Abstract process discussion is less useful than specific project breakdowns. Here's a detailed account of one of the four projects I developed across my year of sustained photography. Process notes about what I was attempting, what changed, what worked, and what didn't.
Specific project: a study of a single Boston neighborhood across four seasons. Approximately 2,400 frames captured; 120 selected for the final project; 85 used in the final selection sequence.
What I started with
Initial premise:
The neighborhood (Beacon Hill) is well-photographed historically and in tourist photography. I wanted to make work that wasn't already obvious.
Initial concept: photograph the neighborhood across seasons, attending to how light, weather, and seasonal change reveal different aspects.
Initial intent: produce a coherent body of work that would communicate the neighborhood beyond tourist-photography clichés.
Initial scope: about 100 final frames covering substantial range of conditions and subjects within the neighborhood.
The starting concept was reasonable. The execution diverged from it substantially as the year progressed.
Month 1-2: walking and observation
The first two months were primarily walking and observing rather than producing significant work.
What I did:
Walked the neighborhood's streets systematically. Mapped the area mentally.
Identified specific blocks, corners, and views that interested me preliminarily.
Photographed loosely without specific project framing. Approximately 600 frames across the two months.
Reviewed work weekly. Most was unimpressive at this stage.
What I learned:
The obvious tourist shots were obviously tourist shots. They wouldn't be the work.
Specific corners and views were photographically interesting in ways the postcards don't show.
Time of day mattered enormously. Mid-day produced uninteresting flat light; early morning and late afternoon produced specific qualities.
Specific weather conditions transformed familiar scenes substantially. Light snow on cobblestone streets, fog through narrow alleys, specific late-afternoon golden light.
The early frames were largely unusable in the final project. They were necessary for the learning the project required.
Month 3-4: focused project shooting begins
By month three I had enough orientation to begin focused project shooting.
What changed:
I returned to specific corners and views deliberately rather than randomly walking. Repeated attention to specific locations.
I tracked specific weather and light conditions and shot specifically when they occurred.
I began producing keepers — frames that would survive editing into the final project.
Approximately 700 frames captured across these months; about 25 keepers emerged from the work.
What I learned:
Some specific views worked across multiple visits. Specific corners had photographic depth that single visits couldn't reveal.
Some specific views I'd initially identified didn't work despite multiple attempts. I had been wrong about their potential.
New views I hadn't initially identified emerged through repeated walking. Substantial subjects revealed themselves only through accumulated visits.
Weather-condition-specific shooting produced some of the strongest work. Specific conditions transformed scenes in ways that no time-of-day variation alone could.
Month 5-7: spring conditions and project deepening
Spring brought substantially different photographic conditions.
What changed:
Specific locations looked completely different in spring than in winter. Some that had been photographically interesting in winter became less so. Some that had been bare became substantially more interesting.
Light direction shifted as the sun's position changed. Specific morning corners that had been in shadow became sun-lit. Specific evening views shifted similarly.
Activity patterns in the neighborhood changed. Outdoor café seating, garden activity, foot traffic patterns all shifted.
Approximately 600 frames in this period; about 30 keepers emerged.
What I learned:
The seasonal variation was the project. Same locations across seasons produced something more substantial than any single-season work would.
Specific locations needed photographing in multiple seasons. Some locations were definitively better in one season; some had different but equal interest across seasons; some changed character substantially.
The project structure that had been intuitive at start crystallized: pair frames across seasons of the same locations to show what changed and what stayed.
Month 8-10: summer and the project's most difficult period
Summer produced the most difficult period of the project.
What changed:
Light was substantially harsher. Mid-day shooting was effectively impossible photographically.
The neighborhood's tourist activity peaked. Photographs included substantially more visible tourists.
Some specific locations that had worked across other seasons didn't work in summer.
I shot less. Approximately 400 frames across these three months; only about 15 keepers.
What I learned:
Some seasons produce more for specific projects than others. The neighborhood project had less summer than other seasons.
Tourist visibility was a problem to solve rather than a defect of the location. I learned to shoot at hours when tourists were absent (very early, very late) or to incorporate tourists deliberately when they were present.
Project momentum can dip. The summer slow period was concerning at the time but turned out to be normal project rhythm rather than failure.
Some weather conditions specific to summer (substantial humidity, specific late-summer light, brief storms) produced specific work the project needed.
Month 11-12: fall and project completion
Fall produced a substantial concentration of project work and brought it to completion.
What changed:
Fall light is photographically extraordinary in Boston. Specific qualities of late-afternoon October and November light transformed familiar scenes.
Foliage in the neighborhood's gardens added specific elements that other seasons didn't have.
I shot heavily, knowing the project was approaching its conclusion.
Approximately 700 frames in these two months; about 50 keepers — the most productive period of the project.
