Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

pjmorley · Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 3302

Or maybe what is it that gives the 'perception' that someone is a good photographer?

I'm not talking about what makes a good photograph and there is a distinction here because anyone can take a good photograph at some point either by design or by chance. The definition of what makes a good photograph is often open to question anyway but that's not the focus of my main question. However, a simple answer could be that taking good photographs is what makes a good photographer but I don't think that is necessarily true.

My basic answer is that the perception of what makes a good photographer is determined by what they don't show.

For example Henri Cartier Bresson is said to have taken over a million images during his lifetime. Ansel Adams is reported to have left behind hundreds of negatives that weren't up to standard.

So here we have two 'great' photographers whose reputation is created and kept intact not by what they show but to a large extent by what they don't show.

Thoughts?

semmickphoto · Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:43 am

Meaning that we only know the greats, after they have passed away?

I think the question can have loads of answers, and there is truth in all of them. I think if you can move people with your photos and are able to express a vision that differentiate you from others you are a good photographer.

kaycee · Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:56 am

My diffenition of a great photographer is...
standing out from the rest, own style

You will know it when you see it....

pjmorley · Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 3302

semmickphoto · Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:07 am

pjmorley · Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 3302

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:42 am

you need to have style unlike any other.

To be like the Jimi Hendrix of guitars or that of the Bruce Lee of Martial Arts.

You need to be unique and able to capture that image unlike anyone else can.

To make people freeze and look at your work and to be able to bring emotion into what they are viewing and make them discuss it and the whats and whys of it.

As Bruce Lee has said.

jhuls · Joined: 02 Jan 2012 Posts: 1058

What makes someone a great photographer many times has nothing to do with abilities. I know a few really great photographers that just do it as a hobby and will probably never be famous but their work is unique and is very high quality. Here is a friend of mine he is from France and does wonderful work but does nothing to promote himself or his photography he gets enjoyment just from entering a few contests here and there:
http://www.dpchallenge.com/profile.php?USER_ID=113156

On the other hand I have seen threads in forums of supposedly great photographers that I thought must have only achieved greatness because of knowing the right people and being able to promote themselves. Their work really isn't unique or high quality but somehow they have made others believe it.

pjmorley · Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 3302

libyphoto · Joined: 08 Jun 2009 Posts: 799 Location: Oz

PJ - Malcolmson is definitely more my style. This is the kind of photographic art that belongs in a coffee table book, mainly because it won't sell very well as wall art (except maybe for restaurants and etc).

I have been selling my black and whites in my gallery for 4 years now, and although these types of shots are my personal favorites, the average customer has little use for them - but the collection does sell in book form.

The average art-seeking customer looks less for that which makes a statement and more for that which leads them on a journey. For example, my "Path" images easily out-sell any others. The "path" can be an actual path, or a river, or a street, or a sidewalk and etc. - preferably one that wends away and leaves the viewer wondering what is around the bend. Basically, they want to be taken on a "journey of discovery." Look at most any Thomas Kinkade painting and you will understand.

Back in the day of "merit hunting" by trying to please judges at PPA with new and innovative stuff, I soon realized the "GREEN Merits" (i.e. Dollar Bills) of the customer were the merits to pursue. Many of those photographers that were hailed as "Great" because their merit work was so awesome, soon found they couldn't get the same success with their portrait customers. They could please some boorish high-brows, but they couldn't cut it where it counted.

Moral: Be "great" among your customers.

This is what makes a great (i.e. successful) photographer.

thinglass · Joined: 14 Dec 2009 Posts: 740 Location: Wessex

Personally, I've always been drawn to those photographers who can show me what they saw as opposed to showing me what they can do.

Therefore, a good photographer IMHO is able to tell a story, engage my emotions and force me to ask questions of myself or the world we live in - which is why I'm drawn to documentary/photojournalism 'togs and find most commercial work mere frippery in comparison.

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: Evolving

It's a good question. I think there are different kinds of "great". There are those who are great because of their technique, either with a camera and lights or in the darkroom; there are those who are great because they take the trouble to be in the right place at the critical moment; there are those who are great because they have the right friends and the right promotional skills; there are those who are great because of their ability to see what the camera will create; there are those who are great because the right members of the "in-crowd" decide to say they are; there are those who are great because they were innovative; there are those who are great because their personalities enable them to connect with their subjects.

You really can't put a portrait photographer and a war photographer or a landscape photographer or a nature photographer in the same box. A portrait photographer needs to connect with his subject and have excellent lighting and compositional skills; a war photographer needs to have a quick eye and to be in the right place at a certain time; a landscape photographer needs patience and the ability to recognise how the elements of a scene can be made to work harmonously in the frame; a nature photographer must have a deep understanding of the behaviour of his subjects and a great deal of patience.

If you look at Snowflake Bentley or Karl Blossfeldt, they both achieved fame by meticulously recording natural forms as nobody had done before and few if any have done since. They worked with the technical proficiency of a laboratory scientist ... were they "great photographers"?

Are the top ten microstock photographers great, since they command huge salaries, or are they just technicians applying a formula? I suspect the decision on that one depends on whether you judge greatness by the popularity of their output or by its originatlity or lack thereof.

A TV programme on great photographers included a guy who took tedious photos of US filling stations back in the 1960s. Someone had decided this made him great. I didn't think so. In the end, greatness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 7934 Location: The other Nevada

Take the painter Thomas Kincaid as an example. To the majority of "art" critics, he was a disaster. They took great joy in running down his creations. Yet to many "average" individuals, his work seemed to hit an emotional level unmatched by his contemporaries. As a result, he sold and made millions. So was he "great?" To the average Joe, most would say yes. To the art critic, most would say no. It seems to be a subjective call and depends upon what your individual definition of greatness may be. Making money? Does it or does it not follow conventional wisdom? I'll know it when I see it?

I agree with Paul. I don't think there is one single answer or measure, as there is in so many other professions. It's not how many home runs you hit or how fast you can run. To me, it appears that only history can look back dispassionately and judge whether or not someone deserves to be called great.

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: Evolving

wolfienz · Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:59 am

Those are certainly different pics, suspect the skill is maybe in photoshop as well