Photography . . . do it matter?

I recently wrote a post about buying the soon-to-be-released Nikon P1000.

Some of the comments had me thinking about photography in general and my photography in particular. That’s right . . . I did some thinking.  

One of the best ways I know to sort out my thinking is to write my thoughts down, so this is a stream-of-consciousness post about my thinking about photography. 

Ready? Here goes nothing . . . 

Let me tell you about my photography . . . it’s casual. Meaning, I don’t do planned shoots, worry about lighting, the time of day (lighting related), the weather (lighting related) . . . I don’t worry about any of those things.  

But, probably the most important thing I don’t worry about is . . . intent. 

I don’t take photos with a purpose. I don’t have a message to share, an emotion to trigger, or aim to inspire anyone. I see something interesting (to me) and I photograph it. 

Professionals are the opposite . . . they have something in mind; a look, a message, some purpose that will shape their process in pursuit of their goal. The reasons a professional does that is because they plan to make money from the shots they take. 

Enough money to pay for the time spent photographing stuff, the time spent processing the photographs they took, and enough money to pay for the equipment and programs they use.

While I don’t make money from my photography, I do spend a fair amount on equipment and software. I also spend a fair amount of time processing the photo before sharing them on the blog. But, it’s not a focused effort. I learn stuff when I need to learn it. I learn by doing an only resort to reading and studying when I’m stuck.

That’s one thing I share with professionals, albeit for different reasons; I care enough to try to present the best quality photo that is within my ability (and desire) to produce. That said, pros worry about their livelihood whereas all I have is a measure of pride that motivates me to achieve a certain level of quality. But, it’s not exceptional quality. 

People often comment favorably about my photos but a simple Google search for a given subject I might present will get you literally thousands of images and a majority of them will be better than mine, or more interesting than mine, or both.

That’s not false modesty and it’s not me playing the hapless victim and it’s not me complaining about not having the right equipment or the opportunity or the skill to capture beautiful and interesting and striking photos.

The truth is that with something like 2 billion photos hitting the Internet every day it’s no exaggeration saying there are likely hundreds of millions of photographs better and more interesting than any of mine. That’s because there are a lot of amateurs who take photography seriously. That’s not me, Bob.

Again, not false modesty or subtle pleading for an argument otherwise or praise for my work. 

Know this: even if you offer it, I won’t believe you.

I’ll accept the notion you might be sincere and not just wanting to stroke my ego — and I’ll be thankful — but I won’t put any stock in what you say beyond accepting you like something I did. Meaning, I won’t start thinking of myself as a photography guru just because you like my photos.

Please, please, please, understand I’m not minimizing your opinion, but it is your opinion and you are likely not an expert in photography or digital manipulation; you’re likely not a professional photographer or someone who regularly evaluates, judges, and/or chooses photographs for publication.  

If you were an expert on photography, you would probably see twenty flaws in each of my photos; anything from composition to cropping to processing to dynamic balance to color continuity to etc. etc. You would also know how the photo could have been better. 

Here’s the part where I might anger upset some of my readers . . . I follow about 70 blogs and many offer up photographs as part of what they publish and the majority don’t take great care in the processing and presentation than the photos they share. A few take exceptional care and work “at photography” much more than I do.

But, of the people I follow, most photos may be interesting, but they’re not great. 

The reason I still follow those blogs is that I’m interested in the experiences of the people who write them. The photos they share are a part of their experiences. The quality of the photos is secondary to the sharing of the experiences. 

If you see a photo of an amazing event or scene, the photo quality takes a secondary role to the subject or event depicted in the photo.

Meaning, I would rather see a blurry poorly lit photo of something I’m likely to never see again than an amazingly detailed, well-lit, perfectly composed photo of a rock like the ones I see when I go for a walk. 

In one type of photo, you marvel at what you see . . . in the other, you admire the presentation and mastery of the photographic art. Two entirely different things.

Plus, there’s the familiarity aspect . . .

So, let’s say someone — me — takes a photo at Oxbow Bend, Grand Teton NP. Let’s say it’s this photo . . . 


My readers might comment on it (ignoring the fact I was in my vignette period) and say something like “Wow . . . nice photo; amazing capture of a dramatic scene” or something along those lines but maybe more or less effusive. Maybe, they’ll just hit “like”. 

Let me now show you this one . . . 


Same photo, different processing. If I ask someone to choose one over the other, a more refined measure of personal preferences emerges. Does that mean one photo is “better than” the other?

Want to see something else? Click HERE.

Almost every one of those is “better than” either of the above photos. But, they are by people you probably don’t follow.

Oxbow Bend ranks as one of the most photographed views with photographers visiting the Grand Tetons NP specifically to capture this view. When I post a photo, I don’t expect my readers to jump on the internet and do a search for either better or worse photos. All I’m really doing is sharing an experience, letting you know I was there.

You likely have seen that spot before and we now have something that connects us. All them other photos, them better photos? . . . you don’t know those people. You might admire the composition but you don’t know the person who took the photo. For all you know, they’re jerks who like to kick their dog and pull wings from helpless flies.