What I learned:
Some seasons produce disproportionately. Fall in Boston is photographically exceptional in ways the other seasons aren't.
Approaching project completion concentrates attention. The deadline (self-imposed) sharpened the work.
Specific late-project additions reshaped the project. Frames captured in months 11-12 became central to the final selection.
The project's arc became visible. The work's shape emerged through completion in ways that were obscure at start.
The selection and sequencing process
After the year of shooting, I spent approximately six weeks selecting and sequencing.
What the selection process involved:
Initial pass: from approximately 2,400 frames captured, identified 350 candidates. About 6 weeks of evening sessions.
Second pass: from 350 candidates, selected 200 stronger candidates. About 2 weeks.
Third pass: from 200, selected 120 final-quality frames.
Fourth pass: from 120, sequenced 85 for the final project. The 35 that didn't make sequencing were strong frames that didn't fit the larger arc.
The selection process produced learning beyond the project. My selection standards rose substantially across the editing process.
The sequencing decisions
Sequencing the 85 frames involved specific decisions:
Project structure: organized by location-pair across seasons rather than chronologically. Specific locations show together at different times of year.
Within-location ordering: sometimes seasonal sequence (winter through fall), sometimes other ordering when seasonal sequence didn't produce the strongest sequence.
Between-location ordering: aimed for variation in mood, light, subject across the project rather than grouping similar locations together.
Opening and closing decisions: specific frames chosen for project opening and closing positions. The first and last frames matter disproportionately for how the project reads.
Internal pacing: balanced quieter moments with stronger images. All-stronger sequences are exhausting; all-quieter sequences fade.
The sequencing decisions took as long as the late-stage selection. The final project depended substantially on sequencing rather than just frame quality.
What went wrong
Honest accounting of what didn't work:
Some specific locations I expected to work didn't. Initial site identification was partially wrong.
Several technical issues affected specific frames. Camera settings errors, focus problems, exposure mistakes lost some specific moments.
Summer was too slow. The pace dip in months 8-10 was concerning. In retrospect it was normal but at the time felt like project failure.
Initial project framing was too ambitious. I started thinking I would cover more of the neighborhood than I actually photographed seriously. The narrowing happened through doing rather than through planning.
I missed some specific moments. Specific weather conditions or light moments occurred when I wasn't available to photograph them.
The wrongs were normal project wrongs rather than failures. Every project has them.
What went right
What worked:
The sustained engagement model worked. Same neighborhood across seasons produced what I'd hoped — substantial accumulated knowledge that single-visit work couldn't produce.
The location-pair structure emerged from doing. The structure I ended with was better than the structure I would have planned.
Specific weather-condition shooting produced strong frames. The patience to wait for specific conditions paid back substantially.
The selection and sequencing process produced a better project than rushed selection would have. The six weeks of editing matter as much as the year of shooting.
The project taught broader photographic lessons. Beyond the neighborhood project itself, the year produced practice patterns I now use across other work.
What I learned about project work
The project taught broader things about how project work happens:
Projects emerge through doing more than through planning. Initial concepts get revised substantially.
Sustained engagement is necessary for substantive project work. Brief campaigns rarely produce comparable depth.
The selection and sequencing matter substantially. Final projects depend on editing as much as on capture.
Project momentum has rhythms. Slower periods aren't necessarily problems; they may be normal project pacing.
Project completion concentrates attention. Self-imposed deadlines focus the work in ways open-ended work doesn't.
How the project compares to other approaches
If I had approached the same neighborhood differently:
Single-visit photography: Would have produced familiar tourist-style work. The depth of the seasonal project wouldn't have emerged.
Single-season focus: Could have worked but would have missed the seasonal variation that became the project's structure.
Wider geographic scope: Would have produced shallower coverage of more area rather than deeper coverage of one neighborhood. The trade-off was deliberate; depth won.
Different subject focus within the neighborhood: Could have focused on specific architectural features or specific cultural patterns. The chosen approach (general visual study across seasons) produced what I wanted.
The choice of sustained-neighborhood-across-seasons proved right for the project. Other choices would have produced different (not necessarily worse) projects.
The honest takeaway
Project work in photography is substantially more demanding than scattered shooting.
It's also substantially more rewarding for what it produces.
The specific neighborhood project required sustained engagement across seasons, careful editing, and substantial sequencing decisions. The result is more substantial than any single-visit work would have produced.
For photographers considering project work: the sustained engagement is necessary; the editing and sequencing matter substantially; project rhythms include slow periods that aren't necessarily problems.
The process is demanding. The results justify the effort for what project work produces.
That's the honest case for project-based photography, illustrated through one specific project. Other projects across the year had similar arcs with specific differences. The general pattern recurs across project work.
If you're considering trying it: the experience above is roughly what to expect.
