“I sometimes wonder if I’m improving in my photography, have I progressed beyond my skills of a few years ago?”
The last couple of months I’ve been working on setting up a photograph gallery hosted along with this blog. It started with investigating what “free” gallery software packages were available, the features they include and how well in could be integrated with Meandering Passage.
After selecting the software I began setting up albums and sub-albums and going back through archived photos choosing which I thought should be included. It was during this photo review process that I began to discover an answer to my question above. While working with photos taken five or six years ago I was seeing potential I’d originally passed over — noting how the composition could of better or how a different crop could still make something good out of what was before rejected. I didn’t see these things at the time the photos were made. Since the photos didn’t change it could only be my own vision and skills that have changed.
I’m still working on the new photo gallery and will post when it’s ready for viewing.
Perhaps only the small water tower existed at some point in time but with progress the needs grew and the capacity/resources grew as well, resulting in the larger tower being built.
I ask myself the same, from time to time. This I’m sure of, we have improved our digital processing skills.
Ove, so true!
I can give the same answer, Earl. What stands out to me is the vision, what I see now verses what I missed in the past. The practice is working.
Monte, Yes, it seems there is at least some degree of progression taking place — which is reassuring to know. :-)
Like you, what interests me are the photos I took years ago but passed over at the time. Now, going through them, and in some cases reprocessing them, I realize that I was often seeing the way I do today, but somehow not realizing what I had done. Fascinating!
Tom, it is fascinating, isn’t it. Perhaps you’re right, realization is more accurate to describe the experience…something to consider. Thanks!
While I don’t disagree with anyone here, I find myself more in tune with Tom Dills’ comment than with the others. I was never convinced that Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” argument (you know, the 10,000 hours of practice hypothesis) was all there was to it. I don’t care what your area of interest is, “practice” runs a distant second to raw talent when it comes to achieving perfection. An astronaut, for example, has to go through thousands of hours of “practice” to master technique, but wouldn’t have been there in the first place without the “right stuff”.
So it is with photography. Some can do it, many can’t. And I don’t think that we change that much over the long run. At least not with respect to what we “see”. The only thing that changes is how we present that vision. That’s where we find improvement, I think. When we venture too far from our own visual comfort zone, the output becomes not so good. Practice forever if you want to, but the results won’t change a whole lot. As Tom says, if you examine what you’ve done over the years – objectively – you’re going to find that there’s a thread of consistency. That thread is who you are. Trying to change it is like changing the resolution on a computer monitor. Deviating from the “native resolution” is possible, but it will never look quite as good.
Paul, excellent points. I certainly agree raw talent is the major factor and no amount of practice can make up for not having it. Given the varying amounts of talent we each possess perhaps we can only strive for a personal best..our “personal perfection”… in photography as well as other areas. Practice allows us to execute those talents fully. Thanks.
A fine street shot of this huge water tank. I like the sound of your project and what is showing you in the progress of your work. Nice idea and well worth doing.
Don, thanks. It’s interesting to “look back” sometimes to see where we’ve come from, especially if we can see some slight signs of change or improvement.
Paul brings up some good points – but without the practice, practice, and practice more mantra raw talent remains, well, raw. I think the two are symbiotic in a way – if you have the talent, the practice hones the blade so to speak, making us sharper, more alert to new possibilities. The common thread mentioned by Paul, is, to me, that elusive “voice” we’re all searching for that makes us unique. Practice without talent can make you technically better, but without the talent, the vision, you can only go so far.
Re-visiting older photos is something I do occasionally, and I’ll often find things that were just a bit off when I took the shot that I would do differently now. I guess that’s growth…
Looking forward to your new gallery, Earl!
John, I would agree it takes both talent and practice to “excel” in whatever field your in. One without either of the other will not take you as far as the two combined. Talent often is the difference between being very good and being great, even with equal hours and hours of practice.
I have to disagree with Paul’s remark about “practice” runs a distant second to raw talent”. Talent will take you so far but the most talented artists I know (musicians mostly) never underestimate the value of practice. Talent needs development and nurturing. Without practice, the most talented photographer is never going to live up to his potential.
And those who have no talent have no “potential” to live up to……..
“Potential”, by the way, is one of those buzz words that has little or no actual meaning. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.
Let’s put it another way: Practice is the second most important thing. How’s that? I’ve never said that it was unimportant. If you happen to be one of those “talentless” folks in whatever field you choose to practice in, then you’re wasting your time. I will never be a singer – couldn’t carry a tune if my life depended on it. I could practice until hell freezes over. Wouldn’t make any difference. I’m not “underestimating” the value of practice. I’m just saying that in the overall scheme of things, it’s number 2. A distant number 2.
Ken, Paul used my example of singing…I love music but people would pay me to stop singing. My wife would fully support this statement. ;-)
So, if I practiced long hours with a voice teacher I might get a little better but it would never be pleasant to listen to.
I will concede that Paul’s singing (and possibly yours, Earl) may be the exception to the rule.
Perhaps I misunderstood that practice is unimportant. Practice without talent is a waste of time, talent without practice is a waste of a gift.
must be the kind of water tower that people attacked after hearing orson welles’ radio play :)
yz, a dark night, a bottle of wine (or around here a case of beer) and Orson Welles War of the Worlds and this water tank may indeed draw a few shots. :-)
What an intriguing image – the architecture of the water tower is very fascinating. The shape of the structure complements the bare trees very well. And I also like how you’ve captured the warm tones of the sun.
I wish you lots of energy and fun while going through your archive and look forward to seeing your photo gallery!
Martina, thanks. The shape of the water tower is fairly common for America. I’ve finished my first pass of the archives…it was a tiresome job and I probably selected too many photos.