Return to MAIN PAGE in Photographic Section

Lose the Dead Shots

Serious photo enthusiast?
Maybe it's time to critically examine your images...

When the dedicated amateur photographer has finally got a handle on equipment and technique, the next looming problem is probably what to shoot. Open a few photo magazines and try to critically assess what you see. You're sure to find pics that are just plain ordinary. They may be technically sound, but the subject matter is disappointingly run-of-the-mill.

Photographers' preferences and even their artistic idiosyncrasies can't always be used as an excuse. Year in, year out, in British photo magazines in particular it seems, you will come across a pervasive sameness that may threaten to suck you in. I'm thinking of things like dewy spider webs, hot-air balloons, colouring-in pencils, butterflies mating, puffins ( always puffins), cotton wool waterfalls, frosty trees, girl's dressed like tarts trying to look raunchy for men with juvenile mentalities, wind turbines... And why on earth does anyone want to shoot the moon?

But there's more: water reflections turned upside down, English beach huts (the last resort?), Selfridges Department Store in Birmingham (or worse, The Angel of the North at Gateshead), fungi, fairground long exposures, shots with fake moons that nearly always look fake, and not forgetting one of the most hackneyed examples imaginable—gondolas in Venice! Could you go there and resist?

Ok! Enough. This is a tongue-in-cheek synopsis, so each to his own. And yes, I've been guilty too. It's easy for anyone to be a hypocritical, whingeing cynic, and I don't need anyone to tell me that my images need a critical examination, but the point is this: do we readily accept the average and mundane because the special and unique is uncommon? How hard do we try? If you want to be an accomplished photographer it's important to practise regularly, of course, and DSLRs are very helpful here, but eventually you will need to step back and think about what you're shooting, and why.

For several good reasons I no longer contribute to photography forums (well, rarely), but one of the incongruous facts to hit home while I waded through countless postings was how many keen amateurs had taken hundreds or even thousands of images over a period of several months. They may claim that this frenetic activity helps them to develop their skills, but the end product that some feel justified to share on websites can range from the very average to the downright ridiculous. Is it necessary to be so prolific? There are times when taking lots of images is desirable* — capturing the motion of woodland flowers for example, or recording fast action, and so on — but this is very different to firing the shutter at just about anything and everything.

Top images: Try as I might, I've never been comfortable with these two shots. I know what I was trying to do, but I totally failed! Bottom: As I walked along the beach snapping away with a digital compact I thought to myself, If I take many more rubbish shots like these I might be able to have a successful exhibition in Dublin or Belfast. But they're growing on me!

Over the last 7 years I've visited a ton of amateur and professional photographic sites and looked at a great number of images. It's disappointing. I added very few to my browser. I'm convinced that the vast majority of shots weren't worth looking at. Just a personal view? Well, not entirely. You'll see lots of stuff that just doesn't work no matter how forgiving you try to be. Arguably, the bottom line is this: photography should be a challenge that rewards our hard work and planning with arresting images. Although usually not for me, some shoot purely in the name of art. It works for them and all those who find that approach refreshing.

However, in the work of too many well-meaning amateurs, technique, subject matter, composition and creativity are a consistent failing, and sometimes all at the same time! There are reasons for this. To be blunt, there are many amateur photographers who just don't have what it takes, but they are enjoying themselves anyway. Good luck to them! Others, for whatever reason, are not disciplined enough to push their raw talent further and draw the essential technical and creative threads together. Some don't have the time, or have other priorities. Then there are those who have the necessary skills and talent, but can't be honest enough with themselves to the point were they discard most of their work in favour of a small percentage of shots that are really worth looking at.

I've just returned at dusk to my charming rented accommodation after an exhilarating day clambering around Horn Head, County Donegal. I can recommend a visit. I took a lot of time over almost every frame I shot, using a tripod and experimenting with lenses and my grey grad, but I know that when I sit at the computer and analyse the index scans in detail (I shot mostly 35mm film), only a few will survive. Most will be scrapped. Sometimes I have to be ruthless!

I remember reading about an accomplished outdoor photographer who was especially pleased when 3 shots out of a 36-frame roll were worth keeping. Is it reasonable that advanced amateurs and even pros should expect a 10% success rate or less from a very carefully shot roll of film? How comfortable are you with this? Good photographs that we can confidently share are a lot fewer than many of us care to admit. It could be argued that there's no point in churning out a staggering 5000+ DSLR shots a year and then fall at the last hurdle by failing to diligently whittle them down to the very small number that really exude the essentials. We need to lose the dead shots.

So, how about asking yourself some tough questions about your most recent batch of serious images? Have a good look at them once again. A lot will depend on what you're shooting. Absorbing documentary photography will rarely need to resort to the studious technicalities associated with delicate landscape photography. But in general, think long and hard about your latest shots. Does the composition work? Is the subject matter strong enough? Was the exposure nailed properly? Is creativity lacking? Did that shot need a tripod to extend the DoF, but you just couldn't be bothered? Did you view the subject from various angles first? Should you have returned to the same spot when the light was better?

Even committed hobbyists need to be hard on themselves once in a while, unsparingly trawling through their work, discarding those shots that lack impact. It isn't easy, but it's necessary.