Improving technique, or retreading the same ground?

[danbroad]

In no way is this thread supposed to cause sparks; I'd just like to hear other viewpoints on this. Hopefully it's good for considered discussion..

In the various subforums, I see great pictures; some technically brilliant, all worth a look. However, do some of you get tired of shooting the same frames, with only slightly different subjects?

What I'm trying to say is this; do you feel your phography ever starts to look a little 'samey'? Whilst not a crime, is it a shame to buy, say, a 400mm prime and only ever point it at birds on twigs? Or an expensive macro lens, and only ever print insects from the garden? Or a fast zoom, and only ever take pictures of racing cars going from left to right?

The reason for my interest is that I'm shooting more with a compact, with a different set of focal lengths. As a result I'm well outside my comfort zone of telephoto animal portraiture. I started to look at my hard drive, and saw that it was effectively filling up with the same shot. Selective lighting? Tick. Blackened background? Tick. Only the animal was changing. It's a nice shot, but I've done it to death and it's time to move on.

For some, I see the idea that it's a tool for the job in hand. A professional wedding photographer, for example, points his standard lens or short telephoto at brides and grooms. Only the faces change; the poses and formalities are repeated weekly. For the wedding tog, the money shots are essential. The same is applicable to motorsport journalists, or sports togs.

But, as a hobbyist photographer, is our ultimate aim to emulate the pros, or is it to develop our skills? If you looked at your hard drive now, would it be full of the "same shot, different subject"?

As I said, it's not an intent to belittle your interests or your results. Those birds and those insects, those motorcars and low flying planes are all fantastic to look at, and I thank all of you for sharing your hard work with us. It's genuinely appreciated, really. But I personally can't shake the feeling that maybe, in order to genuinely improve, I've got to start looking away from what I know.

If you took that £1000 lens and pointed it at something else, could you generate a result that was just as pleasing? That's my aim for the next few months. Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[david1701]

Interesting.

I like shooting outside my comfort zones, but I find if I stray too far my results tend to fall off rapidly. For example my landscape thread, whereas some of my shallow DoF Portraiture is great (well I think it is)

 

[Flash In The Pan]

However, do some of you get tired of shooting the same frames, with only slightly different subjects?

What I'm trying to say is this; do you feel your phography ever starts to look a little 'samey'? Whilst not a crime, is it a shame to buy, say, a 400mm prime and only ever point it at birds on twigs? Or an expensive macro lens, and only ever print insects from the garden? Or a fast zoom, and only ever take pictures of racing cars going from left to right?

The reason for my interest is that I'm shooting more with a compact, with a different set of focal lengths. As a result I'm well outside my comfort zone of telephoto animal portraiture. I started to look at my hard drive, and saw that it was effectively filling up with the same shot. Selective lighting? Tick. Blackened background? Tick. Only the animal was changing. It's a nice shot, but I've done it to death and it's time to move on.

For some, I see the idea that it's a tool for the job in hand. A professional wedding photographer, for example, points his standard lens or short telephoto at brides and grooms. Only the faces change; the poses and formalities are repeated weekly. For the wedding tog, the money shots are essential. The same is applicable to motorsport journalists, or sports togs.

But, as a hobbyist photographer, is our ultimate aim to emulate the pros, or is it to develop our skills? If you looked at your hard drive now, would it be full of the "same shot, different subject"?

As I said, it's not an intent to belittle your interests or your results. Those birds and those insects, those motorcars and low flying planes are all fantastic to look at, and I thank all of you for sharing your hard work with us. It's genuinely appreciated, really. But I personally can't shake the feeling that maybe, in order to genuinely improve, I've got to start looking away from what I know.

If you took that £1000 lens and pointed it at something else, could you generate a result that was just as pleasing? That's my aim for the next few months. Anyone else feel the same way?

Yes, I seem to have an awful lot (thousands) of near identical shots of racing cars going round Knockhill, so I've started looking for different angles (getting lower down etc) and exploring different places to shoot from in the hope of producing something different from my norm.

Perhaps though, I too need to try shooting something outwith my comfort zone, maybe going out with the G10, rather than just automatically grabbing the D300 and 70-200 combo and viewing the world (photographically speaking) from a different perspective...

 

[danbroad]

I'm glad it's not just me - [and also that nobody's taken offence!] It's maybe just my outlook at the moment, but it feels that I know exactly what I'm going to see when I look at a thread in one of the specific critique forums. When the subject matter becomes so similar, then it all comes down to technique and critical sharpness etc etc.

If I open a thread, and - bang! - there's a shot, an angle, an image that's not what I was expecting, then I find that more pleasing than a technically perfect shot that I've seen similarly a hundred times before.

Of course, photography gives us all very personal victories, and I would never belittle another persons shot. After all, someone else's shot is a million times better than the shot I don't have, and I'm aware of the hard work and effort that goes into nailing it.

As an example, I'm going to Goodwood Revival again this year [every year come rain or shine...] and I've no intention of taking the SLR. I have gigabytes of perfectly exposed panning shots which effectively catalogue the cars racing. I never look at them now. I'll be taking the D-Lux, and concentrating on the costumes, the visitors and the details. That I'll come home without a single shot of a car on track is something I'm actually looking forward to - a personal challenge. Can I make it work? That's my hope.

 

[HoppyUK]

Familiarity breeds contempt. There is always a lot of truth in those old sayings and cliches.

But there is so much to enjoy about photography. It is massively varied and enduring in its appeal. Sure some of my photos are samey, but I take them that way because I like them. And when I look in the forums I see a lot of familiar subjects photographed very predictably, but there are so many subjects that I have not really photographed at all myself, predictably or otherwise, and the predictable way is often the best way, so I'll probably keep on trying.

When I've done that a hundred times, superbly, and there is nothing left to achive, I'll try a different subject or technique. But so far, those one hundred flawless images have eluded me, and I'm still trying. And as far as your motorsports shots are concerned, I bet the subjects are not tired of them at all. And don't you dare go experimenting with wacky angles just because you're bored. They are called the money shots becuase they are the ones people want.