and repeat my own feeling that we should do what most drives us personally, attempt to perfect that, and never feel inferior to anyone, while remaining humble enough to recognize the quality of what others achieve.</p>

<p> </p>

Compare yourself not to others, lest you become conceited or depressed.

<p>Hi Harry,</p>

<p>I know your angst. I feel it as well. I always blame myself for <em>thinking</em> too much about the technical aspects of what I'm trying to do, and not <em>feeling</em> enough about what I'm trying to do. I feel (pardon the pun) this is what holds me back, and I've tried to deal with it the best I can. (Walk, run, stumble, walk, walk, stumble...)</p>

<p>In my never-ending search for the photography Holy Grail, I recently added a few new books to my (embarrassingly large) photography book library. One of them is:<br>

-Photographically Speaking: A Deeper Look At Creating Stronger Images, by David duChemin.</p>

<p>I'm on page 73 of duChemin's book. Out of my entire collection of photography books (everything from how-to and technical guides to individual artists' collections used for inspiration), duChemin is providing me exactly what I need to learn and realize for myself, and in a manner that's easy to digest. (Where was this book about ___ dozen books ago, when I really needed it? Oh, yeah, it was just released recently. Copyright 2012. Yep, and it's still 2011, it's <em>that</em> new.)</p>

<p>In his explanation of a photograph being a visual language that we "read", on page 28 in a sidebar explanation of a photo he states: <em>It is the knowledge and use of this language that enables us </em>[the photographer]<em> to express ourselves, to say more than "I was here." It allows us to say, "It felt like this."</em> Now, this little snip-it is somewhat out of context here without having the rest of the chapter to back it up, but when I read this I was taken back, because this is what I've been struggling to realize, but without knowing I should know it... if that makes sense. Anyway, <em>"I was here. It felt like this." </em>was such a profound statement for me that a couple days ago I grabbed a fine point pen and a Post-It note and wrote those words in the tiniest print that I could. Then I cut the words from the sheet and stuck it right on top my camera right in front of the hot shoe mount. My intention is to use this as a training device- I can't help but to read that note as I bring the camera up to my eye. If when I look though the viewfinder I'm not getting "a feeling" from what I'm looking at, I won't press the shutter release button- yet. Everything I've read in the book so far has been helping me establish what it is I should be looking for, what I should be setting up for, what I should be taking into consideration, so when I look through the viewfinder I can develop a scene that provides a feeling, causes some kind of emotional connection and response from, and meaning for, the "reader" of my photo. (His philosophy is that we don't just view images, we read the story it tells, interpreting it in our own way, and that it our responsibility to "write" the story in our photos.)</p>

<p>If you buy and read this book, have the book in one hand while you look at those photos you feel are superior to yours. You may come to a rational, objective conclusion as to why they are better than yours, and then begin the process of adjusting your methods, or yes, even re-learning what it is you should be doing to achieve the same feelings for your photos that you do for the photos of other photographers who may be creating better images. This is my process, starting right now. I will no longer aspire to create the best mediocre images possible. This is what I've been doing, but no more. And I will not simply try to become better, I will become better. I won't make 100 photos anymore hoping for one keeper. I will now only make keepers. (A lofty goal for sure, but a noble one to strive for.)</p>

<p>For me, your inquiry speaks to this- in those images that you compare your own against, maybe those photos you feel are great and accomplish something are reaching out and touching you. Maybe your own images, which may be technically proficient photos, just aren't "telling a story." This is the case for me, and I think duChemin's book is going to help me get over that hump from "okay" or "good" photos to great photos.</p>

<p>I'm turning a corner. I hope this helps you.</p>

<p>I'm at about 3% these days but there no more film and processing expenses so this is acceptable.</p>

<p><strong><em>Pleased?</em>,</strong> yes, quite often, otherwise I would give up.<strong> <em>Satisfied?</em></strong> No. Always looking to improve and learn.</p>

<p>Like asking if you are satisfied with your golf game. I've never heard of a golfer that was. Photography is about always trying your best. I've never been satisfied with my photography, but often I accept the results as 'good enough'.</p>

<p>Am I satisfied? Yes ... in the sense that I have produced a number of pictures in the last 55 years as an amateur and professional which have pleased me and which, crucially, I don't think I could have done better. I used to be a little perturbed with my own personal photography that I seemed to need to take a lot of frames, most of which were alarmingly bad, in order to get one shot that pleased me. I have since come to accept this is an inevitable part of the process (at least for me) - accordingly, 35mm/digital (where mistakes come cheap) seems to work for me much better than large format, even though I am quite skilled in using LF equipment. I think the secret is - never beat yourself up about your own work, use any dissatisfaction to motivate yourself to do more work!</p>

<p>Much the same as Anders.</p>

<p>Perhaps this is a sweeping statement, I feel that the amateur is less likely to be satisfied with the final effort. The professional has a pot of money at the end of it and can walk away. The amateur is striving to do something new all the time or to improve on existing skills.</p>

Yes, very much so.

<p>I take some satisfaction in the overall progress and evolution of my photography. There are occasions when upon completion of an image I sit back for a moment and feel satisfied that I've done my best and ended up with a good result. In other moments I'm quite convinced that everything I've ever done is second rate, derivative and that I've nothing of value to say.</p>

<p>What I do not do is look to the TRP pages for a yardstick with which to measure my own efforts. I already know that I am not going to fly to Patagonia with $ 40,000 worth of photo gear and climb a mountain before sunrise to take 20 frames to blend dof and exposure and stitch into a panorama and print at 8 feet by 12 feet. I can admire such results while still enjoying my own forays into landscape photography in my own neighborhood with my own modest equipment and skill set. So long as some sort of personal vision seems to be developing and I am continuing to grow and learn, that in itself is enough to keep me going.</p>

<p>Mostly yes. Like Thom, when I look at the great experiences I've had while doing photography, they have enriched my life immensely. I'm happy for that. Without a camera in my hand, I would have gone to far few places, left many miles of gravel roads untraveled, and left so many landscapes with nothing more than a cursory look. By looking at photography as a process, I'm satisfied, especially considering my limited time and money; the hours and days spent pursuing photography have been well worth the time and effort. If I look at photography as a product (a great print), I have a limited number of photographs that I truly like and will be happy to hang them on my walls for the rest of my life as reminders and testaments to the great experiences I've had in trying to capture them.<br /> <br /> My only dissatisfaction is that my range of photographic subjects is largely limited to landscapes and a few wildlife photographs, and I'm feeling the need to expand this range. Fortunately, that's within my power to control.<br /> <br /> I'm never dissatisfied when comparing my photography with that of others. Everyone has their own reasons for making photographs, and I never expect my reasons to match those of anyone else, so comparisons are meaningless IMO. Instead, I'm often greatly inspired when viewing the photographs of others that I consider outstanding, and it only adds to the anticipation when I head out the door.</p>