Your best work vs your favorite work

Bobby T

Out Of Nowhere
I've been reviewing a lot my photos from the past few years to determine which medium telephoto lens to get. Knowing that I will need one for several things starting mid March. Which has led me down a rabbit hole. Realizing that there are photos I really like that may not necessarily qualify as my best. And to make it more confusing, the photos other people really like are not always in alignment with photos of mine which I prefer. Especially non photographers.

Does anyone else do this? Or is it just me?
 
Sure. Art is subjective. If you're shooting for your own pleasure or use, go with your heart. But if your new purchase is going to be part of a kit that earns you money from paid gigs, then the customer is always right.
 
It will be both. And a gray in between. I will be doing some stuff for people for free this year. But I will be treating it like paying clients or better than.
 
I'm not a pro, but I know exactly what you're talking about. Whenever I provide images for someone to choose from, they invariably pick the one I add to the set out of embarrassment (mostly because it manages to show something the other, subjectively, though often also technically better images don't).

Anyhow, my most loved work isn't my technically best anyway - simply because I'm not always able to devote a lot of time to shooting scenes that resonate with me, so I have to take those shots then and there, without much time for thinking and framing. Sometimes, things work out in a way that pleases me - but that doesn't make them any more convincing technically. I'm increasingly inclined to avoid such situations, but it should be pretty obvious that that's not always possible.

The following two results illustrate this very clearly; I think they work - but they're far from technically perfect (and hence, need to be seen as pure street shots - duh ...), and furthermore, IIRC they're actually more or less OOC B&W JPEGs, with hardly any, if any at all, editing and post processing. I simply wasn't there at that time.

11367890145_2f206478f8_h.jpg

like father, like son
on Flickr

11368195235_d5d255394a_h.jpg

breakthrough
on Flickr

I still like them as they are; I've had the first one framed, and it's still hanging in my hallway, flare, skewed perspective and all.

M.
 
I agree with the previous statements.

Some of my worst shots are my favourites, and some people really liked some of the shots I have nearly binned.

I'll also expand on what Biro mentioned that art is subjective and catering to your customer's needs. A Picasso painting can cost millions of dollars and coveted by many collectors but to some it just looks like something a possum would paint while high on angel dust. It would really depend on who is looking and who is buying.

Similarly if I was paying a portrait painter to paint a portrait of my family, I would expect the painting to look like my family, not like something from Picasso's canvass or the painter's "interpretation" of my family.

Paid work and labours of love differ in a way that our artistic flair takes a bit of a backseat when producing something for our clients, we can still apply it to a degree, but we are getting paid to realise "their vision". As opposed to something we produce for ourselves where we have free rein to do as we please.

It is when we produce something for ourselves to satisfy "our vision" and other people see it too that makes a work of art powerful, as it connects us with other people who see and feel what we see and feel, like the works of Picasso or Pollock.

IMHO of course.
 
As I understand it [and I'm paraphrasing, so feel free to correct], Garry Winogrand's thesis is that a photographer needs to be able to differentiate between the merits of the photograph and how they felt when they created the photograph. In his case, he'd leave several months between exposure and editing his rolls.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I certainly struggle with that disassociation, and do find that waiting to edit helps a lot.

No, Bobby, you're not alone. Some of my favourites aren't very 'good' photos to others, though they are to me alone.
 
Interesting point @Bobby Tingle . I take part in an online photo club and each month we submit one picture for critique and for the others to mark. This month I won with a picture that I considered "okay" but certainly not brilliant, I've seen this on Flickr as well (I got 'explored' a few times, and always with pictures that I thought were okay but not my best).
 
I have my favourites of course, but whether they are my best work is a matter of conjecture. Who decides? I can't. Even after all these years (I've been at it in one form or another since 1965, when Dad started letting me take photos with his Ikonta) I still can't say that one or another photograph is my best. Although I'm very tempted to place my shot of the beached "Pasha Bulker" from 2007 very high on the list.

46920750382_374dea49b6_b.jpg


The little Olympus C760UZ, 3.2Mp acquitted itself very well, I thought.
 
Sue, that is an excellent photo.

