Are you satisfied with your photography ?

[tonmestrom]

<p>I've never seen photography as a competition where I look at the work of others out of frustration. Instead I look at it for inspiration and/or admiration (I'm an avid student of photographic history). A few years ago I started an extensive behind the scenes series which in this form was a first for me. As a result I got/get to shoot and even more importantly get to know a great many interesting people. THAT is satisfying. This series is coming to an end and if nothing else this experience will lead me to the next one. That also is satisfying. Nothing more is needed.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<blockquote>

<p>I've never seen photography as a competition where I look at the work of others out of frustration. Instead I look at it for inspiration and/or admiration - Ton Mestrom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is also how I look at it. I can be satisfied with an image of mine for a shorter or longer period, but I can't sit down an be satisfied with my photography as a whole - I like to explore further.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>And, I would also like to add that I find this fine site an inspiration to me, and I value the constructive critiques highly. You guys make me a better photographer!</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Pleasure and satisfaction aren't congruent. That dissonance is the point of Jagger's word choice.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>No. People often compliment me on my work but I then question their qualification to make such a statement. Then I see someone else's work and am very impressed by it. The question is, why are you a photographer? Ask yourself four questions:- What do I want to photograph? Why? What do I want to say about the subject? How am I going to say it?</p>

<p>After 46 years of photography I am still wrestling with those questions.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Hmmmmm.... lots of decent food for thought here. But it also seems there are two different discussions which kind of contradict one another.<br>

There is a clear difference between "I am satisfied with this photo, and this one, ... ah, this one is fine too" versus "I am satisfied with where I am in my development as a photographer".<br>

If there would be no photos I was satisfied with, why continue to try indeed? Sure there are photos I am satisfied about.<br>

At the same time, if I was fully satisfied with my development as a photograpgher, why continue to try indeed? The majority are photos I am not satisfied about, thiose push me to continue improve. In this sense, satisfaction may bear a risk of complacency for some, for others maybe a sense of boredom/repitition, for others it might make them feel good and accomplished. Depends, I guess, on what you're seeking for in the first place.</p>

<p>As for photos of others, they're inspiration, they're helping forming an idea of what I think I should be capable off. They're not a direct yardstick to measure by, but they help define that inner "goal". It's not a race against them, it can't be - else we'd all be copying our personal heroes without any personal touch. Most who responded in this thread have a portofolio that shows that's certainly not the case.</p>

<p>May 2012 bring more inspiration, and more photos you feel satisfied with; but most of all a lot of good in each and every way.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Wouter, I think you phrase it well. Let me take it one step further -- is there any photograph you have ever taken that you don't think you could improve on if: the lighting was different, your focus point was moved slightly, you framed it a little differently, you used a different model, you waited until the perfect cloud came by, etc.?<br>

How many times have you come back from an assignment or shooting and realized that you had missed a shot or an opportunity, or realized that you were going to have to return to do more work at the location?<br>

There is a location about 50 miles from where I live that I know will give me the right light and atmospherics for a spectacular image. I have probably exposed 200-300 frames at this site and know that shot is still out there.<br>

Do you ever sit down and think a bout the shots you want to take or even make a list of them? <br>

Do you plan shooting days around locations with specific shots/images in mind? Do you come home with every shot as you envisioned it?<br>

For me being satisfied is when all those photographic itches I have are scratched.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, you've really got a loaded threshhold for satisfaction. You even threw <em>perfection</em> in there to further load it. And then you threw something in about <em>every</em> shot you bring home. You've made satisfaction an impossibility thereby rendering it kind of a moot point.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"No one would look to pin Mick Jagger down as if he were taking part in a debate."</em> <strong>--Fred</strong><br>

<em>"That dissonance is the point of Jagger's word choice."</em> <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, almost no one. :-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Perfection is for the Gods, and boring to everyone else. Like the gap in Isabella Rosselini's front teeth, it makes the imperfect supremely interesting and human-scale.</p>

<p>Fred, I just laughed out loud in a very quiet Barnes & Noble...</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>Fred, you may have something there. You can be satisfied with your progress and your effort, but not the result. I see satisfaction as a goal that once achieved you set the bar a little higher. All of us have hit those points where we lack inspiration and nothing seems to drive us -- the writer's block of photographers -- at that point we need a stimulus to move off of dead center. I see satisfaction in much the same light. If you reach satisfaction you may consider that it is time to raise your standards.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>After posting my response yesterday I selected Top Photographers from the p.net home page and sampled a handful or portfolios. The OP didn't specify whose work he admired, so I relied on a random sample. All of the portfolios featured images with extremely saturated color. In some cases the same photograph was rendered two or three different ways with wildly different color palettes.</p>

