(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive\nadvice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue\nthat's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)\n\nWhat should the serious amateur concern himself with?\n\nI guess a simple, individualistic answer could be to do whatever he\npleases. But there are a few who had learned the basics, settled on a\nsatisfying set of equipment, taken their happy snapshots, and are\nseeking an artistic mission (hence, the *serious* designation I pose).\nI oftentimes, unfortunately, see amateurs who seem to imitate\nprofessional or commercial shots, reproducing cliche after cliche,\neventhough they're not bound by the demagoguery of the market. My\npersonal opinion is that amateurs should stay clear of professional or\ncommercial grounds, unless they're planning to turn professional at\nsome near point in time. But, of course, each to their own. I guess\nsome people get some satisfaction from thinking that their shots look\nprofessional or commercial, which would be understandable if it was a\ntechnical mastery that was the point, but disagrees with me when it\nactually is the choice of topics and treatment, as is often the case.\n\nOne of the interesting views I've come across from some on these groups\nis of the amateur being a historical documentarian, taking images for\nposterity, particularly of a certain locale or populace that happens to\nbe his, that may not otherwise be covered.\n\nSo, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,\nand invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?