# Would you rather . . .



## Zv (Oct 21, 2012)

Would you rather be a photographer that is known for producing thousands of 'good' images (but never produced a masterpiece) 

OR

Be famous for producing only ONE masterpiece ever (all your other work was mediocre at best)?


----------



## Menace (Oct 21, 2012)

For me I'll take the option of thousands of good images that i can look back and enjoy rather than one lucky shot during my entire shooting life - I'd be really depressed if all my images were mediocre 

My 2 cents


----------



## rpt (Oct 21, 2012)

Menace said:


> For me I'll take the option of thousands of good images that i can look back and enjoy rather than one lucky shot during my entire shooting life - I'd be really depressed if all my images were mediocre
> 
> My 2 cents


Oh yes! Agree! I'd rather be me than a one hit wonder... Anybody remember the *Oneders*? No? The movie *That thing you do*? I would not want to be that (them - whatever)... I believe I am fine as me (I think...)


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 21, 2012)

rpt said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > For me I'll take the option of thousands of good images that i can look back and enjoy rather than one lucky shot during my entire shooting life - I'd be really depressed if all my images were mediocre
> ...



+1

and yes, i love that movie!


----------



## rpt (Oct 21, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Menace said:
> ...


Directed by Tom Hanks - one need not say more...


----------



## GuyF (Oct 21, 2012)

It all depends on who the judge is. A colleague takes thousands of shots of horse racing and, by his own admission, many are not great shots (more just for the record) and yet owners and jockeys think they are great. Who is right and who is wrong?

I guess if you take one shot that is seen around the world then public perception of the rest of your work will grow. As one famous drummer said, why put a drum solo into a concert when it's only other drummers who will know if it's any good?

If that one shot ends up paying for your house and kids' education then would you complain?

Most of the public wouldn't know a technically difficult shot if it bit them on the ass.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 27, 2012)

Yeah, but does that one good image have decent DR? That's all that REALLY matters.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 27, 2012)

.
I guess in the crudest vernacular, I really don't give a rat's....

These days I take pictures for me alone. I don't care especially if anyone sees them or likes them or doesn't like them. I have passed many a pleasant evening looking at pictures I've taken. For me, that's enough. As I wrote on a Web log page where I have a few images:

"As photographers go, I’m not a great one and never will be. I have a solid grounding in the technologies and the art, but greatness is not in me. My pictures, in my opinion, are utilitarian and technically competent renditions of time standing still. If I can capture some small irony or an emotion or a good contradiction, that’s great, but it’s not always there. I guess my general goal is evidence of things not seen."

I don't get paid much, but my client does like my work!


----------



## GuyF (Oct 27, 2012)

Distant.Star - you said it! I take shots just for my own pleasure. If someone sees something I took and likes it, yeah, okay, that's nice but I don't really care too much. If someone here on the forum compliments my stuff then, yes, it's nice to hear I'm doing something right so I'll thank them. However, there's a world of difference between someone liking/loving your shot and being willing to buy it.

A colleague is always on at me to have my own website but I couldn't care less about such a thing. I've seen too many websites of technically/artistically mediocre junk that I don't want to add to the pile! Seems like too much effort to shout "look at me! look at me!" on something as vast as the internet - fine if you want to try to make money but for most of us, it's just a hobby.

Geez, I'm more cranky than normal today ;D


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 27, 2012)

I think, that the first option is better - it's fairly good enough to be known for thousands of good images. To be known for only one masterpiece in photography sounds like to be lucky just by accident to press the shutter once in the correct place at the correct time with undetermined camera settings.
If you have only one great photo but the rest is a totally crap... what it says about you as the photographer? It's like to be famous just because you have entered naked on the play field during the final cup game trasmitted to millions of viewers and later repeated in all the news - it doesn't make you being watched for your great body neither your running skills


----------



## TAF (Oct 27, 2012)

I too will second Distant.Star's comments.

95% of my photography is for my own families enjoyment; so long as we like them, what else matters? Don't get me wrong, I do truly enjoy reading the posts here, as I keep learning more and more from you folks to improve my skills. But I'll probably never be selling my work or doing art shows, and that's OK with me.

We do have a hurricane approaching; maybe I can capture the feeling of the huge waves crashing on the beach...

My remaining photos I do for work as an adjunct to my real job (engineering) documenting what we do - and then it is only in those situations where the photo department guys can't come along (which usually means it's too dangerous for them to be there).

Those are the days I *really* love my 5D3 - outdoors in daylight with ISO set for 6400 so I can use 1/8000 shutter speed without anyone being able to tell my hand/what I am holding on to is shaking or the wind is howling.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 27, 2012)

From a pure business standpoint, one famous image would make you more money than thousands of good images... Corporations could buy rights to the images, stock images, etc... It could set you for the rest of your days... thousands of good images will pay the bills but wont garner the demand and the $$ that one exceptional image will.


----------



## Zv (Oct 28, 2012)

I think I'm too much of a perfectionist and also very self critical. I'm not happy with my work, yet if someone showed me my own images two years ago I prob would have said "no way, I could never do that!". I always want to be better so I would rather keep trying (producing loads of quality images along the way) than just be known for one masterpiece I couldn't recreate no matter how hard I tried. That would be so depressing!


----------



## Kumakun (Oct 28, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Yeah, but does that one good image have decent DR? That's all that REALLY matters.



Remember, we're Canon shooters. Our cameras suck at DR because they aren't the Nikon D800. That is the only camera capable of taking good pictures. The rest of us can just start crying into our camera bags now.

(Hope the sarcasm is pretty clear...)


----------



## GuyF (Oct 28, 2012)

Kumakun said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but does that one good image have decent DR? That's all that REALLY matters.
> ...




I tried to join the National Sarcasm Society but they just wrote back saying, "Pfff, like we need your help."


----------



## ramondo (Nov 1, 2012)

My Choice is this: 

"Be famous for producing only ONE masterpiece ever (all your other work was mediocre at best)"

because photography is my hobby not my routine. ;D


----------

