The most fustrating thing about photography/art

[Jagatai]

The frustrating aspect of photography/art is the difficulty in measuring our level of competency...

I find it hard to directly gague my level of competency.  I can always look at someone else's work and see where they are doing things better than me.  And I look at my own work and see all the areas it could have been better.  I've reached a point where i know I am a good photographer, but I don't know what level of good I am at.

I guess I tend to rely on my own taste.  I am always in competition with myself to do better work this year than I did last year.  I know I can't clearly quantify my level of competency so instead I think in terms of trending quality.  Am I getting better at what I do?  If so, then I'm headed in the right direction.  If not, I need to work harder.

All i can do is to try to see better and create images that communicate what I see.  Actually mybe it is more important to see more deeply or more carefully than it is to worry about how competent I am.  It is up to others to determine if my work is good.

[wmchauncey]

Although I have never officially entered a competition, I will occasionally submit my stuff to a jury committee.

[Rob C]

It's known as the Dunning Kruger effect. Those who are bad at something don't appreciate how bad they are; those who are good underestimate how difficult it is to do what they're good at.

The cognitive defect that makes bad singers bad - tone deafness, in short - is the defect that makes them fail to appreciate how bad they are.

Jeremy

This is a strange situation in which to find oneself.

I have never been able to sing, and even playing the guitar was six steps beyond me. But, despite these personal inabilities, I love music, have it on all the time, and cringe when I listen to a record where I can hear, a couple of beats ahead of the event, that the poor old canary is going to fall into exactly the same pit into which I would also be falling, had I not realised so long ago that it was all beyond me.

But, as I can hear/feel that the singer is unavoidably going to fluff it, am I still tone deaf?

Rob C

[MattBurt]

This is a strange situation in which to find oneself.

I have never been able to sing, and even playing the guitar was six steps beyond me. But, despite these personal inabilities, I love music, have it on all the time, and cringe when I listen a record where I can hear, a couple of beats ahead of the event, that the poor old canary is going to fall into exactly the same pit into which I would also be falling, had I not realised so long ago that it was all beyond me.

But, as I can hear/feel that the singer is unavoidably going to fluff it, am I still tone deaf?

Rob C

Maybe you are just tone mute. 

[Rob C]

Maybe you are just tone mute. 

Never heard (!) of that; but hey, it sounds logical...

Funny thing: bumped into my Cuban tenor player friend at lunchtime today, and he asked me if I'd like to show up on Christmas Day when the jazz group he plays in has a gig at the local yacht club. Last Xmas was the last time I heard them, and in the same venue; I remember standing outside in the freezing cold chatting to the Argentinian keyboard ace as he had a smoke, prohibited indoors, and I never saw him again after that show: took himself out a few days later. Music seems as tough - to say the least - as photography on many levels. Perhaps that's a reason the two tribes seem to gell quite nicely.

;-)   ;-(

Rob C

[MattBurt]

Never heard (!) of that; but hey, it sounds logical...

Funny thing: bumped into my Cuban tenor player friend at lunchtime today, and he asked me if I'd like to show up on Christmas Day when the jazz group he plays in has a gig at the local yacht club. Last Xmas was the last time I heard them, and in the same venue; I remember standing outside in the freezing cold chatting to the Argentinian keyboard ace as he had a smoke, prohibited indoors, and I never saw him again after that show: took himself out a few days later. Music seems as tough - to say the least - as photography on many levels. Perhaps that's a reason the two tribes seem to gell quite nicely.

;-)   ;-(

Rob C

I just made it up but I think it could be a real thing. Sad story, too many examples like that.

[Rob C]

Frustration comes from different sources, too. It can come from knowing that you'd be better off with different equipment that you don't want to buy; it can come from knowing that your skill in some specific area is letting you down, there's so much on the technical list that can ruin it for you.

But that's open to alteration: you can stump up for the equipment, or go for lessons in technical methods.

