Scott Schuckert wrote:
In article , Bowser
wrote:


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?

Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it
won't be, by any standard - not any of them.

True! But it's also true that the amount of time and
the level of care necessary can often be virtually zero.
Which is to say that every good image requires some,
though perhaps infinitesimally small, amount of time and
care... but so does every bad image.

Which is which just depends on the highly subjective
standard used by each viewer, not on how much time and
care are taken.

I'll give you a very significant practical example,
which brings with it a lesson I learned long long ago.
I do a lot of "people pictures", and very much enjoy
photographing small children for their parents. Early
on I learned not to show anything I am not willing to
put my name on to the mother of any child. Cull first,
pre-view with Mom second.

Because there is no such thing as a "bad" picture of a
Mother's child. Out of focus? Grainy? Wrong light?
Wrong expression? Bad framing? Obnoxious environment?
Not a problem if it shows anything that a mother can
recognize as her baby.

It is that subjective! If the subject is her kid, she
will see it as wonderful. She is not wrong either!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)