Another article to irritate people

[David Woods]

More pictures please, even practice ones.

+1

[Scott Walker]

The name of this thread sort of made me think that the author was looking for a response of some sort. I gave mine, it was an honest response, and I read the article twice, I imagine some have read it even more.

One more thing.....Since when did having the ability to post digital images of your LF negatives mean you should be the only one to have the right to voice your opinion. I enjoy sharing some of my images here on the forums, but when it takes a couple of hours in photoshop just to make the scanned print look somewhat like the real thing, it is tough to justify the time if you have no other use for a digital copy of your image.

[lilmsmaggie]

I guess I'm wondering why your comment about invalidation, bickering etc. appears to be aimed at me. I thought my comments were fairly balanced. The fact that I used the word burn as you did a few posts above me was purely coincidental. I thin there are many occasions where people mis-interpret ordinary and innocent comments as negative or even offensive. It is good to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry Jack. I wasn't taking aim at you. Just expedient for me to make a single post rather than many

[Armyphotog]

I thought the article was interesting and thought provoking. I also see the line between photography as ART and photography as reflecting life. As an old news photographer, to me candid photography and certainly not posed, is the way I was taught and naturally, the way I like to shoot. To each his own. What's to be upset about? As such, it's kind of hard to "pratice" that. It's more about keeping a sharp eye, than camera technique.

[Jim collum]

i've found that an excellent use for a digital camera is for that 'practice' of seeing. I take dozens of images each day, with a variety of cameras. but mostly digital.. they offer that immediacy that assists with the practice. Very good article. Ted's and David's work is also an excellent read in the matter. 99.9% of what at least i do is 'practice.. whether it be technical or aesthetic. (also find it very meditative). Thanks for the reminder!

[dperez]

I agree with Leigh and Jay DeFehr on this. The article is a little too generalized.

As a former national coach for an Olympic shooting sport, I can say with confidence that there are several roads that lead to success. What was important for me as a coach was to focus on general commonalities--that is, the elements that the vast majority of regimens have in common. How one acheives their goals is not as important, and there is plenty of room for different approaches and variations, as long as the fundamental elements are not compromised.

The problem with trying to come up with generalized practice routines for photographers is that success in photography is much less finite. What one may think of as beautiful may be detested by others. What is considerd a successful image by a photographer, may be deemed a failure by viewers (which I'm sure those that have worked with editors can surely attest to). One regimen may work for a few, but may lead to disaster for others. I think it is far more difficult in the arts to come up with generalizations that work. I can't really think of any commonality that would cut across all regimens, disciplines, and genres of photography. Even something as simple as repetition may not be adequate.

-DP

How can anyone possibly generalize about a subject as diverse and personal as a practice regimen?

There are at least as many variations as there are individuals doing it.

- Leigh