Seems to be beneficial to leave them for a while. You can become too attached to certain images soon after taking them. `it becomes more apparent about what to keep if you edit some time later and have certain amount of detachment.

I actually find leaving time between cullings helps. Like, I might make a first pass through a bunch of photos one week, and then wait a couple weeks before making a second pass.

It's worth going back into some old flies from years ago too, if you managed to back them up on a hardrive. I missed a couple of shots from 2010, still not sure how but I think it demonstrates how you progress if you keep shooting and develop your approach. .

I usually make a super liberal pass almost immediately, but that is kind of a new part of the process. reasoning is two fold, in the last year I experienced my first memory card corruption issue and also was shooing low quality jpegs for almost a whole week this summer when I took that week off work specifically to shoot everyday all day, and didn't dump my memory card everyday.

Typically 1-12 months is how long I wait to really judge though. I'm still finding stuff from June of this year that I'm like "oh that's kinda cool". I wasn't as active shooting as I have been historically from October '23-May '25, and so I didn't even really look at most of the photos I made in that time period until a few weeks ago.

I am backlogged so it usually takes a few years for me to closely examine what I've shot. I think that gap can be useful because it helps me to see my photos objectively, as an outsider observer would. If you intend to show your photos to other people, this is an enormous benefit. But it only works up to a point. If the gap is too long or the photos too orphaned, I sometimes have a hard time remembering where I was or what was happening during the exposure. That's a major headache. So there are risks at both ends of the time-lapse spectrum. For me the sweet spot is right around 27.6 months, give or take a few hours. But of course that number can vary depending on each person's memory, surviving brain cell count, and rate of shooting.

I've always been an advocate for waiting longer periods of time between photographing and reviewing/editing, which is somewhat antithetical to the classes I teach where student generally have to work with recent photography in order to complete the assignments (they also do longer projects, so it's not all like that). I actually find that I tend to look at film photos sooner than digital, as film is typically only a few rolls I've shot recently, whereas with digital I just let them accumulate.

As Blake said, however, after too many months, I do find I've forgotten _too_ much about the photo, if that's possible. I suppose that everyone has a different "sweet spot" as far as these things go, and even though I hardly ever "go out shooting", preferring to just carry my camera with me every day, somehow I now have somewhere around ten thousand photos I haven't even looked at.

In any case, it's interesting to hear different takes on the issue, especially in this age of rampant instant-gramification.

My approach varies, it's less about having a system and more about doing it whenever I have time to edit. But I will echo what others have said, that if I edit too soon I tend to "keep" more. I used to be enamoured with particular shots based on what I felt when I shot them. It is ingrained in me now that liking what I saw and taking a good photo of what I saw often do not go together, so I mostly avoid pre-conceptions going into the editing process (I also rarely "chimp" in the field anymore, apart from checking settings). But... if I edit too soon after shooting, I do tend to have this reaction of "there must have been more decent photos than that!". It's more of a judgment on my own performance that leads me "overkeeping" these days. I give myself more benefit of the doubt in my filtering if the harvest feels small. But if I wait long enough between shooting and editing, that self-criticism seems to drop off. I'd say a month is usually enough to give myself that distance.

And all that said, even when I do wait a long time, I sometimes still select, edit, and post junk. Flickr is a relatively less filtered repository of good and mediocre photos. I post to Instagram less, and it is (in my mind, anyway) a tighter collection. Even though Instagram sucks for viewing photos, it feels like no one is on Flickr so it's mostly for myself, and Instagram is busier, so it gets more careful curation, but usually many months after images are posted to Flickr.

Concerning "junk" shots: One thing I feel I need to keep fairly "fresh" on by looking at what I'm photographing at least once every couple of months is reminding myself how much I gravitate towards putting effort into making photographs that tend to just not work, i.e., if I have just gone through a thousand shots and there's a bunch of attempts to photograph things that just don't transmit the way I thought, when I see such things, I'll think twice about bothering with it again, or at least consider what I can do to make them work better.

As an aside: I was describing my aversion to "chimping" to a non-photographer friend the other day, and he said, "But I do sometimes see you doing it!" and I realized he was seeing me check where my exposure compensation was at, as on the Q the dial has no markings, and I have to look in my viewfinder to see it as I keep my back screen off most of the time.

