A lot of people get on me for doing what they call 'test shots'. I shoot my environment. That generally means around the house or in my immediate neighborhood. I do this when I first get a new film, and also when I get restless. Sometimes it helps me to 'see' again. Most times, though, I don't come out with anything that I consider to be a great photograph.
My perceptions have been shaken lately by more than one person telling me that some of these photos are worthy of being published. None are photos I dislike, but most are photos I never thought as publishable or even meriting printing.
These are all from a plastic camera. The rest can be seen at this location. I've gotten more complements on these images than any others I've taken.
I've been told that this should be published as a diptyc.
All these photos have flaws. The first three were taken with a Lex35 plastic 35mm camera. The last two are just technically not what I myself would really consider "good".
So I don't know. Anyone else have comments on this?
i like the bike shot.do they have flaws???that is the big question.the best photos are sometimes the ones you dont think of.i can really see you walking by the bike and saying what the heck and firing the shutter.it is the viewer that decides if it is good.do you like evry shot ever taken and published,i dont,i think some are just riding on the name of the photographer.just keep shooting.
When I was in grad school studying sculpture, my teachers and fellow students always said they liked the things I built to help me assemble my sculptures as much as my sculptures themselves. So I decided to incorporate some of these structures into my final pieces.
You never know where your inspiration comes from. I wouldn't stop making these types of photos, just maybe be a little more careful when you expose, process and print them. You just might end up with a few gems.
gene
__________________
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
Looking back, so many years ago, when I was starting out in art photography and falling in love with too many of my images (all of which I thought were great!), I would set them aside for a year or two, and then go back and review them again. Most often, when I returned for another view, I would realize that the images really were not so good after all. I also found that my "darlings" were hardly new, but cliches that had been done many times before and done so much better! As William Faulkner advised young writers, "kill your darlings!" I agree with Keith. You must learn to judge (and edit) your own work - and this takes lots of shooting and lots of experience and lots of studying art of all kinds. I recall one of the best professors I had in college said, "buy a large garbage can and fill it often for that's how one becomes a very good photographer!"
A lot of people get on me for doing what they call 'test shots'. I shoot my environment.
I usually test new cameras, new processes, and so on with the exact same shot: I step out my front door in the morning and shoot northwest (where I have a rather nice view of some neighbouring properties and an undeveloped ridgeline). It's interesting to me that people sometimes express strong preferences for one or another of these (mostly) very similar images, often based on distinctions that I don't understand at all. People just seem to see differently, sometimes *really* differently, from one another.
With that in mind...
Quote:
My perceptions have been shaken lately by more than one person telling me that some of these photos are worthy of being published. None are photos I dislike, but most are photos I never thought as publishable or even meriting printing.
...I don't see why this should "shake" your perceptions. It just means that some people really like some stuff that you don't, which wouldn't be an issue except that the "stuff" happens to be your work.
I really like the bike one, by the way. The others don't light me up as much.
Quote:
All these photos have flaws.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I doubt if I've ever met anybody who could reasonably claim to have produced a photo without flaws, and actually, I'm not even sure what a photo without flaws would be. Most of my favourite photos, I can identify specific "flaws" in---but they wouldn't be the photos they are without them, so is "flaw" the right word? Beats me.
My perceptions have been shaken lately by more than one person telling me that some of these photos are worthy of being published. None are photos I dislike, but most are photos I never thought as publishable or even meriting printing.
Are your friends working in publishing? I've had a lot of grandma/uncles/brothers/cousins/friends/etc telling me that my photos are nice & all that, but they're not the ones offering me publishing contracts.
What I think your friends mean is that they can see that your pictures are not just snaps, but show an effort they would not put into their own photos for various reasons. Thus, they could be appreciable by someone else than the parties directly concerned.
The best way to know if your photos are publishable is to look various kinds of publication, see what kind of stuff they publish, and try to imagine your work therein. If yes, then call them up; if no, well, life goes on.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
"Good" and "Bad" Photography 
Linear Mode