We humans can’t help ourselves . . . we’re not impartial observers. You will care more for something if you have a connection to it. So, the reason I follow someone and will compliment them on a photo they took is not that it’s the best photo I’ve seen of the subject. It’s that I know them and appreciate them sharing something that interested them and likely interested me as well. A shared experience, if you will. 

I don’t know them other one-hundred-thousand photographers and I don’t look at their photos with the same interest that I look at the photo from people I know. 

By the same token, I look at my photos with more interest (and critical eye) than any other photos. It’s unlikely your technical opinion on one of my photos trumps mine. In rare instances, you might like it more than I do, but you don’t know the photo like I do nor will it have the same meaning — or any meaning beyond the subject — for you as it does for me. 

Where am I going with this? Well, we’ve now established I’m nothing special when it comes to photography (or anything I do).

Let me now mention the photos above. When I originally posted them, only a few individuals went to SmugMug and gave them the pixel-level-look. Had you gone to SmugMug, that Muscovy Duck image is sharp enough that you can discern all manner of details if looking at it at the pixel-level resolution. 

I knew perfectly well only a few people would do so, but I was one of them. I cared. I wanted to have that kind of resolution and quality. 

At one time, it even mattered. These days, it matters less, even to me. 

The point is, I know I can do it. I can take photos that would rival work done by professionals, or at least compare favorably to the lesser-capable professionals. 

I mean to say that I’m satisfied with knowing that I don’t suck. Not even that other people think I don’t suck; that I think I don’t suck. 

I also know I’m not at the level of a professional or someone really dedicated to the craft and I’m fine with that as well. 

So, what does that mean? Easy . . . it means that I can slack off the effort, slack off the equipment, and be more generous with myself when it comes to taking, processing, and presenting photos. 

I can enjoy photography without having to prove anything to myself. 

The reality of things is this . . . in the past year, I’ve taken ten times more photos with my Nikon P900 and Samsung Note 8 than I’ve taken with my Nikon D7000 and any of my expensive lenses. 

Some of this is because the alternatives to the Big Rig have proven up to the task, at least as far as the type of photography I do. I can concentrate more on sharing the experience (photos and words) than making sure the photos are the absolute best I can present. Mind you, I still have standards. I still recognize the P900 cannot match my D7000 and dedicated lenses. For one thing, it has a small sensor . . . for another thing, it has a small sensor.

. . . and so does the phone . . .

That means there’s less information captured and that limits the quality of the photo.

But, the other part of the equation is that the way people consume blogs has changed. 

Most photos are now viewed on a small screen (phone or tablet). Realistically, even on a PC, the vast majority of readers don’t color-calibrate their screens; I have no idea what they’re actually seeing when they look at my photos.

Basically, it’s as it always was . . . I have to please myself first. If my efforts please someone else, well, that’s just a bonus.

I mentioned that my next trip will see me leaving the 15 pounds of DSLR and expensive lenses at home and I’ll be traveling with the Nikon P900 and the Samsung Note 8 as my only photo-capturing equipment. 

If the P1000 offers some advantage that aids in the task of capturing and producing photographs I like, I’ll buy it.  

I have no illusions about the P900 — as good as I’ve learned to use it — rivaling the output of the D7000 and expensive Nikon lenses. It still bothers me when I’m processing a photo and I look at the pixel level and I see all sorts of ugliness.  

The P1000 *may* offer some advantages primarily because of the RAW capture. Meaning, I don’t know if the ugliness of the P900 JPGs is due to the small size of the sensor (likely) or because it’s a JPG (possibly). If I can retain the functionality of the P900 and improve the output, I’ll be one step closer to having a single camera that does it all. 

. . . I just wish they would have put a larger sensor in it and increased the resolution . . . then again, if they did that, people like me would never consider the prosumer cameras. 

That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.


Note: if you are not reading this blog post at, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website.  Could be they also torture small mammals.


If you’re new to this blog, it might be a good idea to read the FAQ page. If you’re considering subscribing to this blog, it’s definitively a good idea to read both the About page and the FAQ page.

About disperser

Odd guy with odd views living an odd life during odd times.
This entry was posted in About Photography, Photography Stuff and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Photography . . . do it matter?

  1. “If . . .” makes sense to me.
    Warmest regards, Ed

    Liked by 1 person

  2. oneowner says:

    I find it difficult to give advice on equipment to other people, whether they’re photographers or not. I know what I like and what works for me. I like my equipment but it’s not perfect. That perfection is never going to be attained, though. Lately, my concerns are more about weight and mass than focal length and resolution. I sometimes struggle with buying new equipment because I feel I have to justify the purchase, even to myself. But if I really was objective about buying new equipment (I’m not), I probably would still struggle with it because that’s just me and it’s not just photo equipment. I don’t like to spend money on stuff I don’t need (that’s where the justification comes in). Also, new photo equipment is a short-lived thrill. That shiny toy loses it’s luster fast (at least for me).
    One thing I failed to mention: I don’t have a lot of discretionary spending money and photo equipment falls into that category (unfortunately). That said, if money was not an object, I would probably get whatever my little heart desires.