It's funny that so much of the photographic community has long disregarded Flickr as people fled to IG and other places for their daily fix of Likes and Favs, but perhaps this is the very reason why Flickr has managed to escape such algorithmic madness and remains a place to just chill, look at photos, and have discussions now and then. Which is fine with me.

TC thinking again about my “junk” comment, I’m going to halfway take it back. I don’t post junk. I post things I find appealing, even though I’m aware it might only be me that finds them interesting. I sometimes go back later and decide some shots are not actually that appealing to me, or at least not worth showing to others. But “junk” isn’t a good characterization. My photos are for me. It’s nice if others like them, but it’s not why I shoot. It was liberating to get to that point.

yotung: Oh I get it, I know what you meant, I do that as well, but yeah, "junk" probably isn't the best way of putting it.

I'm still catching up on shoots i did six years ago.

Same here. I have some films I took in 2011-2013 that I haven't scanned yet. I chatted with Yusuf Aksoy yesterday and I mentioned that I have sorts of photos we were talkin about but i marked that they were from the past and Yusuf replied with: "Aren't all the photos from the past?"
Regarding this perhaps its never too long.

Well, if the negatives have degraded or the digital media is no longer supported, it's probably too long.

TC fair point. Perhaps one day someone will mention us for the last time somewhere in a cafe or on a walk and that will be the last vanishing trace of our existence. Perhaps then it’s too long.

To Tom's point about "junk" as well: I have started significantly loosening up what I put on this Flickr in the last 6 months. I have a second Flickr I would usually dump stuff to, and then sometimes stuff would filter to here. I had a young photo friend ask me "which is your main flickr". It seemed rather obvious to me, and when I said "this one" he said "oh, the other one is better" which I found really surprising. He just thought there was way more to look at, and he liked the way the other "felt", I posted stuff that generates more of an "emotional" response typically, personal and often intimate photos, photos I "like" but didn't think were technically strong etc... It definitely made me start reevaluating and asking myself "what am I doing, why am i doing it and who is it for"

I am considering getting my website going again for a place to have a super tight edit, that way no one will ever see it hahaha.

Another thing that has inspired me, is a friend that still shoots film will create a dump of 25-35 photos every time he processes and scans. He tries to sequence with what he has from his most recent batch. I have been doing some of this although not based around my most recent photos, and it is often a bit trite with the connections I make, but the thing that caught my interest the most is when I look at his photostream on a BIG monitor and can see all the photos (big enough that they're still an acceptable viewing size) as if they were up on a wall, and the "vibe" of his stream is so good and consistent even if all of the individual images are not bangers, so I have been working from that angle a bit now. Trying to see what things look like when I look at a 3x3 grid of them

Great discussion. One thing I've noticed that that "failed shots" can become interesting with time and emotional distance. During a shoot, I'm often trying to get a particular look or a particular shot, and I can't get it. When I look at the photos right afterwards I think, "crap, that's not what I wanted" and miss the fact that, objectively, it's a great photo. But I keep them in my hard drive.

Years later I'll find photos in my Lr catalogue that I hadn't flagged as picks and think "ooh, that's a great picture!" I've long forgotten what I was trying to achieve at the moment, so I'm just looking at the image objectively. I often find myself wondering "huh, how come I never noticed this one?"

When I'm out walking around snapping off a bunch of exposures, I'll know right at the time if I got a 'hit'. If I'm lucky, I might get one or two of those in a day. When I get home and download everything, I'll look at all of them, but I already know the ones I'm going to focus on in terms of processing.

A month or two later, I'd rather go out again, looking for another hit, instead of spending my time going through old images that I rejected the first time. Maybe I'll miss a couple of usable frames, but by then, I'm more interested in trying for something new.

Am I too emotionally 'close' to the images, right after I've taken them? Who knows? Probably. But that emotional closeness is part of the appeal for me. A successful image, imo, is a synthesis of the photographer and the visual environment. Within it exists the yin and yang of the subjective and the objective. Each photographer's reaction to the visual environment is unique, and the acceptance - no, the welcoming of that emotional reaction in the editing process, is what allows a photographer to create a distinct body of work. A body of work imbued with the character of the image-maker.

Thomas_H_foto: From looking at your stream it seems like you haven't posted a photograph since mid-2024, so it kind of begs the question: What have you been doing with your photos for the last year and a half if not sitting on them to look at and/or post later?

