The Economics Of Amateur Photography

From the time I became interested in photography, the expense of photography has always been a barrier, either real or perceived. I liked photography when I was a kid, but spending my entire allowance one week to buy film and all of it the next week to develop the photos was daunting to a kid with so many interests. The photos I produced with my 110 Instamatic were in no way close to the goals that I looked at in magazines either.

I tried again a few times in my adult years. Film and developing was still a factor, but I did find affordable used SLR cameras and lenses to up my game. Still, nowhere close to the pro images that I admired. I proceeded anyhow, but the pace was slow.

Then, I bought a digital camera. The quality was questionable, but I no longer worried about the cost of film. I began trying new things without the worry of money. It was exciting. The Internet was new and just about any photo of any quality would draw compliments. Having a technical background, it was simple for me to make my photos available to the world. That didn't last long as hordes of photographers jumped on board and posting photos became simple.

Once again, I was just another amateur. As the bar for what makes a great photo kept getting raised, my interests waned. I thought that the hobby was really just a money pit if you wanted to excel at it. My focus on technical quality clouded my judgement for content quality and blocked my ability to simply enjoy my only artistic endeavor.

Others started posting their similar grievances. I came across the famous "A Lesser Photographer Manifesto". I found the ideas fascinating even though I do not agree completely with all of them. Better cameras do have their place, but not at the cost of hampering the ability to enjoy creating the art. The main idea of the post is that artists thrive on constraints and that high end cameras do not help. I disagree as I've seen some awesome photos that came out of high end cameras and would not have been possible otherwise. However, there is solid proof that a true photographer does not need expensive equipment so much as the need talent and a love for the art.

Consider that some of the greatest photos in history were taken with equipment far inferior to even the most modest cameras today. This fact alone should inspire you to stop concentrating on any lacking you have in the equipment you use.

I avoid many social groups that concentrate on the camera used. Some Flickr groups won't even allow a post unless you state the camera used, even if it's in the EXIF data. A person caught up in this stuff should self-inquire as to whether they're camera collectors or photographers. Nothing wrong with being a camera collector, but it's not going to produce more interesting photos.

Best advice I received for upgrading your equipment is to by better walking shoes to get to where the photos are.

Working The Shot

Once you find a subject that's interesting, get as many different perspectives as the subject allows for. Many call this "working the shot".  In street photography, that may only be one, while in landscape it could be as many as you have time and energy for as you hike to different vantage points. Even in landscape photography, fleeting light may change and end good possibilities for the shot.

There are a few methods you can think of to get into the photography mode of working the shot. Think of it as though you're on another planet and the photos will be used to describe the subject later back on earth. Another way to look at it as if you own the subject and these shots will be used to sell the item later.

Once you return, edit the most favorable shot and delete the rest. After a few minutes of study, it's not difficult to delete without reservation. If you fail to do this, your photo library will fill with undesirable images. When that happens, it gets more difficult to find the best images.

Here are the results from a photo of an old barn I found on a photo drive. I walk around as much as possible without trespassing to take many photos of the same building. I zoomed in for some details and zoomed out to get the entire structure in the photo. Once in Lightroom, I deleted most of the photos saving these few that had the feel I was looking for.

The first photo was perfect for HDR editing and I had 3 exposures. This allowed for some of the interior details to come through.

Old decaying barn near Granville, Ohio. 

Shot from a different angle, the contrasting light worked well for black and white processing.

Black and white photo of a decaying barn in Central Ohio.

Pulley On An Old Barn

The final photo is the result of finding some interesting details and filling the frame with them using a telephoto lens.

I had about 30 photos to sift through to come up with these 3 and that's not a bad ratio for me. The better the photographer, the fewer the bad shots, but don't be afraid of failure with digital. It's tiring going through all of these photos and as skills improve, the goal of fewer photos should come naturally.

Working the photo is fine for stationary objects and landscapes, but for street photography and events, you work the scene, not the shot. Multiple photos from many different perspectives while the scene constantly changes is another useful skillset.