<p>Here's my assessment. A lot of photographers find color enticing. When they see a photograph with rich colors they give it a high rating. People who accumulate such ratings eventually reach the designation of "Top Photographers."</p>

<p>If the OP wants to emulate the photographs in my small sample, the critical skill would be learning how to post process images to create high-contrast images with heavily saturated colors. That seems to be the quality that bubbles people up to the top of the list.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Dan, who do you shoot for? When I was a working commercial photographer I shot for the client and typically the art director or editor who had the shot already in mind and hired me to execute their vision. For the last 35 years I have been shooting for myself. One of the luxuries of not being a professional (to the extent I don't have to rely on executing someone else's vision for my livelihood) is that I don't have to please anyone other than myself. I stopped putting my work up here for points in the ratings, in large part because I really don't much care what others may think about my work. They can like it or not like it -- it matters not to me. What I do like is having others with skills and talents I value criticize my work. I can take value away from that criticism. I'm free to evaluate the criticism and accept it or reject it.<br>

I do think the one thing that separates the truly great photographers (that 0.001%) from the rest of us is their vision, or their ability to see things the rest of us miss. Knowing how to use the technology and equipment to execute on the vision is something all who make the effort can acquire. However, that vision, that "eye" is the magic as far as I'm concerned. We all have photographers whose work we are particularly fond of. We recognize their work from across the room because that vision stands out regardless of subject. We can tell if a portrait was done by Karsh, a landscape by Adams or O'Keefe. On this site Marc Adamus work has that character. I don't like all of his work, but some of it is spectacular. All of it has his signature vision to it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I try not to be overly concerned with standards and spectacularity.</p>

<p>I photograph to express myself. I'm imperfect and what I'm expressing is not any sort of striving toward perfection, which would be a waste of time for me. Better light, keener subjects, more magnificent landscapes or portraits . . . not my thing. If I've been authentic, I'm satisfied, in whatever light I have captured and used to create my photo. And then I move onto the next one. I don't bait myself by consistently telling myself I could have been just a little more authentic or done just a little better.</p>

<p>I very often don't even know how to assess my own work, because sometimes I don't quite know what to make of a new photo. I don't always see something in a new photo of mine that allows it to adhere to a standard I already recognize. Some of my photos set new standards that I don't yet recognize. They simply allow me to move on. Whether I call that being satisfied or not makes little difference in the scheme of things. I just move on. The photos of mine that confuse me are as significant to the overall mix as those that somehow convey to me that I've nailed something.</p>

<p>Mostly, I feel like I'm building a <em>body of work</em>, which takes time and process. Each individual photo is a nudge in some direction, a building block of sorts, not representative of a goal post that I am arbitrarily going to move after the photo is created because of someone's missive that I better not be satisfied or I'll be dead.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Something I've noticed is that we often phrase questions in an on/off sort of way, and then we get into silly arguments about the meaning of "satisfaction" or whether it's good to be satisfied or dissatisfied. Then we get not to talk about photography, but instead to argue about minutiae. "Are you satisfied?" is almost begging for a debate: Yes I am, No I'm not.</p>

<p>Insert a good illustrative Broadway musical song: <a href="

<p>What if the OP had been phrased this way: What are some of the things you've been satisfied with lately and some of the things you've been dissatisfied with lately in your photography? I wonder if the discussion would have been any more enlightening. Or would someone have figured out how to turn it into a debate?</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Fred, I think the original question was more philosophical than technical. I agree with the view of perfection. Only one member of my household is allowed to be perfect and it isn't me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I wasn't thinking technically. I was thinking aesthetically.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Yes, in the sense that I know what and how to shoot to my satisfaction. There are parts I could stream line, hone and improve upon, of course.</p>

<p><br /> No, in the sense that I could get better tools/equipments and I've got many places I'd like to visit and photograph.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I do think the one thing that separates the truly great photographers (that 0.001%) from the rest of us is their vision, or their ability to see things the rest of us miss.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I agree, but I'm not clear as to whether the OP was talking about "the truly great photographers" or people who have a high rating on this site. Even when discussing the "greats" sometimes photographers have differing views as to how influential a particular individual may have been.</p>