The last photos I posted were October 2025, and before that, August 2025. For various reasons, I haven't been able to get out much with the camera lately. With a little luck, maybe I'll be able to get out over the Christmas break

Ok, tbh kind of hard to wade through all the AI slop to find actual photographs.

Poagao:

If I wanted to do what's being discussed in this thread and sift through old photographic images, I have a 40-year catalogue to choose from. I choose not to, for the reasons given in the post above.

I can't even look a your photos anymore because of the AI slop. I guess that's who you are or whatever but imo it does your actual photography a tremendous disservice.

We seem to be veering off-topic, but...whatever.

When I got my first camera worthy of the name, it was a film SLR because...well, because it was 1982, and that's all there was. Digital cameras weren't commercially available.

Fast-forward 20 years to when digital started becoming widely available at the turn of the century - and the new technology was met with sneering condescension from a lot of photographers.

I often wonder: 20 years later, how many of them made the switch?

So here we are: another new technology, another round of sneering condescension. It would be interesting to put a pin in it, revisit the issue in 20 years, and see if the sneering condescenders are singing a different tune

Thomas_H_foto:

That's clearly a false equivalency. I got my first camera around the same time as you, and have been photographing ever since, gradually making the switch to digital in the early 2000s. The difference between photographing with my Pentax K1000 and what I use now is that the images of reality that I have witnessed, observed, composed and photographed are merely stored in a different fashion.

The most generous interpretation of AI-generated imagery IMHO would be hiring a hack artist for a pittance, telling them what you want them to make, and them stealing a bunch of similar work to copy and crib together an image for you, except it's an algorithm rather than an actual hack artist.

Yeah the conversation is definitely veering but agreed, major false equivalency. One is a technological advancement in camera technology and storage and the other is a technological advancement in computational power, that some use to prompt a computer to render images they have described to it. In 20 years if everyone has adopted AI representations of the world rather than going outside, I'd rather just opt out of that world.

I do however wish I had the super power of knowing every time I pressed that button whether it was a success or a failure though. It sure would save me a lot of time, mental processing power (maybe I can just offload this to AI?) and anguish, and I might actually finally be able to answer the question of what the hell I am even doing in the first place. Someday maybe I'll be a real photographer... or something.

I started taking photos around the same time give or take a few years. I still make analog photos. Imnot a luddite, I use my phone for IG but would never post those in a photography forum. AI is theft. Congrats to the early adaptors, you can take pride in being part of the downfall of the arts.

" the downfall of the arts. "

Thomas_H_foto:

It would be a funny reference if it wasn't for the fact that we already are seeing pretty significant issues that the technology poses that if left unchecked actually are worse than the sky falling; at least in that case I imagine we'd be instantly crushed to death or something and not have to worry about the slow decline and "enshitification" along the way.

This also just deflects from addressing those that posited the previous false equivalency. First AI is being compared to digital cameras and now people are overreacting as they state why AI is garbage. What are we going to land on to justify using it to prompt crappy "art"?

the problem with AI isn't that it is "crappy" art, the problem is it is a substitute for art that is at it's current level good enough for most casual viewers. I mean the real problem with AI in a broader sense is much much worse vis a vie journalism, politics, etc. But from an arts perspective I honestly don't think I am being alarmist.

To paraphrase, "News of the demise of the arts is greatly exaggerated."

The way I see it, the 'human' arts will be relatively safer from AI than a lot of other things in society. So long as there are people with a desire to create art in the traditional way, and there is an audience that wants or is receptive to it, there's no reason why it won't continue. Or even without an audience: a lot of creative people create art for their own satisfaction and fulfilment, and don't really care about an audience.

Digital photography provides a good analogy. Apparently nowadays, digital cameras make up something more than 95% of sales. But film cameras continue to be made, people such as yourself continue to use them, and a lot of people continue to enjoy looking at analog photography. The big difference is that whereas before, film was used for all types of photography, nowadays it's pretty much the preserve of artistic creation.

Speaking of photography, I believe a lot of what people regularly use it for, will also be safe. Most people aren't using photography like we do, to create art. Most people use their cameras and especially their phone cameras, to record memories. It's photos of trips, of the new baby, weddings, meals, parties, selfies at the beach/mall/everywhere etc. AI isn't useful for that. It can produce images of all those types of events: but they won't be images of your event. People want a record of what they saw, did, and experienced. Real photography gives them that.

