| Author |
Message |
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4189
Location: Evolving
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:09 am
|  |
| wolfienz wrote: | | Those are certainly different pics, suspect the skill is maybe in photoshop as well |
Yes, but then processing skills have always been very important for leading photographers. When they decide who today's masters are you can bet your bottom dollar they will be people who process like mad in Photoshop. With digital, the line between being a photographer and being a graphic designer has become thorougly blurred.
An image can have enormous impact because of the subject matter but another with a less compelling subject can succeed precisely because it is contrary to our expectations. Going back to Lartigue again, the shot of the racing car with the oval wheel and all the spectators and lampposts leaning over (due to the effect of the moving slit in a focal plane shutter) makes it surreal; if you corrected that then the picture would be a failure. |
|
mavrick
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2847
Location: colorado
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:13 pm
| |
...if the question is more about the person as photographer, than person as artist or image creator, then what makes them great is within themself as a person. this is can be factors which include but are not limited to: ego, skill, perseverance, dedication, and lastly, who you know.
what makes anyone great is an open ended discussion, but after a week in the white world of glaciers and peaks, it is a fun thread to read. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3302
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:54 pm
| |
| mavrick wrote: | ...if the question is more about the person as photographer, than person as artist or image creator, then what makes them great is within themself as a person. this is can be factors which include but are not limited to: ego, skill, perseverance, dedication, and lastly, who you know.
what makes anyone great is an open ended discussion, but after a week in the white world of glaciers and peaks, it is a fun thread to read. |
I think in your last sentence you have unintentionally mentioned another attribute and that is to go the extra mile. I know it's easier to do nowadays but in times past, a trip to the glaciers for photos might have been a commitment of several months, enduring extreme conditions, unwieldy kit and a dangerous occupation.
In that respect, the resulting photos had a value that was more than artistic. Perhaps a value that embodied the human spirit for adventure and a quest for knowledge and those values would be embedded in those photos regardless of their artistic or technical merit.
Those pioneers might still be regarded as great. Although you may argue that they aren't great photographers but the resulting photos are evidence of greatness. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4189
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:16 pm
| |
Something else that I think influences our perception of the quality of a photographer - though it is really nothing to do with it - is the subject. Street or news photography from the 30s, 40s or even the 70s really can transport us to a world that is as mysterious as one from the Star Trek script. Whether it is Nazi leaders, Summer of Love hippies, Isambard Kingdom Brunel in front of the giant anchor chain of his ship or gangsters in 30s Chicago, the picture carries the message that this was a real world but one that is totally different from our own and one that has become unattainable. Opening a window on the past creates a mystique that adds glamour to the photographer, as we share his or her engagement with what was visible through the lens perhaps 100 summers ago. |
|
dustine
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 925
Location: You're in my viewfinder...
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:44 pm
| |
Anyone who is great at anything at some time in their life had crappy work and they'd be lying if they said they didn't. I don't think exposing such works would make a hill of beans difference to their being great. Fortune Cookie Wisdom says that many of the most amazing works of man began by being impossible.
I think two good traits of a great photographer is heart and the desire to continue growing their skills. |
|
mavrick
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2847
Location: colorado
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:20 am
| |
| Quote: | | I think two good traits of a great photographer is heart and the desire to continue growing their skills. |
...yes dustine, the crucial difference between good and great would be "heart" - or as the spanish call it Corazon the passion to continue the path, the calling.
i may have inadvertantly replaced good with great, because there are many millions of good photographers who posess either the business acumen to be successful, but making money is not indicative of greatness. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3302
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:14 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | Something else that I think influences our perception of the quality of a photographer - though it is really nothing to do with it - is the subject. Street or news photography from the 30s, 40s or even the 70s really can transport us to a world that is as mysterious as one from the Star Trek script. Whether it is Nazi leaders, Summer of Love hippies, Isambard Kingdom Brunel in front of the giant anchor chain of his ship or gangsters in 30s Chicago, the picture carries the message that this was a real world but one that is totally different from our own and one that has become unattainable. Opening a window on the past creates a mystique that adds glamour to the photographer, as we share his or her engagement with what was visible through the lens perhaps 100 summers ago. |
That's an interesting observation and perhaps the photos we don't give a second glance to today will have the same effect in another 100 years.