I can't praise the lowly super-zoom bridge cameras enough for this type of work. This little photoshoot would have required 3 lens changes with a DSLR and I don't even have enough room to carry the equipment on my motorcycle.

On top of working the shot with different perspectives, I had the camera set to bracketing so that I made 3 exposures for each shot. Paying attention to the light is one of the most important aspects of working a shot. The different exposures automatically gives 3 different lighting possibilities and if your steady enough, provides 3 images for HDR processing if you decide that HDR processing improves the look and feel of the photo.

Editing Your Images And Your Image Library

I struggle with to many images in my photo library. They're difficult, expensive, and time consuming to manage. Failure to properly manage photos results in lacking creativity and the reduced time allowed for actually taking photographs. For this article, "editing" photos refers to deciding what is a good and bad photo.

Learning what constitutes a good and usable photo is a hard-learned skill for photographers. At first, I wanted to keep every photo taken. Now, many years later, I'm learning that less is more.

My method of choice is Lightroom. Far from perfect, but probably the most utilized program for keeping a photo library. As an amateur, whatever is used most has major benefits. When I first installed Lightroom and learned a few basics, I quickly reduced the number of my images by half in a few weeks.

How do you reduce the number of images by half and never miss any of them?

• Find duplicate images and remove those.
• Quickly browse and remove poor photos. 
• Find images that just aren't appealing or useful and remove them. 

In my case, that was about 15,000 images from many years of digital photography and never using anything except Photoshop and the standard Windows file management tools. That is the wrong method and the sooner you stop, the better you're overall productivity will be.

• Why not use Bridge? If Adobe Bridge is all that you have, by all means use it. The basic idea is the same, it's just that Lightroom has so many other benefits later on after you get over a steep learning curve with Lightroom. Bridge is no picnic either, but it does come with Adobe Photoshop at no extra cost.

I don't know the psychology behind this, but it's easy to think that photos are keepers that really aren't. I think it's something that the moment you've captured will never happen again and that makes an image valuable. It doesn't. I've taught myself to look at a bad image as a liability.

Bad images are a liability because:

• They take up space on a hard drive. That increases the cost of storage and takes more time to back them up.
• They make it more difficult to search for good images. When you search for good images,you have to fish through so many bad that it's a chore and wastes time. 

There are many photographers, far fewer photo editors. If you want some interesting insight as to what is a keeper, read interviews with editors like this interview with a National Geographic Photo Editor. These are the few people that rely on their knowledge of what constitutes a good photo for a living. In this interview, I learned that I should always keep the RAW file because that is the format that a paying magazine would want if they use it. That fact also tells me that I should strive to get the best in camera shot possible. Are you going to keep RAW files for images that obviously bad and still have drive space for these good ones?

I have developed some quick guidelines for keeping a photo, but I keep adding to them as time goes on.

1. Would I print this photo? If it's not worth printing, it might not be worth keeping. 
2. What is the point of this photo? No point, no point in keeping. 
3. Has it sat on the hard drive without being organized yet. If it's not worth the time to organize and keyword, is it really worth keeping? 
4. What would I pay for this image if I needed for an article? If I would pay much, I delete it.
5. Sentimental value? If so, keep it, but organize it as such. 
6. Do I have others that are similar? If so, delete the worst of them. 
7. Is it worth uploading? If it's not worth uploading to a website, it probably isn't worth keeping. 
8. Is it worth basic edits in Photoshop? If it's not worth the time, it might not be worth keeping. 

I waited far to long before I started realizing the benefits of learning to edit. Deleting is pain and pain is a good teacher. I take fewer bad photos now simply because I don't want to delete them. Editing is an easy way to build on skills. Take the time to listen to the professional editors even if you're not trying to sell your photos. It's free advice that will improve your overall portfolio.

The Art Of Taking A Ride

I'm a motorcyclist and I love to just take a ride, but the vehicle really doesn't matter. Watching the world roll past your visor or windshield is a great way to find photographic opportunities as well. It's the best way that I know of to find something to shoot.

Here's an example of an old abandoned country store on the back roads of Ohio near Gambier that I found on a recent ride.

Photo Of An Abandoned Store In Rural Ohio

I shoot anything that I find interesting on the road. In rural Ohio, interesting things show up frequently too. Anywhere that allows for a slow ride is a good choice. In rural areas, you can cover ground quickly looking for subject matter. In a city, the amount of possible subjects is so compressed that a bicycle or walking is the better choice.

Have you ever heard of photo walks? It only took reading about others experiences with them to turn me away. Photographers that enjoy them like the camaraderie while looking for things to photograph. They all take photos of the same areas and compare notes later. Sounds like too much camaraderie and not enough photography to me. Going on your own adventure generates more original ideas. Learning to soak in the surroundings and being "part of the now" greatly increases your chances for finding photo possibilities too.

On what I'd call a photo drive, I have time to unwind and get into the mood of taking photos. Rarely do I even take anyone with me for fear of boring them while I drift into my own world of finding photo-worthy subjects and taking my time to work the subjects that I find.

A key to a successful photo drive is to not concentrate on the destination to much. Once you start finding subjects, take the time to work the photos and look for related scenes to tell the story of the subject.

The Odd, Beautiful, And Unexpected.

I read today that famed street photography Richard Kalvar claims only 89 great photos after 40 years of work as a photographer. He has many good photos and probably a few that are great that neither he or the public has deemed as such yet. The point is easily understood and that is that it takes an enormous amount of work to get a collection of great photos. It's important to take advantage of any method that increases your odds. I find that a keen eye and a flexible, inexpensive camera can increase those odds.

One method I've used is to never just accept the big picture and I always look for the odd, beautiful, and unexpected. I was looking at a waterfall that is the centerpiece of a quaint little town called Chagrin Falls near Cleveland, Ohio. The obvious draw is the waterfall, but the people there were just as interesting. The falls seemed to draw in all sorts of people.

While looking at the waterfall, I caught a glimpse of neon green on the other side of the river and it was this pretty woman with neon green hair. In my mind, that's an odd contrast to see. I was there to photograph the natural beauty of the waterfall, but the unnatural appeared instead.

Pretty lady with neon green hair and a leather jacket.

This was taken with a very long telephoto lens on a super-zoom camera. In a common scenario for taking photos of a waterfall, a DSLR mounted with a very wide lens would have been in use to take a photo of the fall. If this lady would have appeared, a lens change would have been required. By the time that the camera was dismounted from the tripod and a telephoto lens mounted(assuming the photographer had one), she would have been gone. I'll take the lacking quality of the super-zoom as opposed to not getting the shot at all.

Granted a better camera with a light reflector and a posed shot would have been much better. This shot isn't going to make it big like a "pro" shot would, but I find it more interesting than just a photo of a waterfall that's been photographed many thousands of times by others. Not to mention, I also have some nice shots of the waterfall.

We're taught by many professionals that it's best to concentrate on one area of photography. Life happens all of the time though and opportunities of different types pop up all of the time. It's understandable that specialized equipment is paramount when a professional's client desires a specific photo with defined expectations of high quality that the photographer needs the best equipment to fulfill the assignment, but an amateur, no way. The amateur needs his eyes, brain, and flexible equipment to find the rare opportunities that occur at unexpected moments. 

What Type Of Camera. Let's Get This Out Of The Way.

What Type Of Camera Should I Buy?

I've read hundreds of opinions about what type of camera a person should buy. Even after reading so much of it, I can't give you a good answer and neither can anyone else. I can only tell you what I believe to be true after my purchases. Here's a summary of the different advice I've read.

The One You Have With You

There's a real gem of a piece of advice, unless you don't have a camera yet! 