What won't be safe, is commercial photography. I don't know how aware people are of it, but a lot of the images in those annoying pop-up ads are AI-produced, and that's only going to get bigger.

I became an 'early adaptor' as you describe it, for a number of reasons. One was pure curiosity. Also, I figured that before I decided how afraid or angry I should be about AI, it might be useful to learn something about it, learn what it can and can't do. Also, the proliferation of AI is an inevitability, and it made sense to me to become conversant with the concepts, in order to have a better understanding of it as it grows.

One thing I've got from experimenting with it, is an eye for spotting it elsewhere. That's why I say people might be surprised by how much is out there in the commercial image-making world.

But I don't see this as an either-or thing. I'll continue to experiment with AI image-making for as long as it still interests me. But I have no intention on giving up photography. I still throw the Leica in the bag when when I'm headed to a photographic-target-rich environment, and I've picked up a Ricoh GR since I started playing with Midjourney - and I love the Ricoh. I'm looking forward to utilizing it more in future. And I still have a couple of film cameras in the drawer that I'm hoping to dust off and use again.

Photography's been part of my life for 40+ years; I have not plans to abandon it now. But that's not going to stop me from trying new things when they come along.

I could pick apart that argument point by point if I had the time and inclination...However,

"What won't be safe, is commercial photography. I don't know how aware people are of it, but a lot of the images in those annoying pop-up ads are AI-produced, and that's only going to get bigger"

is the whole thing in a nutshell. Without commercial photography or more broadly commercial art, who will teach it? Within a generation there will be little or no formal art education. Why would there be? College is expensive. Take away the ability to generate revenue and it will die.

The art education I received at university explored topics like Japanese painting and wood block prints, Der Blaue Reiter, Abstract Expressionism, etc. I don't play an instrument, so I was restricted to a couple of music history survey courses. English was more hands-on: creative writing, poetry etc.

I did it out of interest. Many people do it for the same reason.

I can't imagine why that would change. So long as there is interest, teachers will teach it, and students will fill the lecture hall seats. English, Music and Art Departments aren't going away any time soon.

Your original prediction was the AI-induced downfall of 'The Arts'. The Arts, is broader than photography, but I focused on that in my post above, since it's the thing we're all familiar with here.

But the Arts encompasses classical music, dance, sculpture, painting etc.

We may just have to agree to disagree - as we usually do at the end of these discussions. Like I said: let's put a pin in it, and see if, in 20 years, there are still people using film cameras, making oil paintings, sending their children to ballet class, and attending live symphony performances of the classics.

That is, unless Skynet becomes aware sometime between now and then. : )

justinsdisgustin:

Fully agree on the ramifications of journalism, politics etc... being far more consequential ultimately.

I think I am using the word "prompt" instead of "make" (with the addition of crappy) as a stand in for some of what you're describing. Removing the human element of the process is the problem for me. It's like the "creator" is actually just someone "commissioning" a work they describe to the "real" artist (AI), and then putting their name on it. Which is one of the many forms of theft that I think the technology engages in.

This doesn't even begin to address that I do think it usually produces actual shit though.

Thomas_H_foto:

"People want a record of what they saw, did, and experienced. Real photography gives them that."

I actually think this highlights another societal ill. Increasingly I think people don't care about their experience, but rather being able to convey an experience other people think they had. Inducing FOMO in others is such a major part of "the culture" at this time, it's why influencer's exist.

I agree that the vast majority of people seem to be more interested in presenting themselves in the most "interesting" way possible these days, thus the attraction of what amounts to a digital service to provide that in a simple, easy, accessible fashion, i.e. AI image generation. And from this point it will just be a race between the tech seeming "real" enough to fool a sufficient amount of people that this stuff in any way represents an actual person, and societal awareness that AI blanketing use cases in this fashion to the point that nothing, including reality, will be seen as real.

Then again, I never really thought that the vast majority of people were ever really into photography; it's always been a small subset of society; the illusion of it being massively popular has come largely from various waves of groups using it to garner personal attention, e.g. tech adopters and influencers.

And now that those needs can seemingly be fulfilled without any actual attention being paid to the world, I suspect that the number of actual photographers will return to the relatively small number it's mostly been at since the invention of the medium.