What you can't do, is spring-clean your mind. The frustration that comes with basic indecision is very real: what about the situation when you think you want to do something (I mean in the sense of genres), and when you begin, you find yourself distracted by something else? Should you waste the new and present urge in order to follow through on the original idea, or stake everything on the latest one? Should you even care, and perhaps just fly on the edge of now? (I speak from the amateur standpoint.) I find that I set out, sometimes, with an open mind and come home without having switched on the camera. Is this a failure or simply an appreciation of the fact that inspìration isn't always holding your hand? I've heard people discount inspiration as being something unreal, that you can always go shoot something wonderful if you have the mind so to do. I don't think so. Yes, you can always shoot a technically competent image, obviously enough, but that's not the point, is it?

Maybe the trouble stems from the very idea of genre: what do I do, what am I good at, why should I do something different and perhaps not as well? Do we have to shake it: do whatever we see and think works? Be the photographic magpie?

I spent a few hours in the island's capital last week - after a very long time away from it - and found it quite photographically stimulating. But, but... too much stuff around, offering itself up to you for the taking. So, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and not really enough of anything in particular. From some colourful walls, a few fountains, a couple of people shots; images through windows catching fleeting sketches of life within and without... Should I go back, it will not be like that (I think, now!) again: I'll stand in a specific street, concentrate on a small selection of windows where the reflections are interesting and just wait, like a fisherman. But without a canvas stool. I think it would be far more productive. Save on shoes, too.

But hey, am I not straight back into genre?

Rob C

[Nelsonretreat]

Photography is ultimately about speaking with your own voice. Woody Allen refused an oscar on the basis that it was not about objective judgement but about 'favouritism'. Read the sententious, pompous, self-important, 'critiques' on any photo web site and discover the minds of true jackasses who believe they are clever enough to tell other photographers what voice they should speak with. These critiques just trot out a personal favouritism.

Trust your own voice and learn how to express yourself with a camera. There is no right or wrong. The worst crime in photography is to follow someone else's voice rather than your own. Above all ignore the jackasses who set themselves up as 'experts'. Don't waste time reading all that garbage about what camera or lens or tripod to buy. They are no more important than a toothbrush or a house painter's brush. What matters is what you do with that small box with a hunk of glass attached to it. There is no best camera, no best lens, no best post processing software. There is just you and what you want to say about the world around you with a camera. The 'experts' have so  polluted the waters that inexperienced photographers are afraid to just follow their instinct.

If you don't feel that instinctive call to use a camera to tell your story about the world around you then perhaps its not the best craft to follow. Above all don't be afraid of 'bad' technique. Rembrandt was roundly criticised for his later portraits because people believed he had 'lost it' He hadn't. He just didn't give a monkey's about following a set of rules promoted and policed by jackasses.

[Zorki5]

Photography is ultimately about speaking with your own voice. Woody Allen refused an oscar on the basis that it was not about objective judgement but about 'favouritism'. Read the sententious, pompous, self-important, 'critiques' on any photo web site and discover the minds of true jackasses who believe they are clever enough to tell other photographers what voice they should speak with. These critiques just trot out a personal favouritism.

Trust your own voice and learn how to express yourself with a camera. There is no right or wrong. The worst crime in photography is to follow someone else's voice rather than your own. Above all ignore the jackasses who set themselves up as 'experts'. Don't waste time reading all that garbage about what camera or lens or tripod to buy. They are no more important than a toothbrush or a house painter's brush. What matters is what you do with that small box with a hunk of glass attached to it. There is no best camera, no best lens, no best post processing software. There is just you and what you want to say about the world around you with a camera. The 'experts' have so  polluted the waters that inexperienced photographers are afraid to just follow their instinct.

All this seems to me way too categorical...

