Going back to fundamentals gets me closer to the quality I want

By David McElroy · August 19, 2019

When I started photography, I was an ignorant 17-year-old who had just fired a photographer on the school newspaper. I was the editor and I knew I wasn’t getting the photos I wanted, so I picked up a camera — for the first time in my life — and started taking photos myself.

The school paper had a cheap Yashika camera that was fully manual. We had nothing but a 50mm lens. I had nobody to teach me. My early pictures were lousy, but I slowly got better.

By the time I was working at a small daily newspaper as a part-time reporter/photographer during college, I was pretty decent. My new camera was mostly manual by today’s standards. It was a Minolta XG-7 which had a light meter and some primitive program modes, but I had to manually set everything. Focus was manual, of course.

The only lens I had was a normal 50mm lens. But I still managed to get some of the best shots of my life, especially after I discovered I had a talent for shooting basketball games.

Lately, I’ve been pushing myself to return to fundamentals of photography (and of some other art forms).

For the last few weeks, I’ve put away my zoom lens (24-240mm) and shot everything with just a standard 50mm lens. I’ve returned to manual focus. I’m not always going fully manual on exposure, but most of what I’m doing is aperture priority. I’m not using anything fully automatic.

And you know what? It’s liberating. I’m doing better work.

This is a photo I just took of Lucy in the back yard right after I got home from dinner. A camera on automatic mode wouldn’t have gotten this picture, because the camera can’t read my mind.

The camera’s auto-focus would have focused lower on her face. Her eyes would have been just a bit blurry. And if I had accepted the camera’s automatic exposure settings, it would have had a greater depth of field. Do you see the way her eyes are in focus and everything else has a creamy blur? That’s from using a narrow depth of field with an aperture of f/1.8 and manually focusing on her eyes.

Because I’m getting back to fundamentals, I got a photo that made me happier, because it feels like a more intimate connection with Lucy — and it helps to portray the joy that makes me call her the World’s Happiest Dog®.

A photo of a dog’s face — even a beautiful dog such as my Lucy — doesn’t mean that much to most people, but it means something to me. It’s not just about her, though. It’s also about me.

It says that I didn’t take shortcuts. It says I am putting in extra work to get the extra 5 percent of quality that most people will never notice. But it’s that tiny bit extra that separates talented people from those who work hard to really use their talent to its fullest.

There’s nothing remarkable here, but it’s just helping me to remember that in order to be the very best at the things I want to do, I have to return to fundamentals. I can’t take shortcuts. I have to put in the extra work. Sometimes, I have to do things the hard way.

For now, it’s just making my heart happier. In time, doing things the right way might make my work good enough that people are willing to pay for it.

I had gotten into a rut and my photos weren’t getting much better. I was basically doing the same things over and over. Suddenly, I’m getting better. I’m working harder. My work isn’t as good as it ought to be. But it’s better.

Whatever you do and wherever you are in life, maybe the same lesson might apply for you. If you’re in a rut or if you’re not growing anymore, maybe you need to get back to the fundamentals of your life.

Break out of your easy patterns. Do things the hard way. Force yourself to give up tricks you might use as shortcuts.

Everything in life has a set of fundamentals — including how we love and live. Breaking out of your mundane habits just might be what you need. It’s working for me.

And isn’t Lucy a beautiful and loving soul? But I’m biased.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts