The Bad, Mediocre, Good and Great Photographer

[fjrabon]

The bad photographer blames his equipment.
The mediocre photographer blames his lack of experience.
The good photographer credits his skill.
The great photographer credits the moment.

thoughts?

 

[Derrel]

As small collections of grouped generalizations go, I would say those four generalizations each have at least some merit and basis in reality. Take the last one; there's an old saying that many great photographers have resorted to when specific, fabulous photos have been brought up by biographers or interviewers. They will say of their famous shot, "It was an f/8 and be there moment." Which means, for those who have not heard the expression, that it was more a matter of BEING THERE, where something very interesting was going on, and that they just happened to be the one who was there, and who got the shot.

There are very few easily identifiable "great photographs". One that springs to mind would be the Tinnanmen Square protester versus military tanks photo opportunity. The photo of the guy standing in front of the line of advancing tanks...one single man, against military tanks that could have easily run him over...the image went around the world, instantly, and circulated for months on end. Well...four different professional photojournalists (speaking of the stills shooters) got basically the SAME images....because the image was more about the moment than about the exact photographic specifics. And this moment was great enough that it created an instant, world-wide photographic avalanche.

Tianamen square tankS - Google Search

 

[sm4him]

So what does it mean that on any given day, I may do all four of those things?

 

[fjrabon]

So what does it mean that on any given day, I may do all four of those things?

that like all of us, you're a mix of bad, mediocre, good and great?

 

[Derrel]

The bad photographer blames his equipment.

Most bad photographers have very little training or experience, and not a whole lot of repetitions under their belt. But also, I've noticed, many bad photographers have beginner-level equipment, or old equipment. Today, in the digital age, it's easier to shoot more shots, and review more shot efforts, than it has ever been, with almost instant feedback, but also very good computer slide show playback allows easy,fast sorting/review of images. So, I think people move past the "bad photographer" stage much faster than ever has been the case at any time in history.

I used to sell photo/video gear at a region chain store (13 outlets) and we had a lot of customers who brought their film in for photofinishing. People who had invested more in their equipment were usually more interested or more dedicated to photography than people who had very minimal equipment, or cheap equipment. Whenever a person decided to invest in better equipment, it often seemed to boost their enthusiasm for picture taking. So, maybe some self-selection process is at work? I think so.

I personally have for over 25 years, believed that beginning and intermediate photographers benefit the most from better gear--much more so than experienced shooters do, in a proportional sense. I remember what my first-ever 300mm Nikon lens did for me, and then what my first 300/2.8 lens did for me when I was a photojournalism student with about a decade of photography practice under my belt. Same with my first studio lighting kit with umbrellas, softbox, boom stand, light stands, reflectors...it elevated my entire photography game, a lot. I've given some photo lessons over the past year to people who have consumer lenses, and I bring along pro-level loaner gear that we use, and a high-end Nikon speedlight, in addition to what they own. Something as simple as the 85/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor, and the 70-200 VR, and the 300/4 AF-S, these simple (and yet approach $4,000 worth of gear...) items really help people who do not have a lot of equipment. For the kit-lens-only person, the 85/1.8 brings their first ever taste of really shallow DOF/selective focus work. Without it, they are limited to 55mm at f/5.6....

Again, there is a certain point where, if you have simple, low-spec equipment, if you are a beginner you're going to literally BE frustrated by its limitations. The more experience one has, the easier it is to come back with "something", but for people who have say, an 18-55mm kit zoom, and they go out to shoot say a nighttime high school football game...their gear is going to limit them a good deal compared to say a serious shooter who has a couple of FAST-aperture, fast-focusing lenses.

 

[fjrabon]

The bad photographer blames his equipment.

Most bad photographers have very little training or experience, and not a whole lot of repetitions under their belt. But also, I've noticed, many bad photographers have beginner-level equipment, or old equipment. Today, in the digital age, it's easier to shoot more shots, and review more shot efforts, than it has ever been, with almost instant feedback, but also very good computer slide show playback allows easy,fast sorting/review of images. So, I think people move past the "bad photographer" stage much faster than ever has been the case at any time in history.

I used to sell photo/video gear at a region chain store (13 outlets) and we had a lot of customers who brought their film in for photofinishing. People who had invested more in their equipment were usually more interested or more dedicated to photography than people who had very minimal equipment, or cheap equipment. Whenever a person decided to invest in better equipment, it often seemed to boost their enthusiasm for picture taking. So, maybe some self-selection process is at work? I think so.

I personally have for over 25 years, believed that beginning and intermediate photographers benefit the most from better gear--much more so than experienced shooters do, in a proportional sense. I remember what my first-ever 300mm Nikon lens did for me, and then what my first 300/2.8 lens did for me when I was a photojournalism student with about a decade of photography practice under my belt. Same with my first studio lighting kit with umbrellas, softbox, boom stand, light stands, reflectors...it elevated my entire photography game, a lot. I've given some photo lessons over the past year to people who have consumer lenses, and I bring along pro-level loaner gear that we use, and a high-end Nikon speedlight, in addition to what they own. Something as simple as the 85/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor, and the 70-200 VR, and the 300/4 AF-S, these simple (and yet approach $4,000 worth of gear...) items really help people who do not have a lot of equipment. For the kit-lens-only person, the 85/1.8 brings their first ever taste of really shallow DOF/selective focus work. Without it, they are limited to 55mm at f/5.6....