In my user settings, the "Ignore users in my ignore list" checkbox is cleared -- because I'll never fill that list... Because when even a person that behaves like a, to quote you, "jackass", comments on, say, my image and explains what he/she thinks is wrong with it, I will listen to him. Not necessarily agree, of course, but listen and think about it. Why not? To disregard an extra piece of information is IMHO unwise.

If, on the other hand, a renowned master of photography simply tells me he/she does not like my image and offers no explanation, I'll most probably ignore that. Tastes differ.

If you don't feel that instinctive call to use a camera to tell your story about the world around you then perhaps its not the best craft to follow. Above all don't be afraid of 'bad' technique. Rembrandt was roundly criticised for his later portraits because people believed he had 'lost it' He hadn't. He just didn't give a monkey's about following a set of rules promoted and policed by jackasses.

Well... Later prints by Ansel Adams were widely criticized for being too contrasty/punchy. He did not listen to anyone, was going to redo all his earlier prints, and has lost his long-time assistant largely because of arguments over that. And you know what? It has been discovered he has developed eyesight problems (cataract IIRC) that affected his judgement.

Was he right in ignoring everyone's advice? If he was doing prints only for himself, then yeah, sure. But I somehow doubt that... I believe he just thought that everyone around him was plain wrong.

[Otto Phocus]

Photography is ultimately about speaking with your own voice. Woody Allen refused an oscar on the basis that it was not about objective judgement but about 'favouritism'. Read the sententious, pompous, self-important, 'critiques' on any photo web site and discover the minds of true jackasses who believe they are clever enough to tell other photographers what voice they should speak with. These critiques just trot out a personal favouritism.

Trust your own voice and learn how to express yourself with a camera. There is no right or wrong. The worst crime in photography is to follow someone else's voice rather than your own. Above all ignore the jackasses who set themselves up as 'experts'. Don't waste time reading all that garbage about what camera or lens or tripod to buy. They are no more important than a toothbrush or a house painter's brush. What matters is what you do with that small box with a hunk of glass attached to it. There is no best camera, no best lens, no best post processing software. There is just you and what you want to say about the world around you with a camera. The 'experts' have so  polluted the waters that inexperienced photographers are afraid to just follow their instinct.

If you don't feel that instinctive call to use a camera to tell your story about the world around you then perhaps its not the best craft to follow. Above all don't be afraid of 'bad' technique. Rembrandt was roundly criticised for his later portraits because people believed he had 'lost it' He hadn't. He just didn't give a monkey's about following a set of rules promoted and policed by jackasses.

Nicely put.

I think the photography community would benefit if we paid a little less attention to what other photographers choose to do or not do.

However, to pick a nit, I am not aware of any Oscar that Mr. Allen refused.  Has has consistently (with one exception) declined to attend the ceremonies. The reasons why are still debatable.  But in an any case declining to attend a ceremony is not the same as declining the award. Mr. Allen has stated that he has a low opinion of the award and how it is awarded.

[Zorki5]

I think the photography community would benefit if we paid a little less attention to what other photographers choose to do or not do.

I believe not reading any photography-related forums should be big part of that... 

[torger]

I believe not reading any photography-related forums should be big part of that... 

Ha! Imagine if there would be a timer that counted the hours I've spent on this forum. I don't want to know, I really don't want to know...

I pretend that it's a form of relaxing entertainment and that I would otherwise watch fail videos on youtube.

[Nelsonretreat]

My previous reply was censored as I used intemperate language to describe those who set themselves up as arbiters of what is good and bad in photography. I promise to behave better! What I wanted to say is that you should not worry about any external measures of judgement however offensive that is to some people. If you find you voice and speak with it, that is enough. That's really all that matters.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ha! Imagine if there would be a timer that counted the hours I've spent on this forum...

Why imagine!? I can help you with that: 47 days, 14 hours and 5 minutes

[torger]

Why imagine!? I can help you with that: 47 days, 14 hours and 5 minutes

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I would suggest that a lot of forum members, myself included, are glad that you did.