Today I am trying to figure out what I'm actually good at. If you would have asked me last week I would have said I was a pretty decent photographer, but today I'm not so sure.
I submitted 10 photos to Shutterstock and got rejected on all 10 of them. On your first submission you must submit exactly 10 photos and they must accept 7 of the 10 in order for you to be 'taken on' as a photographer. Otherwise they disable your ability to upload for 3 months and they ask you to 'work on your skills' and try again.
Well, I suppose I can be comforted by the fact that 7 of them were rejected due to visible noise on the full size version. I didn't check for that. I just assumed they'd be okay if they looked good at normal viewing size. WRONG. They have to be perfect.
I didn't take them with stock photography in mind, but as an artistic outlet, so of course they aren't perfect. Plus I tend to sharpen too much. I HAVE to ease up on that. At first I was rather upset by their rejection, but with a cooler head and some reading in their forums it's clear that they just want a certain type and quality for their customers so they will continue to shop for photos with them and those customers can be confident that they won't have to waste time wading through junk or sub-par images, but will only be presented with the highest quality images. That makes sense. And again, those photos were not taken with a perfectionists microscope in mind, and frankly they just aren't saleable stock photographs. I get that now.
Six months ago I would have deleted my account and burned that bridge as well, and just been pissed off with a "how dare they" attitude. A year ago I would have curled into a ball and wept softly into a pillow while I vowed to never take another photograph. Today, I see it from a business perspective, just as they intend it, and with no hard feelings and an attitude of "something to learn from" I maturely accept it, and now have to decide if I wish to attempt to take such photographs that will fit their criteria. Maybe. Either way I am pleased with myself for being mature enough to accept the rejection and not take it personally. The bastards.
I've read a million times in articles and books about both writing and photography that you're going to get rejected 1000 times, and it doesn't mean that you suck, it just means that your work is not what that particular entity is looking for. It's easy to nod in agreement and say "of course" to yourself, but it's only when it happens to you that you can actually see if you can handle it or not.
It looks like I can.
So back to "What DO I do well?" --
I think many of my photographs are above average and have artistic merit. A few may even be saleable in a non-commercial environment. I think I have taken some great portraits. I think that's where my strong point is, and that's definitely not the kind of thing that is of interest to anyone but the photographee.
I think I used to have an above average ability to write prose. I'm so out of practice that it would take me a year of very hard work to get back to a level where something I write could be published by a magazine or newspaper, but the raw ability is still there. I think.
With those two in mind, perhaps journalism was my forte. Too late now.
What else?
Nothing really. I'm a "Jack of all Trades", and master of none. I can play the guitar a little bit, but not well enough that someone would stop me and say "HEY you're pretty good!"
I can do a lot of things a little bit. Enough to show a past, or passing interest, but there's nothing I'm really great at.
This disturbs me.
More all the time.
I have to figure it out.