I wonder what future historians will make of the early 21st century based on the abundance of images on Flickr, Facebook, Photobucket etc? |
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:53 am
| |
You may have all the heart, love, desire, motivation etc. to grow and develop your skills, but if your photos are not making the cut, you are not a great photographer imo. Otherwise I would be a great photographer, and I am certainly not ;-) |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4189
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:59 am
| |
Microstock really doesn't develop your skills in the right direction. Being able to do the technical stuff is important but being handcuffed to it as the "only right way" of shooting is definitely not boosting creativity. One of the reasons I mess about with film a lot is that the pressure to get a good stock photo to make some money vanishes the moment I pick up a film camera. I'm free to look at things in a different way because I know that the chance of anything passing inspection are remote. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4189
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:01 am
| |
| pjmorley wrote: |
I wonder what future historians will make of the early 21st century based on the abundance of images on Flickr, Facebook, Photobucket etc? |
I wonder if any of those images will still exist in 50 years, or will the sites have closed and all the data been lost. |
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:16 am
| |
I am not sure if you are replying to my post Paul, but when I said making the cut, I was speaking in general. Most of my photos are not for stock photography. I just do both. But at least due to stock photography, it benefits the technical aspect of the photos not meant for stock. |
|
libyphoto
Joined: 08 Jun 2009
Posts: 799
Location: Oz
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:33 pm
| |
There is a difference though, between someone who TELLS you your photos are great (usually friends and family) and someone (a complete stranger) who actually PAYS you money to display them in their home or business.
The latter is by far the better compliment. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3302
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:57 am
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | pjmorley wrote: |
I wonder what future historians will make of the early 21st century based on the abundance of images on Flickr, Facebook, Photobucket etc? |
I wonder if any of those images will still exist in 50 years, or will the sites have closed and all the data been lost. |
Perhaps there will be a corner of the cloud that holds everything forever. Or at least until we get hit by the next big CME. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3302
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:02 am
| |
| libyphoto wrote: | There is a difference though, between someone who TELLS you your photos are great (usually friends and family) and someone (a complete stranger) who actually PAYS you money to display them in their home or business.
The latter is by far the better compliment. |
Maybe but it depends on how you define great. There are countless Ikea print in nice pine frames and canvases in many homes. I wouldn't consider those great photos.
My wife occasionally buys prints like that as decoration because the colours match something in a room or a blank space needs to be filled. |
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3566
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:03 pm
| |
I did not read all of the posts because I want to write this before I forget it.
The OP asked "What makes a good photographer?"
I wrote this for one of my master's class assignments.
"A good exposure depends on the correlation of three factors, the shutter-speed, f-stop, and the ISO. A person who knows how changing one factor will affect the other two and when to make those changes is a photographer. A thorough understanding of depth of field and composition are necessary for aesthetics and therefore are secondary factors in the act of photographing. A well composed, out of focus, picture will be judged a failure next to a poorly composed, in focus picture." I feel the knowledge of and how to use these five factors makes one a good photographer.
Now to Ansel Adams and others having thousands & thousands of negatives that nobody ever saw. There is a creative process that we all use in photography. Some have more steps than others. In another of my master's class a team of us wrote a book on the creative process. Our process had seven steps, Inception, Research, Idea Generation, Incubation of Ideas, Implementation, Scrutinize, and Produce. Step 3, Idea generation, we also called this prototyping, is actually shooting a picture. The next 4 steps are necessary to being the picture from the camera to its presentation state. Many, I should say most, pictures do not make it through the last 4 steps, especially the 6th step-Scrutinize.
Ansel Adams and all the rest had thousands & thousands of negatives that never got displayed because those negatives did not get through the 6th step. But like all great leaders, these photographers learned from the mistakes they saw in these pictures. Those lessons shaped the iconic images that they did produced.
So what makes a good photographer? Practice, practice . . . practice. |
|
| |
|
Log in
