British Gent

I'm going for the most diverse three images I can put in one post. I like to think of it as evidence of my newly acquired 'stock mindset'. But maybe I should open the letter from my GP. My results are back...

...folio?

Goodness me!

What he said. It took me nine years to get 467 images uploaded, but I've nearly doubled that in the first three months of this year - partly as a result of reading this thread and realising I needed to get my *rse in gear. The other stimulus was starting a run last summer of at least one sale per month which eventually ran out in March. I guess it's finally dawned on me that there's an element of control in all of this. If I work consistently and upload a far larger quantity of diverse images, I CAN increase sales. But the folk on here putting the word 'only' in front of five figure numbers still takes my breath away!

It's quite reassuring (some would call it confirmation bias) that several successful photographers on here have chipped in with their own horror stories about their local club. I wouldn't want to be too harsh - it clearly works for lots of people and probably provides a valuable social function - just not for me. Reading through the various posts has dredged up a few forgotten gems, so at risk of drifting into bitchiness I'll add one other favourite: On one occasion I recall a visiting judge waxing lyrical about an 'action' shot of a white-water rafter. You'll know the kind of thing - swirling water, droplets frozen in mid-air, and that all-important pin sharp focus on the straining face of the rafter. Except somehow the perpetrator of this particular shot had managed, miraculously, to make it dull. He had clearly spent a large part of his day with the continuous-high setting applied, shooting I imagine hundreds of images, all of which got deleted except the one we all sat there looking at. The rafter's face was too small to be truly dramatic and white water in huge quantities is, to be honest, pretty uninteresting. But how that judge loved lecturing us on how important it is to have sharp focus on the eyes! And how the photographer had 'captured' the intense concentration of the sportsman's face. Blah, blah, blah, blah.... Not sure I even stayed for a polystyrene cup of weak tea that night.

Oh my goodness, does this dog watch TV! I have any number of shots of him standing with his nose up to the screen when a nature program is on. He's even looked behind the TV to see where the creature he's been watching has gone. Not sure if this makes him extremely bright for a dog or very dim, but he is a character for sure.

Two of the snowy weekend just gone, and one from last year when we looked after a very handsome Welsh Springer for a friend.

Bit cheeky to be commenting on this thread without actually contributing (yet), but it's an eye-opener for someone who has struggled with developing the 'stock mindset', if you know what I mean. It took me the best part of nine years to submit 467 images here, but filled with a New Year resolve to widen my scope, I've got to nearly 700 in little over two months. Now I realise I can increase my submission total in my underpants. (As long as I avoid reflective surfaces.) Very illuminating!

I have to confess that I gave up making the weekly trip to a local camera club some years ago, mainly because of (what I perceived to be) the poor quality of the judging. Yes, judging. Like a lot of the camera clubs that thrive in South Wales, photography is seen as something of a competitive sport. Definitely not an aspect that holds any interest for me. So the judging... hmm... seemed to be largely about having something to say or demonstrating some sort of knowledge. E.g. Judge: "See how the lines draw your eye into the picture." Me (silently): "But I'd rather my eyes weren't drawn into that dross." Surely no one in the room admired the image, but it got marked highly because the judge found something to say. When s/he was called upon to comment on a genuinely interesting photograph, that demonstrated real artistic flair or an eye for a picture, but which failed to follow the rule of thirds or some such, it was passed over. If the artist says it's art then it is. Maybe. If the judge says it's art - I would have to disagree. I am none the wiser.

A 'metric' that would be of great interest to me is how many hours a week the elite contributors put in. I do believe I can be more effective with what time I have, but suspect I won't be able to ramp up to the submission volumes these guys have achieved until retirement...

A grab shot as I left a building site last week. Straight into the sun. Amazing what even a ten year old sensor has lurking in the shadows once you start delving.

Alas, I am prey to this anxiety also! Being in full-time work means I regularly find myself gazing wistfully out of the window as the light becomes really interesting and wondering how good some of my favourite locations must be looking....

Every now and then I dip into the winners' galleries that pop up online for prestigious competitions like the Taylor-Wessing portrait prize. Some of the photos are lovely to look at in fairness, while others look like better exposed examples of a B&Q employee of the month mug shot. I've reconciled myself to the fact that I simply don't get it.

It does worry me a little that cameras are increasingly becoming computers. Ten years ago my D700 was state of the art (or so it seemed to me) whereas now it looks like a mechanical brick compared to the mirrorless wonders Sony are designing. But the D700 is ready to go the instant I turn it on. I've never questioned it. One bad experience like Alan's would worry me deeply.

I risk killing this thread stone dead, but would someone care to define 'Fine Art Photography'? I recently saw an Instagram post of a dreadfully dull silhouette of some trees that had been converted to black and white. This, according to the photographer's comment, made it 'fine art'. An extreme example, but one thing is for sure - calling something fine art doesn't make it fine art, which implies there are criteria even if it's debatable at the margins.