https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084j8yq

Kenneth Tanaka: "Pay attention to what you’re putting in that frame, and where you’re putting it. Everything in the frame matters. Forget 'pretty.' Does it communicate what you want to say or depict? Does it record what you want to remember in, say, years to come? That’s the main purpose for using a camera for most of us." That's the quote of the week for me. :-)

You don't have to take a wrist watch out of your pocket to look at it. Unlike a pocket computer aka phone. Expensive watches are not timepieces they are jewellery. You can get a perfectly reliable watch for a lot less that $100 - like under £20.

"The majority of the greatest photographers in the medium's history were or are art photographers, and they account for the majority of the photographers the public knows about and cares about. " Really? I think you are looking at it from inside the photo-world bubble. In the UK a common comment to anyone with a 'good' camera for many decades (and still for those of a certain age) would be to say, "Who do you think you are? David Bailey?" Another photographer's name I might expect non-photography people to know here would be Don McCullin. The only others might be Martin Parr and Rankin. While these might have their pictures shown in galleries I'd class Bailey and Rankin as commercial photographers, McCullin as a photojournalist and Parr as a documentary photographer (although he plays the art game). One interesting thing about photographs is that depending on their context of display they can fit in different categories. A commercial, reportage or documentary photo can also be an art photograph. TBH I don't think the majority of the general public give a toss about big name photographers or art photography. I make Peter Wright bang on the money. Poetry and 'art' really don't have much relevance to the lives of most people.

Worse than not knowing what you're good at is knowing what you do best, but not liking doing it and wanting to do something that you know you aren't as good at or even unsuited to doing.

That was all far more confusing than any camera menu I've come across.

I'm far less interested(as in hardly at all) in how photographs 'look', lenses 'render' and other such airy-fairy matters than I am in the formal construction of a photograph and how that affects what a photograph is a picture of, about and has to communicate.

Auto ISO and ISO beyond 400 which isn't a grainy/noisy mess.

I think I found it on Facebook after getting the GDPR nonsense. https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=234414541362864&ref=watch_permalink

KNEE-kon in the UK? Everyone I know says NICK-on.

Old joke. Sure I heard it on an archive episode of Hancock recently.

“The first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band” ― Brian Eno

"Blessed are the cheesemakers."

The ideal companion for a new light - https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/magazine/articles/billiards-2020#

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.