The Online Photographer

Tough day today. Dental appointment, tough for me because I have an irrational phobia about having dental work done (completely unfounded; that's the "irrational" part). So I got little sleep in advance of my procedure, which of course turned out to be not so bad. Although the stress of the day and the residual ache in my jaw makes me doubly tired tonight. But on to my topic:

In my New Year's Resolution post I wrote that you should "...attack your weakness."

Reader David Littlejohn responded: "Having worked for several years in the Performance Management practice in corporate HR, I would respectfully disagree. We always recommend that people push their strengths. Identify the things that you are good at (these are the things that generally differentiate you from others around you) and work to get even better at them.

"The only time you should concentrate on a weakness is if it a show-stopper, a career killer. Otherwise, spend your time pushing your strengths."

On further reflection, I think David's right, and that I should retract my previous position. Life is too short to spend too much time butting your head against things you're no good at. The only time it makes sense to attack your weakness is where there's some clear concept of completeness that needs to be addressed: for example, when Don Budge, the great American tennis player of the 1930s, secluded himself to work on his backhand, at the time his greatest weakness. It eventually became one of his greatest strengths, and completed his game.

We do have a tendency to respect and value what we're not good at, and downplay or undervalue our strengths. What we're good at comes easily to us, so it can seem less important, less "earned"—as if "anybody can do that." We might might mistakenly aspire to excel in a field that's difficult for us, imagining that there's greater glory in it. But playing to our strengths is how we make it possible to reach greater heights of accomplishment. And accomplishment is hard enough, really.

Just make sure "strength" does not equal "rut," is all.

...And now, rest.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Darin McCauley: "One man's rut is another man's groove."

Featured Comment by George Barr: "In the corporate world, it is unlikely that the majority of people will be able to sufficiently improve their weaknesses (which are often ingrained and related to personality) to make a significant difference.

"In photography, as in tennis, having a significant weakness, your poor backhand or a deficiency in skills of , say, seeking out wonderful colour, or composing strongly, or making sure your images tell a story, or any number of other deficiencies will lead to significantly poorer images.

"In business, others can make up for your deficiencies, in photography as in tennis, you are the only one holding the racquet or camera—you have total responsibility—no assistants, no secretaries, no detail people.

"No, I think you were correct in your original ideas Michael."

[George Barr is the author of the recent Why Photographs Work: 52 Great Images, Who Made Them, What Makes Them Special, and Why —Ed.]

Featured Comment by Ben Rosengart: "My gut feeling, and I know that this seems crazy, is that both are good advice."

Mike replies: I came to the same conclusion last night. I depends on each person and what they're doing now and what they need. I sometimes conceive of myself as a teacher manqué, and surely one of the deficiencies of this format—a blog with a sizeable audience—is that there can be no "individual conferences" so to speak. I'm quite sure the proper advice is not universal. That's our problem here.

Featured Comment by Dave Karp: "I agree, and don't. It's the 'always' part. [Note that Dave is responding to the main post, not to the paragraph I wrote just above, which he hadn't seen when he wrote his comment. (I hadn't seen his when I wrote mine, either.) —Ed.]

"If your weakness is unimportant (in other words, truly irrelevant) then I agree.

"But so many of us avoid dealing with an important weakness, and justify it by saying that it is irrelevant. When someone else has a strength that targets your weakness (imagine you were a photographer in 1998 who had limited computer skills, or did not understand digital cameras and your clients started leaving you for photographers with a broader range of skills), or when you have a chance to take advantage of an opportunity that comes your way, but a weakness prevents or inhibits you from doing so (you want a new job but you don't have adequate computer skills), you can suffer.

"I often think of this when I deal with students who have not learned how to effectively convey their thoughts in writing. It is time, while they are at school, to eliminate that weakness.

"'Always' is a tough word."

Mike adds: Your comment about writing skills reminds me of an old witticism: poor written expression makes you mimic an imbecile to others. Of course, writing is one of my strengths, so I would think that.

Featured Comment by Player: "As a counterpoint to Don Budge, Roger Federer was quoted saying: 'I have never believed in working on my weaknesses. My serve and my forehand are my strengths and I work on them to get better.' Yet both Budge and Federer were wildly successful players. In 1938 Budge was the first and youngest player to accomplish the Grand Slam (winning all four majors in a calender year). Federer, who is generally acknowledged as the greatest player ever, never achieved a Grand Slam although he has won all four majors: Australian, French, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open."

Featured Comment by Mark Hespenheide: "As a former bicycle racer, a truism of the sport is that you 'train your weaknesses and race your strengths.'

"I take this to mean that you should work on the things that you aren't good at, but when the metaphorical chips are down, play to your strengths.

"I would also point out that many of us haven't seriously tried the things we're really not good at.... A colleague once invited me to try photographing dance performances when he had seen my landscape photography. The two genres are nearly diametric opposites. I was frustrated for the first year or two of working at it, but now it's almost a second love with a very different skill set."

Featured Comment by Michael Roche: "Concentrating on one's strengths is a common cause of underachievement in amateur golf (club level, not low handicap or scratch level). Very few high handicap golfers pay enough attention to the short game, where most shots are lost, and instead tend to practice the long game, which tends to be the better part of their game, and thus spend most of their golfing days returning higher scores than they would had they a reasonable short game. I include myself in this catagory."

Featured Comment by drnslater: "...And if your strength is dentistry and your weakness photography...? !!"

I know the most popular answer to the question of New Year's resolutions now is not to make any, because we never keep them anyway (although I kept mine last year), but just in case you might be looking to improve your photography in 2011, I have a small bit of modest advice. Set mechanical goals. That is, goals of time, number, frequency, or duration. Photography is a game of doing, and things get done only when you get going and do them. So what I'm suggesting is to make a decision on some purely literal basis. Such as, how many exposures you're going to make every day, or every weekend. How much time, or how often, you're going to spend out and about with your camera in your hands. How many prints you're going to make every week. How often you're going to find a model or set up a portrait shoot. How many new things you're going to try.

