Why do you suppose.. (Page 4): If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

CHG_CANON wrote:

Photography is not a sport like golf where the low score wins. Rather, the measure of success is success. One great image is an undefeated season. It doesn't matter how many <Delete>s occurred prior to that image. Michael Jordan wasn't the greatest because he practiced really hard. He's the greatest because he has six championships and no defeats.

Bill Russell was better because he had 11 championships and no defeats.

Riverrune

I take my camera out every morning and evening while walking the dog, and often come back without ever taking a single shot. But when light and subject are rihgt I can take many shots. It all depends.

On the other hand my favorite trout streams are only a very short drive, and when the Fryingpan gets crowded I know another hundred places where I won't see a soul. And I'll have my camera in case there are no real fish opportunities (but its rare I come back without a few in hand...)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Though I am not a fisherman, I equate photography to fishing. I recall one trip to The Grand Canyon where I didn't take a camera out of the car. Something, the light, the shadows, etc., just didn't appeal to me. One the way back, a storm front moving in over the San Francisco Peaks was noteworthy. I took the tripod and camera out of the car, set them up, took one photograph. That was worth the entire trip.

On another occasion, I packed up all the cameras, and associated equipment and headed out of the day. 14 hours later, I came and nothing had been taken out of the car in the process. However, I did have a great time.
--Bob

Curmudgeon wrote:

I pick up my camera, walk out the door and to me the measure of success is the number shots taken and the number of keepers produced. Few or no shots make it a failed day

When I was younger I would pickup my fly rod, drive three hours to my favorite stream, fish from dawn to dark without even a rise let alone a strike. Drive 3 hours home and consider it a great day.

I wonder why the difference?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No one ever takes one photograph of something they want to forget. You need a thousand in RAW for that.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Perhaps it’s because photography seeks a goal, that perfect image, while fly fishing, fishing in general, is soup for the soul.

User ID

R.G. wrote:

Fishing is less challenging. If you don't catch any fish, that's not a failure, and apart from that you still get to enjoy the outdoors. Photography is more challenging because failure and disappointment are more of a possibility. But photography is also potentially the more rewarding of the two.

I can go out and take no photos but still enjoy going out. Other than not getting wet, I spoze thaz the same as fishing.

I used to live next to a famous trout stream, the Kinderhook. Maybe I made some pix of it but I don’t really recall. I never fished in it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bubbee wrote:

I would define "success" as getting the desired result, and that means different things to different people. We all have different standards, interests, and goals.
And that's what makes the World go round!

It's funny, but the first part of your sentence is exactly how I approach critique. I rarely just assume the photographers intent when making the image. I start the critique with questions like "What is is that you saw?" and "What is it that you want me (and others) to see?" and "Do you feel this image does justice to the first two questions, why and why not? If you had a chance to retake this, what would you do differently?" And this is all about getting the photographer to think about their work, and become a better critic of their own work. I only inject my own input when we are both out of options. Some can advance their skills through introspection, others by viewing examples for inspiration. And rarely do two photographers agree on every aspect of an image - and the second part as well as the second sentence - couldn't be more true.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

I can go out and take no photos but still enjoy going out. Other than not getting wet, I spoze thaz the same as fishing.

I used to live next to a famous trout stream, the Kinderhook. Maybe I made some pix of it but I don’t really recall. I never fished in it.

Fishing for photos.

goldenyears Loc: Lake Osewgo

I don't know anything about fishing, except that some varieties I like to eat but not others. I don't know a lot about photography except that some images I like to keep but not others. I find it more difficult to explain what photos I like to keep, than to describe what fish I like to eat (easily deboned, slightly sweet flavor, moist, dense but tender texture, especially Mahi Mahi, quickly seared on both sides.)

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Curmudgeon wrote:

I pick up my camera, walk out the door and to me the measure of success is the number shots taken and the number of keepers produced. Few or no shots make it a failed day

When I was younger I would pickup my fly rod, drive three hours to my favorite stream, fish from dawn to dark without even a rise let alone a strike. Drive 3 hours home and consider it a great day.

I wonder why the difference?

Fishing depends upon what the fish want to do no matter what you do. Taking the bait is all up to them. Photography is all about seeing something you want to photograph. If nothing then no photographs. It is dependent upon you.

I don't specialize in anything photographic and enjoy taking photos of numerous subjects, flowers, birds, leaves, animals, landscapes/seascapes, macro, people occasionally, low flying aircraft, boats, vehicles and so on. There is always something to photograph. Normally my view is cluttered with a target rich environment. Maybe start looking at smaller things or maybe larger things such as architectural photography, repetitive items, maybe.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

[quote=Quixdraw][quote=Curmudgeon]Interesting observation quixdraw. Of course one does not snap the shutter if there is no subject.[/quote

For me, at least, there is nearly always something of interest. It may take changing definitions and expectations of success.[/quote]

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Curmudgeon wrote:

I don't think that's the issue for me. The issue is how we quantify success.

Come to Eastern Idaho. Show me how to do better in fly fishing.

Dennis

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Curmudgeon wrote:

Interesting observation quixdraw. Of course one does not snap the shutter if there is no subject.

There always is a subject, may not appeal to you, but it's still there.
It doesn't go away because you don't care to snap the shutter.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

Curmudgeon wrote:

I pick up my camera, walk out the door and to me the measure of success is the number shots taken and the number of keepers produced. Few or no shots make it a failed day

When I was younger I would pickup my fly rod, drive three hours to my favorite stream, fish from dawn to dark without even a rise let alone a strike. Drive 3 hours home and consider it a great day.

I wonder why the difference?

Higher expectations with age.