>>3440463>That is not does not compute with the first statement, curating the shit out of your photos would be having 20-50 great photos from those 500, having 325 just means you have terrible standards and love snapshits.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT, PEOPLE LIKE YOU ACTUALLY EXIST
Assuming you're the same guy as
>>3440461 (still applies regardless)
Then you should learn to get the fuck over yourself and your own preconceptions, alongside your subconscious insistence on sticking to limits that were set in the days of film. The advent of digital has all but nullified saving your film up for the 20 most significant moments. There is no reason to be so selective of one's own work outside of harmful self-critique for an audience that will most likely never see your photos. Presuming you use Flickr, ever had any of your work displayed in Explore? Even if you have, it hardly means anything since there are 10 million other pictures that aren't yours with the same distinction. You'd need 100,000 photos on explore in order to make up just 1%. 10,000 to be in the Top 1000 photographers, if such a distinction even existed. You are nothing but a crab in the same bucket that the rest of us are in.
Because the truth is, you're an anon on an imageboard. The most exciting eras of human history have long since passed, and there is nothing left to document. And even if something did happen that was worth documentation (i.e. World War 3), so many cameras and photographers exist in the world that there's a high chance 100s of people will beat you to the punch and receive recognition before you do. The greatest photographers to have ever lived died so that we could live in an era where just about every detail is perfectly preserved in any photo that we take. The pioneers such as Niépce, Prokudin-Gorskii, Eastman etc. all died many years ago.
