My friend Frank alerted me to this post:
I’m speaking descriptively, not prescriptively. But I will say that when most amateurs assume they have to master all techniques to be a master of technique, they’re imitating professionals, not art photographers. Art photographers are more often deep masters of the particular technique they’ve chosen, and they let the rest go.
To be a good photographer technically, you don’t need to be a jack of every random ratty way of working with every kind of equipment under the sun. You don’t need but one—one good one you like and that suits your taste and what you’re doing. And from there, it’s on to the real work of hunting down the pictures and saying what you want to say.
And for someone like me, still learning, this is both a comfort and a challenge.
I too have had this desire to master all techniques (not editing so much as I have already admitted); I have felt under pressure to attain competence at all the in camera skills. And as time goes on, it seems an ever more daunting task. As with any skill, the more you learn the more you realize what you do not yet know.
Though I have not settled on a particular path yet (I have suspicions but we’ll see) I can tell by going through my photographs to date that a few streams are becoming more evident. And some of those were there in the first year of taking pictures.
I am not quite ready yet to abandon experimentation but maybe it is time to spend more energy working those areas in which I already feel stronger than trying to shore up weaknesses that are most evident when I am off the path so to speak.
But just for fun, including the one at the top, I have three pictures from my first set of pictures ever (I was late to this game), taken with my first camera, a point and shoot Olympus, in Hawaii 2005.