Originally Posted by photomoof (Post 2140795)

First you have to decide what "good at it" means.

My father used photography to record the lives of members of his family, that was his goal. He was VERY good at it. The photographic record he left me most decidedly does not "suck."

Many amateurs I see have decided not to shoot with any purpose in mind, but try to learn to make random "good" images in imitation of the great work of artists. What will mediocre photos, taken of strangers, mean to those in their families after they have gone?

"How come your dad didn't take any photos of you growing up?"
"Dad just liked taking photos of the backs of people's heads on the street."
"How come?"
"He was very shy."

Originally Posted by rinzlerb

I'm in this camp. I photograph for my family and myself. Occaisionally I come up with something that I think someone I don't know might like to look at, but usually in those cases I don't want to look at it so much. I need a personal connection to what I photograph. Other's have done much better; why not just look at theirs? I think of photography as a very personal gratification, not much more. And the fact that I like using and preserving old well-made things that still work gratifies me in another way. Two pretty unrelated gratfiications from one activity! A bargain!

Many of us have very different goals in mind.

Originally Posted by Boris Stupak

My wife is a good photographer, but like photomoof's father, her goal is to record images of our children and family. When she does that, she usually takes photos better than mine. Beautiful expressions, close, sharp photographs, nice backgrounds.

She is, in fact, totally mystified when I take photos of other things, my so-called "artsy" photos or photos of people I don't know. To her, it is a waste of time.