aubreybogle Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I'm sorry, but I think the original poster's highly judgmental and critical comment invited some snarky responses. Sometimes, you reap what you sow. I find the vast majotity of what I see on this site to be informed, civil and helpful.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That’s a splendid image of a shot that is hard not to do as cliche. Well done.

Andy

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Very true. It takes time and practice to hone our vision and craft.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Well most people don't want to achieve greatness, especially if it doesn't pay anything. And of many thousands who do try, only a handful achieve it. For most of us it's just a hobby and a way to enjoy ourselves. I don't think holding us up to the standard of greatness is reasonable or even relevant. For most of us a simple, in focus shot of a bird or a flower is an accomplishment.

But standards are lower today in all walks of life. We used to have Edward R. Murrow and a slew of other WWII newsmen reporting on topics that affected millions of citizens. Now we have Entertainment Tonight reporting on the Kardashians. We used to have rigourous classroom standards. Now most high school graduates and many college graduates can't find France on a map or know whether the Revolutionary or Civil War came first.

Hollywood used to make great movies, now I go on Netflix and watch German and French movies with subtitles because they still know how to tell a story, film it beautifully, and hold our attention. Maybe one out of ten new Hollywood award winning movies is worth watching. Terrible acting, writing, cinematography, and it's an Academy Award winner.

We used to have the Beatles, Stones, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Clapton, Winwood, the British invasion, Motown, the Stax artists and the great Chicago bluesmen, all in the space of less than a decade. Now when I watch popular singers or bands on a TV show I turn it off after about 20 seconds.

We have become a nation of homogonized and mediocre education, entertainment and culture. Why should amateur photography be any different? Am I out of touch with the new culture? Probably.

aubreybogle Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Because each of us should seek to excel to the maximum of our capabilities to be the best artists/technicians that we are capable of being. Otherwise, we are merely shutter pushing, snapshot takers, and there is nothing wrong with that if that is our only asperation for taking pictures.

anotherview Loc: California

The craft of photography remains as a true challenge to those individuals to whom it beckons. They will stand out, as always. Likewise, viewers who appreciate worthy photography still exist.

As to greatness, the true artist in photography will produce his artwork regardless of remuneration and recognition which naturally distinguishes him all the more. He does art for its own sake.

Of course, few photographers strive to produce artwork, and most aim way lower than greatness in the first place.

The mass do photography (take pictures) for the ordinary satisfaction it brings. The snapshot of family or a pet suffices.

The field of photography has room for all who do it for whatever their purpose.

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Indeed.

Most of us wish to be creative or innovative in our photography. The reality is that creativity (and hence, innovation) is not a switch that can be toggled on and off at will; and i don't believe any purpose is served by simply exhorting others to be more innovative. Creativity is the end product of our ability to immerse ourselves into the experience of viewing the world. Growing our creativity takes time, and part of that process will often involve being part of the crowd, so to speak.

I've spent my share of time as part of the herd jockeying with a hundred or so other photographers for a spot to set up my tripod to shoot Horsetail Falls in Yosemite. I've lined up with a few dozen others to capture an image of the Tetons turning pink at sunrise from Schwabacher Landing. Not creative, in that I got the same shot as hundreds did before me, and hundreds have since. BUT, those outings helped me by giving me experiences that grew my passion for the light and the land. A few more pieces in my memories to help me see more clearly.

For those interested in the topic of creativity and photography, I'd suggest reading the essay colections by Brooks Jensen. Try "Letting Go of the Camera" and "The Creative Life in Photography" for inspiration.

https://www.amazon.com/Letting-Go-Camera-Photography-Creative/dp/1888803266
and https://www.amazon.com/Creative-Life-Photography-Process-Book-ebook/dp/B00D2D6PWE



and just for sh*ts and giggles, MY image of Mesa Arch; Canyonlands National Park.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

If one is traveling in or with a group, the time and the weather often limits what one can do to to "innovate". My wife and I had 20 minutes maximum at Marienbrucke bridge to shoot Neuschwanstein Castle. Hazy atmosphere, no fantastic clouds in the sky, and the castle half in shadow. All 20 minutes was not going to make anything better. 20 minutes is not enough time to climb the hill for a more interesting view of the poor lighting. True innovation sometimes is not possible. I guess one does not have to take any pictures not knowing when one will ever be in the area again. Of course, although it is not the only shot I took, I did take the cheesey shot.

tinwhistle

Just took a quick stroll back through six or seven pages of this thread. Loved the rodeo shots!

Stan Fayer

Many times we don’t see what is in our own backyards and have to go to someone else’s backyard to see what they missed. I live in the So. Jersey Pine Barrens. A million acres of pine forest. A friend did a slide show he called “Are the Pine Barrens Really Barren?” It was hundreds of photos of tiny orchids which only grow in the” Barrens”. Sometimes we have to look harder in our own backyard.
Stan

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Art & Fear: Observations On the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking https://www.amazon.com/dp/0961454733/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_WSuGBb88W1PPR

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Zen in the Art of Archery https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375705090/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_8TuGBbDXSVQ35

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Adams made careful notes on making a print, so he could duplicate it many times. I think he said it took a week to make the first print of Moonrise, and the notes are published in detail. We say you can do the same thing with software, and the process is saved automatically for more prints--but do we really? For comparison, consider the lithograph. This is an artwork, and each print is a legitimate art work (close to exact duplicates, but not quite...) Compare that with the various self portraits that Van Gogh made by hand. These are also each works of art, but not in the same sense as lithographs. In neither case is the art a matter of innovating in the sense that art critics can instantly see the artist fits into the mainstream of art. The artist did not just try to be different, but to be more. He followed the rules that matter, and expanded those rules that were limiting. The hard rock musicians who smashed up their instruments on stage were different, and they made a statement (social or political), but this was no art--in fact, it was a rejection of art in favor of the philistine mindset. When Beethoven broke the rules of Bach, it would have been rubbish unless it sounded right (and good). The great artists redeem the rules and refine them, rather than just being different by breaking them. Unlike science, art has not a bit of "progress" to it. It shows us what the world is, and what it should be, in the same work. There are many styles and possibilities for that, all of them legitimate if they work. A standard snapshot or postcard picture of my trip to Grand Canyon can be more artistic than a strangely odd or different creation using PhotoShop--yes?