A presumably professional photographer's photos hang on the wall at my Starbucks. Two of a mountain goat and one of a duck. The first response I had was "cool", but now I look at them again and they seem bland. Their main features are their close range and sharpness. Always an accomplishment to have closeup photos of wildlife (I assume the goat is wild), and more impressive still if it has sharp detail. But those are both functions of the quality of camera more than the photographer.
Ok, yes, maybe the photog thought to use a tripod or had a steady hand, but I'm saying there is little artistry in these shots.
Do you want to hang these on your wall because you like goats and ducks? The photos' backgrounds are blurred telephoto-wise to the level of a photographer's studio backdrop, so they are not "outdoorsy" so much as just anatomical goat / duck images. They express no emotion, and only as much beauty as a goat can exhibit while calmly deciding whether there is any food to be had.
I have long lamented the lack of discretion exhibited by digital camera users. Just because you can take 1,000 photos doesn't mean you should. Maybe some people actually cull the bad ones, but I haven't met them. And I've seen plenty of blurry photos and non-subjects (why did you take a photo of my tent at the campground again?) so I think even the act of uploading them to a photo site doesn't cause them to pause to consider what's actually in the pics.
I will try to keep this in mind as I write. Just because I can store 10,000 words doesn't mean I should.
