Hacker News Reader

Of course it depends on the subject matter. Wildlife and sports are exceptional cases. I recently fucked up a nice shot of a dragonfly because I wasn't machine gunning it (I have a Nikon Z6-ii which can really hammer the frames out but I don't use it like that).

But most of the good shots I take are good because I put time into them. Or did a lot of research first. Or went and stood in front of interesting stuff.

View on HN

That's fair. I really don't have an eye for photography - nor, sorry, enough interest in it to spend the time to learn more. I do know that the quality of the photos I've taken, on both my phone camera and the decade or so old DSLR we keep in the closet, took a quantum leap in quality once I stopped thinking about composition (or any of the other things I know exist but aren't any good at!) and just started spamming the shutter. It's definitely a lucky-than-good thing, but damn if it doesn't work. (I even got an honest-to-god National Geographic Shot sticking my off-hand out the window and awkwardly squeezing the shutter button as we drove by.)

I admire your attention to craft and detail, and am glad it gives you so much pleasure. My great-grandfather was a keen amateur photographer, and I've inherited some beautiful photos that he shot (and printed) 100 or more years ago: one's within view of my desk right now. I hope your descendants appreciate the artifacts you create as much as I do his.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com