This site uses cookies to deliver the best possible experience. Learn more.

If you have been photographing for 10 years, you can stop now

You don't have to, but you could. These are not my thoughts, but something I heard a respected teacher say on his podcast. If you have been shooting for the past 10-12 years, he says, chances are you have made enough photos -- good photos, photos you have never gone back to process and publish -- to keep you occupied. Let's say, your goal as a photographer is to publish books or make prints or post best photos online -- or share them in some other way. You may already have 50-100 thousand photos you took over the last few years. Do you need any more photos to keep producing finished products? Probably not. In fact, the fewer new photos you make, the more likely you are to publish or otherwise share older photos.

But, of course, your photographer's instinct tells you otherwise. "Life's a journey, not a destination." "It's about the chase, not the catch." "My favorite photo is the one I'm going to take tomorrow." Is that what we tell ourselves?

"Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks." If you are Henri Cartier-Bresson, you can afford to say things like that. There will be plenty enough people willing to go through your "catch", find the good ones and "cook" them up into books and exhibits for years after you are dead.

But for the rest of us, I think slowing down and taking fewer photos is not a terrible idea.

I wrote more here tookapic.com/photos/614686

What are your thoughts and feelings? They may differ :)

7 comments

ponzu This is the episode where Brooks Jensen talks about stopping taking new photos. lenswork.com/podcast/LW1067%20... He is not suggesting you do, he is saying you could. The whole episode is great, but if you are impatient, the quote in question comes up at the 7:05 mark.

Asia I can't imagine that I stop photographing only to use old photos.

ponzu No, me, neither. But the purpose of this mental exercise is to consciously define the goal of our taking pictures. If it is to publish them or share them in some other way, then stopping capturing new images has a good chance of increasing our output. New photos are input. When the input to output ratio becomes very high, it is depressing to many, perhaps most. We cannot all be just hunters, we have to cook, too.

Of course, this is addressed to someone who, like me, has over 130 thousand photos in Lightroom (not counting the film that has not yet been digitized). Not someone just starting out.

Aga Ka I guess it depends on why you are taking photos :)

ponzu It totally depends on why you are taking photos. I think most of us take photos because it gives us pleasure to take them. But another possible reason for taking photos is to share them. Perhaps sell them. Perhaps become famous and appreciated through them. Perhaps to give joy to the people, whose photos we have taken. There must be a large population of photographers who are pained by the fact that their photos don't have an audience. This population is not 100%, I don't know if it is as large as 50%. The suggestion to stop taking photos and start sharing photos you have already taken is addressed to those photographers.

gerlos I can't imagine myself stopping taking photos - there are always things to learn.

But I see the point, and I guess that after some years it could be actually a good idea to commit more time to culling old, crappy photos, try new edits to old ones and publish forgotten bests than to actually shooting new photos.

Some time ago I was told of a photographer that used to once in a year takes a week of vacation just to browse his old archives, throwing away bad photos and trying new prints of his all time bests. His purpose was to pick the best of his best, so when he would die, only a relatively small number of photos would remain to represent his career. Seems reasonable, but maybe still a little extreme.

ponzu A week does not seem extreme at all. If anything, it does not seem to be enough.