The point of this is advice is good though. For the common Joe, the more you carry your camera, the more photos you're going to take. Even the best take a huge number of photographs, so it stands to reason that if you always have your camera on you, you'll eventually end up with better photos to share.

Great, but give that advice for a person with interests lying in the sports photography or wildlife photography and they have the right to call you a useless moron in the area of photography. For these interests, you need a huge zoom and you can start with my personal favorite, the Swiss Army Knife of cameras, the Super-Zoom(also known as a bridge camera). I can talk all day about bridge cameras and they are cameras that you can "have with you". This would be the correct answer to just about any new photographer's question about what camera to buy. 

The Highest Tech You Can Afford

Worst advice ever, even if the newbie is a millionaire. The high end cameras require high end training. Without training and many hours of practice, high end cameras can confound some to the point of giving up the hobby. Not to mention, they're often to bulky to have with you often. The new 4/3rd's cameras are changing this fact, but they're still daunting little cameras to master. 

The only person that I would give this advice to would be the type that I know enjoys bragging about his possessions more than he ever enjoys using them, and yes, I know people like this.

The Cheapest Tech

Pass on the cheap camera's too unless you just want to have fun.

It doesn't take long to wish you could shoot in the RAW format. RAW is an important option after you're past the initial learning stages. If you're camera can't do it, you'll be buying another soon.

Here are some basic guidelines when considering a cheap camera - 

• Can it shoot raw?
• The wider it shoots and the more it zooms the better because this gives you flexibility. 
• Battery life and battery availability in common stores. 
• Mega pixels, but not as important as you think. It's a complex subject and more isn't always better. 
• Tripod mount. Most have this. 
• Anti-shake mode that will allow you to leave the tripod at home more often. 
• Warranty
• Accessories if you want to do specialized shots like macro photography. 

My Advice

I've yet to find the perfect camera and I've had quite a few. I've had some that I like a hell of a lot better than others. Here are the qualities that you're looking for. 

• Do you like the way it looks and feels? That's right. It's my most important requirement. The more you like the external aspects, the more you'll want to use it. The more you use it, the more great photos you'll end up with. 
• Do you like the menu system? Learning the settings can make a previously hated camera a great one as you learn to adjust the camera for ever-changing conditions. 
• Can you afford it and still have money to go places to use it? No camera should have a payment plan. 
• If in doubt, buy a bridge camera that can shoot raw. They do everything, the just don't do everything well.
• If you can't find one camera that does what you need, buy a couple. I have a point and shoot, bridge, and an old DSLR. It's a great combination of cameras to cover the gamut of many types of photography. 

In Conclusion

There it is. The first post on my least favorite photography subject, the camera. It probably didn't help much, but maybe I helped you lean towards the idea that it doesn't really matter that much anyhow. If you have a moderately good camera and it's not producing good photos, it's probably you, not the camera. No worries though. If it's you, it's just a matter of the joy of learning to make correct that problem. 

Try A Cell Phone For Photos In The Rain

One of the challenges of not having a high dollar weather-sealed camera is the rain. There are great shots to be had in the rain, but I don't like the hassle of wrapping up a camera and still risking it's demise by dropping it in a puddle or something. The answer to this that I've found is my Note 3 cell phone with an Otterbox
case.

Road In The Rain Taken

An advantage to this setup is that it gives me practice with an otherwise loathed cell phone camera. I get more used to it every time I use it and this forces the issue. I've often been jealous of the Iphone photos I see, but the Iphone just lacks in so many other areas that I need more.

The quality of the photos is questionable, but if I have enough light, it's acceptable. The lacking quality sometimes make the photos more interesting and hearkens to the days of old with my Kodak 110 Instamatic I used as a child. The Otterbox provides plenty of protection from the elements and impact, so no worries if something does happen.

In comparison to the quality of the "sports" cameras that are sold, the cell phone isn't that far off. No need to drop a few hundred bucks on a bulky camera if you have a cell phone with a decent camera.