To his credit, I don't think that Thomas_H_foto is laboring under the illusion that he is actually creating anything, much less photography, with the prompt results currently dominating his stream, though I still maintain that, if he wants anyone to be able to view his photography, he should create a separate account for it...perhaps Thomas_H_Midjourney or something.

kyleisdasai:
"Removing the human element of the process is the problem for me. It's like the "creator" is actually just someone "commissioning" a work they describe to the "real" artist (AI), and then putting their name on it. Which is one of the many forms of theft that I think the technology engages in."

Except the human element is nt removed just hidden. And the "Real" artist is a hack stealing without credit from actual human creators. Its like if you hire an artist to make an image say for a book cover and instead of creating the image he steals from various sources and pac=tches something together for you.

"...Collage is a time honored art form that utilizes pre-existing materials, including artwork and photographs. Often the materials will be copyrighted. So your unauthorized use of those materials would be copyright infringement unless your collage qualifies as fair use. Unfortunately, there is no legal rule on whether collage as a category would be fair use. It will depend in each case on an evaluation of the four fair use factors with respect to the particular collage.

For most collages, Factor (1), purpose and character of the use, will be the key factor. Typical collages, those that use many different materials juxtaposed in ways that create new visuals and meanings, will be considered transformative works. A work is “transformative” when the copyrighted material is “transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understanding.” In contrast, a work is not transformative if it merely uses the copyrighted material in the same way or with the same effect as the original work. For example, in one recent case, the defendant published “idea books” for scrapbooking. Some of the sample scrapbook pages used the plaintiff’s stickers combined with other decorative materials. The court found that this was not transformative. The stickers were used in the defendant’s books “to create a pictorial representation in which the stickers would not lose their individual identities.” Also, the plaintiff itself marketed the stickers for scrapbook use and published its own idea books, which also used the stickers as part of decorative collages.

Another aspect of Factor (1) is whether the new work is commercial. “Commercial” does not merely mean that you make money from your work. Generally, works of fine art are not considered commercial even if they sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Courts are more likely to consider artwork commercial if it is sold as decoration on merchandise, such as mugs, trivets or t-shirts. In that case it looks more like you are using the artwork to sell consumer merchandise, rather than selling the artwork itself. However, the courts are not consistent in this approach. Some courts have held that sales of fine art prints are commercial. Others have found that sales of merchandise by museum gift shops are not commercial.

Under Factor (2), the nature of the original work, the courts would look at whether the copyrighted material you’ve used in the collage is more factual or newsworthy in nature, rather than highly creative. There is more leeway to use materials like news photographs, for example, than a highly stylized illustration. News photographs are usually included because of the factual content of the photograph rather than to exploit the artistic authorship protected by the copyright. In your example, the wrapping paper would fall on the other end of this scale. The wrapping paper design is a purely creative form of art, and your collage is using it to exploit that aesthetic effect.

Under Factor (3), the court will look at how much of the original work was used in your collage. For most collages, this factor should weigh in favor of fair use. However, it could be problematic if the main focus of your collage is one copyrighted work, e.g., a central image to which a decorative border has been added, or if the collage uses the entire work rather than just a portion. For example, a recent case considered a collage comprised only of a distinctive photograph reproduced in its entirety with an added humorous caption. The court assumed (without directly addressing the copyright claim), that the collage would have violated the photographer’s copyright if the photographer had complied with certain copyright procedures. In the sticker case, the defendant reproduced the sticker images in their entirety. In your example, given the repeat nature of wrapping paper art, you may have used the entire work.

Finally, courts will consider Factor (4), whether the new use affects the potential market for the original work. For most collages, this factor will weigh in favor of fair use, because your artwork will not be displacing the market for the original materials. For example, suppose a collage uses a newspaper photo of a current event. Using that collage on greeting cards probably would not compete with the licensing market for the photograph. In your example, however, the wrapping paper company would have a good argument that greeting cards are within its own potential market for its wrapping paper art.

While all of these factors should be considered, the courts are clear that whether the new work is transformative is the most important. The more transformative a work is, the less significant the other factors will be. Indeed, works have been held to be fair use even when all three other factors technically weigh against it.