It can really be anything—the specifics are up to you. Although I have a suggestion for that, too: attack your weakness. Whatever you think you're worst at, set a mechanical goal for that. If you're bad at editing, make yourself spend 15 minutes a day editing. If you're awkward shooting strangers, make sure you shoot a stranger three times a week. Keep the goals small, and simple.

If you set a plain mechanical goal, you make success easy. Not everybody can guarantee that they'll shoot 12 great pictures a year (this was Ansel Adams's goal for himself). But you can guarantee that you'll shoot twelve exposures a week. Leave the elusive parts of success to work themselves out. Plain, literal goals can be met more easily—all it takes is things you can control like dedication and discipline, not the more ephemeral things you can't control like talent or luck or weather or opportunity, or things coming together in that semi-magical way the way they sometimes do.

I've set mine, but I'm not going to tell what it is. I'm afraid I'll jinx myself, and anyway, my goal doesn't matter to you. Yours is the important one. I'll tell you what mine was on Jan. 2, 2012. It's an easy one, and if I just keep at it, I can get it done.

Mike

P.S. Oh, and if you've made the most common New Years Resolution: our friend Grant Peterson at Rivendell recommends this book. I'm game. I'll order one. What the heck—hope springs eternal.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Marshall: "Well put. A coach I've worked with and I talk to our team about goals like this. We discuss them as process and outcome goals. Outcome goals (win the game; shoot the perfect landscape) are always to some extent out of one's control. Process goals are the ones you can control. Achieving process goals contributes to achieving outcome goals. Hadn't thought to apply this thinking to photography in this way, but it makes a lot of sense to me."

Featured Comment by John Camp: "If you have detected in yourself a certain talent, and if you spend two hours a day intelligently exercising that talent, you'll become very good at it. Most intelligent people have a talent of some kind. The reason they don't achieve excellence with that talent is that they don't work the two hours a day. They could find the two hours if they really wanted to, but they don't. Instead, they find excuses. I've watched lots of artists work, and it's almost invariably true that the best of them work that two hours a day. And those who work four hours a day are even better. I want to become knowledgeable in a certain area of Photoshop. So, I'm going to make myself learn it. I'm going to spend an hour a day at it, until it gets done. I'll let you know in a year what happened."

Featured Comment by Bernd Reinhardt: "I have a suggestion that works really well for me and my friends: about once every two months about five of us get together drinking beers and showing prints. We call it 'print meeting.' Each of us brings five to twenty five prints of any size, kind, or subject matter. We take turns throwing them on the table and we offer comments and suggestions, and simply enjoy each other's work. We started this so that all these photographs wouldn't just end up forgotten on some hard drive. It is a ton of fun for everyone. We keep it small and limited to good friends so that there is no competition, just the motivation to get stuff done."

Featured Comment by Dave: "A few years back I made a simple resolution to just shoot more. I stuck with the resolution. Over time I saw that I was getting better photos. The success led me to shoot even more and the improvement continued. My enjoyment of photography swelled. I bought some heavy duty Photoshop books and some art photography books. I continue to improve and my love for photography grows in an upward spiral. It all started with a stupid New Year's resolution."

Data-suck, n., a condition whereby more data or information leads, paradoxically, to less knowledge, clarity, or understanding.

In shopping, it's when a shopper has gotten too much secondhand information (reviews, friends' opinions, specifications, test results, manufacturers' literature, etc.) and not enough firsthand experience, such that more "research" actually leads to greater indecision or confusion rather than less. The data-suck illusion is the belief that more secondhand information will help a dilemma resolve, e.g., if one has read nine reviews, and is in a state of confusion, reading a tenth will settle everything.

Actually, of course, the only cure for data-suck is more "real" or firsthand data—trying something for oneself, doing one's own tests, or seeing, hearing, touching, or experiencing one or more examples of the product category firsthand—or just doing something and moving on.

Mike
(I'm just sayin')

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Gordon Lewis: "Are you speaking from firsthand experience, Mike? (Heh, heh....)

"Part of what makes 'data suck' such a growing problem these days is that cameras are more complicated while also being harder to examine first-hand. Local retailers are declining in number. Inventories are shrinking in size and diversity. Salespeople at big-box stores are barely knowledgeable. Buyers think they can find the information they're looking for on the Internet and in various fora. Instead, they find verbal fistfights. One side argues 'That camera sucks!' The other side argues, 'Does not!' The predictable counterargument is 'Does too!' And on and on it goes...."

Featured Comment by Erez: "I know this term as "Analysis Paralysis". Very easy to get sucked into this in the internet age...."

Mike replies: I agree. The reason I find myself chuckling over the term "data-suck" is its implication that what is promising to add to your store of knowledge is actually depleting it.

A related problem is "Connoisseurship Paralysis." That's when you know so much that no available solution hits the elusive, exacting target of your over-refined desires.

Featured Comment by David Dyer-Bennet: "This is a major contributing factor to my observation that the first time you buy something in a new-to-you category, you're very likely to get it wrong (first digital camera, first SLR, first guitar, first cell phone, etc.). You don't know the questions to ask or where to look for the answers or how to interpret the language of the discussion."

Mike replies: Quite possible, but it's also because you don't know how your needs intersect with the conventional needs of the "set of all consumers." I just mentioned connoisseurship paralysis, which is the far extreme, but at the other end—the near extreme—you do need some connoisseurship in order to make a suitable choice. What's good for the majority might not be what's best for you, so you need some experience to get to know yourself as well.