>>3389136>Lol no, you're the one vehemently clinging to this notion that you must shoot a lot to get good, I'm saying no, you don't.A straw-man argument is an argument where you argue with an indefensible version of your opponent's argument instead of the actual argument he's making.
The argument I am making is, yes, that you must shoot a lot to get good. The straw-man version of it that you're arguing against is that the ONLY thing you need to do to become a good photographer is randomly fire off more frames.
I am NOT saying that just taking more pictures is the only thing you have to do. You also need to look at good pictures, you also need to read up on technique, you also need to go through the pictures you take to determine what works and what doesn't, etc. Just taking more pictures is not enough, which is why that's not my argument.
However, it is required. It's a skill, and literally every skill gets better when you practice it, in the entire skill of human existence.
If you are seriously arguing against that, it means that either:
(a) You have been doing photography enough that you're able to see a change in your skill level over time or
(b) Your photos really haven't gotten better over time; the photos you took when you first got your first camera are exactly as good as the photos you take after having it for years. Regardless of how much you shoot, your photos just never get any better.
There is no other option. And neither of those look good for you.
Hell, you tacitly agreed to my point yourself in
>>3387606. I posited that there's not a difference between good backlighting and bad backlighting and you said:
> an experienced photog is not going to shoot with the sun behind everythingWhat precisely the fuck do you think the phrase "an experienced photographer" means? How exactly the fuck do you think one gains experience?