<p>I shoot for myself most of the time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Only one member of my household is allowed to be perfect and it isn't me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You too, huh? ;-)</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I have many photos that I can say that I got it just right and I am very satisfied with them. That doesn't mean I don't continue to strive continue to make other photos that I am satisfied with. Its not that easy. It's nice to be rewarded once in a while! </p>

[johne37179]

Steve, you can successfully complete the mission but learn from it and know that next time around you might tweak this

or that.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>For me, completing a photo and making a commitment to it <em>as is</em> is a matter of commitment, confidence, and voice, perhaps even ego which I'm happy to have. Remaining open to changing any photo I make later on or seeing it differently or learning from it is a matter of creativity and evolution. I would guess that most of us balance between those two and think of it as a sort of continuum. Thankfully, no one can demand that we choose between the two extreme and, if they do demand it, we can simply ignore them.</p>

[gary_meader]

<p>No. To those who ask me 'What's the best photo you've taken?' I answer; 'I haven't taken it yet'. But do you know how many photographers have no aspirations to be better? Take some of your 'average' shots to your friends. They think they're great. To you they're average. Your asking the question puts you on the right track. Hang in there.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>@Anders, quite a way back: Funny observation. I guess I'm the same way. I will put out an image when I'm "satisfied" with it -- that it has reached some minimally acceptable standard for my portfolio. Of course that's a subjective thing for me. I'm mostly interested in presenting photos that are interesting in some way. Then as photos sit in my portfolio for quite a while, of them fade in importance (often very quickly) to the point that they are extraordinarily uninteresting to me. Long ago, I would cull all such photos out. However, I would sometimes get reactions from others that they were surprised I removed a certain photo --, because they really liked it. I do still cull photos, but I have a more conservative standard of culling now. I only remove a photo when I remember I was the only person who liked it at the time it went up, and now I don't like it anymore! ;-) For the other photos, I have to remind myself that the photos at one time meant something to me, and they might mean something to others too.</p>

<p>@John Ellingson: You didn't ask the question of me, but I'll answer it -- namely, whether I've ever taken the "perfect" photo. Obviously no photo is ever perfect. I feel I've come pretty close on a few photos, within the limits of my equipment, with the help of 50% skill and 50% luck. (I think luck is a critical element in near-perfect photographs -- usually the luck of finding the subject.) Usually when I'm taking such a photo, it feels somewhat like a "gift" to me. That said, as others have pointed out, perfection is boring -- often amazing, often awe-inspiring, but otherwise boring. It is often my more flawed photos -- often extremely flawed photos -- that mean the most to me. It's not because of their flaws that I love them, but rather because of what they communicate. Often the "perfect" photos are devoid of any message, much like a pretty young woman in a beauty pageant.</p>

<p>As a music lover, I usually gravitate towards the immature, often overwrought compositions of young composers, e.g. Schotakowitsch Symphony #1, as well as the performances of the aging greats whose virtuosity was lost long ago, but whose richness of life experiences are reflected in their brilliant performances (e.g. Horowitz in Moscow). I find their work interesting and compelling. It's the perfection of the experienced composer or the performer in his/her prime that often leaves me more flat. It's hard to explain.</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>Sarah: Interesting observations. As someone once said "the harder I work at something the luckier I get."  I, too am drawn to the Horowitz Moscow performances, but I don't think because they were necessarily his best, but because they are amazing for that point in his career. I do understand how images you were impressed with when you took them do not hold up with age. I moved into a new home two years ago and as part of the moving process I was looking through some of the work I did back in the '70s. Some was really quite good, but much was very ordinary. I think "newness" and discovery may have a lot to do with whether or not we like our current output. However, when seen in the context of time, that newness wears off and the objective analysis replaces it.<br>

My work has certainly changed over time. New technology has changed how I approach a subject. When burning film had a cost per frame that went with it, I would limit my shots per subject. Today I can shoot until I have exhausted what I think are the variations available. The image density with a small camera is much greater than in the past and I can use a small camera where I would have felt the need for a view camera.<br>

The exposure range and the ability to work with the image in post production has expanded orders of magnitude. All of which have changed my approach. However, I don't know if any of it has made the output better.</p>