    Liked by 1 person

    • disperser says:

      I might have a little more latitude about buying things than you do but the underlying truth is the same. I, too, don’t like spending money on things I don’t need or just because they’re shinier and newer.

      That said, one reason I’ve shot more with the P900 is that it’s more portable (and versatile) than my big rig. If I’m shooting something at home or around the yard, I’m more likely to pick up the D7000 . . . but not always. It’s a matter of convenience, as well. The P900 is also easier to maneuver and for some things, the phone is more than enough.

      One thing I always did without thinking about it is change lenses. Now I see it for the bother that it is. Also, the associated problems with dust. The P900 doesn’t suffer from sensor dust. Neither does the phone.

      The process used to be “get the best possible photo” and that hasn’t changed. What has changed is the addition of “for the intended medium and/or use”. If I’m just shooting something so that I can use a plugin to make it look like a painting, I don’t need the same level of quality as I do if I’m planning to print and frame something.

      Similarly, If I’m doing a quick post, I don’t need the quality of something that has to be printed to a size of 13″x19″ or larger. The blog photos are seldom viewed wider than 640 pixels even though I upload photos that are twice the size. Realistically, I get less than on click per post as far as anyone wanting to see a photo larger . . . for the same reasons I listed above; it’s not the quality or technical aspects of the photo that most people care about.

      Bottom line, I’m embracing my amateur status and no longer see the need for professional or even prosumer equipment.


  3. I take pictures to illustrate my posts. Picture quality is not that important to me. I gave up buying more photographic equipment when I realised that the only important thing is the ability to see a picture. It’s like golf, no point buying expensive equipment if I can’t hit the ball straight!

    Liked by 2 people

    • disperser says:

      You seem to take reasonable care when snapping the photo. This probably comes naturally to people who snap a lot of photos (my standard answer when someone asks how they can improve — do more of whatever you want to improve at).


      • I don’t take so many, maybe two hundred or so on each holiday or visit. I discard a lot straight away. Those that I like I will crop and edit to remove anything I don’t want such as TV aerials and sometimes improve the colour.

        I remember going on holiday with two or three rolls of film and taking them home for processing at Boots the Chemists. Such anticipation followed by crushing disappointment!


      • disperser says:

        A two-week vacation usually produced about twenty rolls of film (around five hundred photos). Without control over the development process, I was lucky to get a tenth of those that I liked.

        A one-week cruise netted me 8,800+ photos. I would say 90% are keepers. And no, I won’t share all of them. That’s the big difference between film and digital (for me); I control the process. Also, whereas film was expensive, I can now shoot away for very little cost. I much rather snap photos I will never use than wished I’d shot more.

        I remember my first trip to Yellowstone . . . I had my first digital camera but I was still in “film mode” (plus memory cards didn’t hold as much) and while I shot a fair amount, I still wish I’d shot multiple versions of some of the things I saw.


  4. It do matter.
    If you enjoy doing it, then keep on doing it.
    And your photos bring joy to others.
    Your photo of the hand gently petting the dog made me cry.
    HUGS!!! :-)


  5. paolsoren says:

    I am very happy with my Nikon B700 .
    Now, I am not attempting wanting to stroke your ego, but I do wish I had taken that shot of the bird feeding the nestling.


  6. WOW, that is a great collection Emilio, no sarcastic comments from me on this lot. That first picture was jaw dropping I kept looking to see if that was the birds real beak or wondering if you’d been having fun and I still don’t know; but think it’s nature at it’s best. Love the gorilla giving me the finger and the expression on that dogs face is beautiful and sad.
    You certainly found your calling when you picked up a camera.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. disperser says:

    OK, who is this, really? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Have the meds finally kicked in? . . . or ran out?

    Seriously, thank you.

    The duck is the Muscovy duck and you can read about it here:

    The actual gallery with the photo I shared is here:
    Ducks, Geese, library pond,

    Click the arrow to advance to the next photo or the “X” in the upper right corner to exit the single view and see all the photos.

    I’m reasonably certain the Gorilla has a damaged finger as it’s held like that all the time no matter what it’s doing but that particular shot was too fortuitous to pass up. The rest of the photos are culled from my SmugMug account (which hardly anyone ever visits):


  8. macquie says:

    To be very very honest with you, I had not took a close look what have your followers been commenting on your photographs, but at least there is something I think I can share with them as to why I like your photos, and that is, that I feel good / positive / fun energy out of the photos you shared with us. Throughout them, I enjoy seeing your perspectives and sense of humour and so on, and I assume, your followers would do the same more or less. This is indifferent how professional photographers get their followers gradually. People are not just looking at techniques but are looking at something behind or beyond (I say something because I can not find better word because it can be vary also). Sorry for this wordy blah blah leaving in here, but in short, you are interesting photographer and I like your photos. :-)


    • disperser says:

      Well, thank you, macquie; that’s very kind to say.

      Truthfully, I’m happy with a few followers who enjoy my photos and my strange sense of humor. I suppose if I was trying to make a living at this it would be different, but this is just for fun.

      Again, thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

Voice your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.