To summarize, collages that have more of the following characteristics are more likely to qualify as fair use:

The collage incorporates many different materials from many different sources.
The materials are juxtaposed or arranged in ways that create new visual and conceptual effects, the more different from the effect of the original materials, the better.
The collage does not feature a copyrighted work as the central focus or dominant image. Only portions of copyrighted materials are used, rather than the entire image.
The collage is a one-of-a-kind piece of fine art, or published in a limited edition of fine art prints.


One final note: in addition to copyright, collage artists should also be aware of potential trademark rights that might be associated with their raw materials. Trademarks are brand names or other symbols that represent the commercial source of products or services. Sometimes visual images can be trademarks, such as Mickey Mouse or the Marlboro cowboys. If you use these in your collages, there may be some risk of trademark infringement. However, trademark law also has exceptions for non-competitive uses. While the analysis is not technically the same, generally it is similar to the copyright concept of fair use. Such uses are the most safe when they are the most transformative and unlikely to compete with the trademark owner’s market."

graphicartistsguild.org/fair-use-or-infringement/

Ok I stand corrected; the illusion-labor is real.

AI image-making is virtual collage. It's a new way of doing collage, using new technology. So the considerations applying to collage will apply to AI.

Before accusing someone of stealing, best to educate yourself on what constitutes 'theft'.

Thomas_H_foto:

The Chicken Little thing is in really poor taste, considering AI has been doing real harm to some peoples' livelihoods.

Thomas_H_foto:

I can't speak to your experience, maybe you're coming from this from a different place. But in my 20s, most of us who were working in the arts had to support ourselves by working in more commercial fields. If those art-adjacent fields get weaker, then it will be that much more difficult for artists to make rent. Most people don't go from college straight to making a decent income as visual artists.

I'm sorry to hear that the manner in which I choose to express myself, does not meet with your approval.

Alex Galt: That's a good point, and why it's helpful to have a more mature perspective on these things.

As for the trope that AI is job-destroying, consider the commonly repeated example of the ATM as a destroyer of bank teller jobs. Analysts at J. P. Morgan pointed to Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that, as the number of ATMs rose some 800 percent over the past four decades, the number of bank tellers employed also increased—albeit by only 20 percent. The effects of AI will likely be similar.

Of course, some jobs will disappear. But as the brilliant MIT economist David Autor has documented, because of the combination of automation and technology changes, more than half of all job categories that existed in the 1940s don’t exist today. The result, however, has not been a 50 percent unemployment rate. Autor recently offered the argument that AI, if “used well . . . can assist with restoring the middle-skill, middle-class heart of the U.S. labor market that has been hollowed out by automation and globalization.”

www.city-journal.org/article/artificial-intelligence-revo...


To paraphrase an ancient aphorism: 'The only constant in life, is change.'

I actually went to that site, which is full of "journalism" funded by the ultra-conservative Manhattan Institute...so not exactly surprised that they'd go all-in on yet another false equivalency.

Did you bother to look up the author? I'm guessing ... not.



"Mark P. Mills is a contributing editor at City Journal, executive director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering, and co-founding partner in Montrose Lane, an energy fund. He was formerly a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.



Mills is author of the book The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s (Encounter Books, 2021), and host of the podcast The Last Optimist. He is also author of Digital Cathedrals (2020), and Work in the Age of Robots (2018). Mills earlier coauthored (with Peter Huber) The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (Basic Books, 2005).



His articles have been published widely, including in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, USA Today, and Real Clear. Mills has appeared as a guest on CNN, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In 2016, Mills was named “Energy Writer of the Year” by the American Energy Society. Earlier, Mills was a technology advisor for Bank of America Securities and coauthor of the Huber-Mills Digital Power Report, a tech investment newsletter. He has testified before Congress numerous times, and briefed state public-service commissions and legislators.

Early in his career, Mills was an experimental physicist and development engineer at Bell Northern Research (Canada’s Bell Labs) and at the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center on microprocessors, fiber optics, missile guidance, earning several patents for his work. He holds a degree in physics from Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada."


....


Try to imagine this mind-bending scenario: that this physicist, engineer, educator, author on energy and technology, and advisor to government, media and industry, has a deeper understanding of the subject than ... the keyboard pundits of Hardcore Street Photography.

What a concept.

I guess there’s no way we can live up to your standards; might be time to look for a group that does.