Indeed it is.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
But it's not, i think, that you're results are mediocre. It's more like (a bit 'over-dramatized') you moving on, and not being the person that liked the thing you did yesterday anymore.
For me, it's an eternal "what is it that would justify that this photograph even exists?"
And i apply that to all photographs i see, not only my own.
And believe me, there are very few that i would like to exist, even though i still am not sure why they should.
Sounds harsh (but, i'm sure, also recognizable), but the vast majority of photographs exist despite being extremely boring, ill-conceived bits of nothingness, without even an inkling of hope that there may be some reason why they should exist, lurking in some extremely remote, yet undiscovered place.
Don't get me wrong: i appreciate the honest attempts to do something worthwhile that lay at the root of most. I add to the heap of failed attempts myself (that's basically what i said earlier in this thread). We must keep trying.
Mark, i don't see anyone picking on Salgado for the unsharpness and graininess of his prints. Salgado was put forward as someone making great photos, because (at least that's how i read it) he mastered the craft.
I wouldn't agree with such a suggestion. He doesn't. He makes great photos. Period.
The point that was made (or at least i was trying to bring across) was that you do not need to be the Absolute Master of Craft to change over to the other side, the side where you stop worrying about the "how-to" and just get on with having a go at the "what". The change over from process-geek and equipment-geek to someone actually making photos.