I've been doing some heavy reviewing of my past work. Really in depth, comparing galleries of the same type of photos shot at different times, with different lenses. So far, I've found my best personal work has been done with the 16mm 1.4, the 90mm f2, 16-55, and 50-140. My best client work, including portraits and events not including weddings, has been done with the 16-55 and 50-140. Which leaves me with some odd choices to make. I still have a ton of photos to go through for comparisons. But at this stage, gear wise, I'm looking at the options of adding a 90mm. And maybe a 16mm. So I can do working stuff with the 16-55/90 pair. And personal stuff with the 16/90 pair. Plus, there is a 50-230 in my household for extra reach when the light is decent. For the same cost as a 90mm and 16mm, I can get a 50-140. Or maybe I can win a lottery. Or quit shooting some stuff. Or pull more of my hair out.
 
Thanks, Bobby. REally though, I think that mizzling over gear and whats best is a giant rabbit hole. I've been in it and in fact the photos of mine which get the most response from others are those which were happy accidents, like the beached boat above. My most popular shot on flickr is one which I shot with my Panny TZ60, and which I thought was pretty mediocre. Go figure. I'm in the process of rationalising back to basics.

18759864171_29ec3ea032_b.jpg
Stormy
by Sue Wotton, on Flickr
 
REally though, I think that mizzling over gear and whats best is a giant rabbit hole.

Totally agree. When I look back at photos of places I visited multiple times - sometimes the older photos are better.
Now... Did my photography get worse? Did I make some wrong decisions on newer gear?

In my experience it's lots of things that change that have a bigger effect than gear...

The weather and the lighting is an obvious one.

Oneself is a factor too - sometimes you're just in a different headspace. Life's not always the same...
Sometimes you're very motivated and work harder - other times you go more with the flow...

The places you visit will change too... After a dry year a landscape will be different than after a wet year...
The first time you go somewhere will also be different from repeat visits...

And sometimes the older photos that you prefer aren't actually "better" (whatever that means :) ) - you may just have better memories associated with them.

It's rarely the equipment - if ever :)
 
@kyteflyer @TilmanP I completely agree with both of you. The only reason gear is a factor in this current thought process, is that I will need a lens to cover a focal range which I do not currently have covered for things coming up through the year. So I am figuring out which len is the best for my overall needs. Great benefits have been revisiting older work, learning a lot about what and how I shoot, and some excellent discussions.
 
Having been part of several photo groups and online forums over many years, I am frequent surprised at what other people like vs what I like. There are some exceptions, but for the most part it very rarely has anything to do with the technical qualities. As strictly an advanced hobbyist, I am interested in technical variance and like to experiment with various systems. But I have learned that mostly those qualities have little to do with artistic appeal. It is like what music people prefer, so subjective. But is also that elusive asthetic that make photography appeal to me as an art form.
 
Now, I find it extraordinary and refreshing that hardly anyone got down to some serious gear talk and recommendations yet :) I'm not a Fuji shooter, so I guess I would have to approach this from a different angle.

Anyhow, while I'm basically with @donlaw on why I sometimes (well, quite often) go with new gear instead of old is curiosity, I've found recently that hitting the spot is even more satisfying. So I fully understand where @Bobby Tingle is coming from.

The way I see it, most of the stuff that can be done with a 50-140mm (at least when it comes to portraiture and people stuff) can be done with the 90mm f/2. The 16mm is obviously the right companion for that lens. If, however, I knew that the 50-140mm would help pay some bills and make me enough money to get the two primes later, that's what I'd go for first. Workhorses are always welcome - I keep mine ready all the time.

However, in my experience as a hobbyist who isn't into wildlife and sports, the longer and heavier the lens, the less I use it (superzooms excepted - that's because I use the long end when I have it available without having to swap lenses). Hence, the lens I'd really love having would be the 90mm f/2, not the 50-140mm. The 90mm is a strong portrait lens as well as a capable macro tool, it's weather-sealed and just portable enough to be taken out regularily. The 50-140mm is bigger and heavier; it certainly precludes small bags.

My rule of thumb is: If you need it, get it - but if you're not sure, don't get anything that doesn't fit into an ONA Bowery alongside the camera ...

M.
 
@MoonMind you’ve put into words, a large piece of what is going through my mind. While I will make some money with whichever lens I eventually purchase. That will only be have fun with money. I’ve locked back into the Walker Evans ideology of paying bills from my regular job. I want to make art this year. But I still want to treat everything, that’s not me out having fun, as professionally as possible.

With all that said, your thoughts of getting the 90mm. Then adding the 16mm makes the most sense. Both financially, and for how I shoot.
 
Back
Top