artybollocks.com is looking a little dated to me. Our work practice must no longer explore but interrogate. And no mention of narrative?

When were Artist Statements invented? I don't remember them before 1982 when I stopped being an art student here in the UK.

The modern way to isolate subjects is to shoot at f1.2. No movement or thought required. It occurred to me recently how using 'slow' lenses forces you to think about the background. Have 'fast' lenses become a crutch for some people?

Night time note pads are no good. Cassette recorders are the thing. Ask Keef. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/05/the-technology-that-captured-the-greatest-rock-song-ever-recorded/393254/

I'm baffled. While I do think photographs should be printed I don't get the 'fine print' thing. Give me a photocopy of a great photograph over a fine print of a crap one every time. I've seen original prints of some of my favourite 'famous' photographs and some have obviously been carefully made, others have been machine prints. The only remarkable thing about them compared to reproductions I've seen on-line or in books and magazines has been their size. It's all about the pictures for me, and the fact that photographs are pretty much infinitely reproducible rather than unique objects like paintings. [Well, what's the problem? If you don't care about prints, then you don't. That's okay. Nothing more to say. --Mike]

Border Collies were bred as working dogs. Fetching sheep is in their DNA and they can work out of sight of a shepherd using instinct. I prefer to watch them doing proper sheep work than demos or trials but I'd rather see this than agility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpjP3mxv21s

All the above seems to me to assume the hunt is for single pictures. Ones I have seen described as 'wall worthy'. There is at least one alternative: to look to build a body of work in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Brian Eno and Mark E Smith.

If you aren't precious about prints there's this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eofAtJZDJHs

Goldilocks chose...

S'funny. I find photography fun regardless of what camera I use. As for camera complexity. Turn the dial to 'A' and have done with it if you don't like complicated.

Taking photos has got easier with every technical advance. Making good pictures with photography will always be difficult. It might even get more difficult. I read this the other day which may be pertinent - https://medium.com/@kennethjarecke/will-photography-ever-walk-on-two-legs-again-a3a858035c64

I dug out my copy of the Szarkowski book to see what the fuss is about. Seems to me the Erwitt pic clearly falls into Szarkowski's 'humorist' category. Especially given Erwitt's penchant for lighthearted photographs - jumping dogs for example. I guess some folk can't see the joke. Or maybe they take photographs too seriously?

Dim light doesn't bother me. Not being able to see the print because of reflections in the glass it's behind does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEmn0Oqzrf8

If you don't want to see the crusty mascara use a camera without IBIS.

Pocket billiards? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pocket%20billiards [See what I mean? Ruined. Damned English! --Mike]

Coincidentally I am currently in the process of scanning the 'best' pictures from my black and white film years (1977-1982) in order to put them into a book using an online printing service. I try to make at least one such book of my digital pictures each year. Hard copies not only have a chance of outliving me, they're much easier to show to people than digital files.

British photographer Sophie Green has used pairs in a number of projects. e.g. http://www.sophiegreenphotography.com/gypsy-gold/ I've done it myself a time or two. I also like to make longer sequences and grids of pictures. Somewhere, Martin Parr said, "I never think of photographs as being individual. Always as a group." All too often photographers think only in terms if single images. What might be called 'iconic images' these days. When in reality the pictures which photographers are remembered for are often taken from a body of work.

There are people out there trying to get photo stories seen. e.g. https://www.instagram.com/documentingbritain/

"Up my street", surely? Mind you, we don't have alleys round here we have ginnels.

I would say my 'mini-collection' is actually my main collection with the other stuff (the influential, 'important', or seminal books) floating around the edges. Perhaps because my first photo book purchase was 'The English' by Ian Berry I concentrate on books of photographs about Britain, preferably contemporary work by British photographers. However, with the current interest in publishing works previously unavailable in book form I do make exceptions - such as for the zine-like books from Café Royal. The one rule I have is to buy only books I like, rather than those I think I should have. Martin Parr has photographed a few pairs of sandals worn with socks. So, when he gave a talk to a camera club the other week I asked him if I could photograph his sandals. He agreed.

"No matter what type of shooting you do, taking care of your gear should be number one, and being organized is the first step towards creating the versatility you may need. Oops... I store my lenses in one bag. And use another when out and about. Things like this still happen.

http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/who-used-the-phrase-and-on-that-bombshell-first-alan-partridge-or-jeremy-clarkson/1901310

I've been considering buying The Documentary Impulse for a while. The above revue has convinced me to purchase it (via your Amazon UK link). Thanks.