I don’t like coming back from the field with too many images. The reason may not be obvious. It’s not that I worry about the time required to process them; in fact, I quite enjoy this part of the creative process. Rather, I find that high volume is often a good indicator of creative laziness. It tells me that I have not been deliberate enough in selecting my compositions.
Ansel Adams famously said that twelve significant images in any single year is a good crop. The actual number is not important other than that it is smaller than many would expect. Rather, the operative word is significant. Significance implies importance, and it would be naïve of anyone to believe that important work can be produced in abundance on a consistent basis. Therein lies the paradox: the more seriously you take your work and the more particular you are about its qualities – technical, aesthetic, emotional, artistic, original, or other – the stricter your definition of success becomes, and the fewer images ultimately will meet it.
It may be a product of our consumer culture that many have a hard time accepting the fact that significance is inversely correlated with quantity. This is why many rationalize setting the bar for success so low as to merely be aesthetically pleasing. Beautiful images are easy because there are many beautiful subjects that lend themselves readily to the making of aesthetic images. To venture beyond aesthetics implies more work, deliberation and personal investment, which themselves may be a deterrent to some, but more importantly it also results in fewer images being made. To most photographers, the idea of returning from a trip with few (or even no) images is ...