On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:56:48 -0400, Scott Schuckert
wrote:

In article , Bowser
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your
view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things,
something not done much in today's photography.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...-photos-every-
day-why-are-most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about
all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or
not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always
been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if
all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting.
Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later.

"...just fire away and let's sort it all out later" perfectly
encompasses the problem cited. You can create an image that way, but
you can't tell a story - at best you illustrate one.

I recall going to the 1964-65 World's Fair. I had 36 frames of film and
12 flashbulbs - all I could afford. I made every one count, because I
had to. About 30 of those are GOOD photographs, or at least as good as
a nine-year-old was likely to take.

These days, after previously owning a camera shop and shooting
professionally, I'd say 10% of my pictures are good, and less than 1%
noteworthy. Since it's not my income anymore, I just don't have enough
invested in each frame to make myself care.

It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those
wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is
highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good?