Again, there is a certain point where, if you have simple, low-spec equipment, if you are a beginner you're going to literally BE frustrated by its limitations. The more experience one has, the easier it is to come back with "something", but for people who have say, an 18-55mm kit zoom, and they go out to shoot say a nighttime high school football game...their gear is going to limit them a good deal compared to say a serious shooter who has a couple of FAST-aperture, fast-focusing lenses.

I mostly agree with that. and my point wasn't completely a put down of bad photographers. To a certain extent it is partially their gear. It's also partially that their gear doesn't inspire them to go out and shoot.

I was just pointing out that bad photographers often are the first to point to their gear. And while there may even be some truth to it, blaming your gear isn't particularly useful. Either do with what you have or buy better, complaining about gear wont make you better, it just gives you an excuse for crappy photography.

Also part of it was to point out the journey a lot of photographers make, from being gear obsessed, to being technique obsessed, to being skill obsessed, to being moment/subject obsessed.

 

[Derrel]

My POV comes from having helped hundreds of people buy new gear, listening to their issues and concerns, and then helping them find the best "fit" for their needs. My experience is that many new photographers/bad photographers, actually own what we might call "bad gear", or "cheap gear" or "beginner gear". When they move up to equipment that has almost no limitations to it, they get a huge,huge boost from it. Not only mentally and psychologically, but in reality. As I said, I think that beginners are the ones who benefit the most, proportionally, from having access to higher-end equipment. The more experienced shooters can make due with less, because they have other skills that they can rely on.

It's been my experience that by the time people reach the "good photographer" level, that they are almost universally using what would be considered more or less state of the industry type gear. The Reuters survey of what lenses were used in 2013 pretty much proved that point; the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L lens was used by more people for more photos than basically, all other lenses combined, around the world. This has been this way for decades, and that's why I agreed, the four genralizations you started with as a premise DO HAVE at least some basis in reality.

 

[sleist]

All generalizations are wrong.

 

[Derrel]

Here's one of the Reuters survey results articles. Lens-wise, 52.9% of the images were shot with the Canon 16-35/2.8-L zoom. Next was the 70-200 with 38.2%. The 24-105, and 24-70, and 100-400mm lenses each had TINY slices of the reminder; yes....the 24-70 was used for only a small fraction of Reuters news photos! f/2.8 was the most commonly-used aperture.

The Most Popular Cameras and Settings for Reuters 2012 Photos of the Year

The same "oligopoly" of cameras used by top-level shooters has existed since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Look at 1940's press scrums....4x5 Graphic after Graphic! In the 1980's Nikon F3 and Canon F1 dominated about 75/25; by 2005, Canon EOS camera dominated. At Reuters in 2012, only TWO lenses took almost all the photos...meaning the top photographers were using, in over 90% of all situations world-wide, just TWO pro-grade zooms; 16-35, or 70-200. Almost everything else is bordering on almost statistically irrelevant...

This is part of the reason that good photographers don't worry about equipment: they almost ALL have access to the top equipment possible. And it has been this way for over a hundred years. The Rolleiflex 2.8, Leica III, Leica M3, Nikon F and F2, Hasselblad 500 C and C/M, Mamiya RB67, Canon EOS 1,Canon 5D, all have come to dominate specific segments of the entire world, each in their own times.

 

[shefjr]

The premise seems fairly legit.

One thing that I wanted to do was confirm that it was me that was bad and not the fault of my gear. So, I made the big purchase of buying the "holy trinity" and a D800. What did I find? Well, I definitely got a new found sense of excitement to use my gear. I also found that I needed to continue to put in the time and practice so that it becomes like second nature. All while keeping an eye opened for great moments to capture. The moments for me are easy to watch for right now because the only thing I am able to photograph, if I'm not working, is my soon to be 1 year old son.

Those are my "thoughts"

 

[Gary A.]

My experience with good gear versus lesser gear is quite different than Derrel. Generally, I've experienced that it doesn't matter what gear a beginner has ... they will basically come back with crap ... it doesn't matter if it is sharp crap or soft crap ... it is still crap. If you give good gear to an experienced photog, their image will improve. The experienced photog will take advantage of better gear.

Granted, there are exceptions, like the frustrations of a beginner trying to shoot sports with slow and short lenses.

As Derrel stated, there is much truth to your opening remarks.

In regards to the Tinnanmen Square image ... photojournalism is about reporting with photographs and not just photography ... it is not about capturing the moment but rather capturing the story. Reporting the story as opposed to capturing the moment requires specific training. (Yes, capturing the story is similar to capturing the moment, but at the end of the day, the photog has to determine which moment best defines the story ... which is why news photogs go through so much film/cards on a fast breaking story.)

 

[gsgary]

The bad photographer blames his equipment.

Most bad photographers have very little training or experience, and not a whole lot of repetitions under their belt. But also, I've noticed, many bad photographers have beginner-level equipment, or old equipment. Today, in the digital age, it's easier to shoot more shots, and review more shot efforts, than it has ever been, with almost instant feedback, but also very good computer slide show playback allows easy,fast sorting/review of images. So, I think people move past the "bad photographer" stage much faster than ever has been the case at any time in history.

I used to sell photo/video gear at a region chain store (13 outlets) and we had a lot of customers who brought their film in for photofinishing. People who had invested more in their equipment were usually more interested or more dedicated to photography than people who had very minimal equipment, or cheap equipment. Whenever a person decided to invest in better equipment, it often seemed to boost their enthusiasm for picture taking. So, maybe some self-selection process is at work? I think so.

I personally have for over 25 years, believed that beginning and intermediate photographers benefit the most from better gear--much more so than experienced shooters do, in a proportional sense. I remember what my first-ever 300mm Nikon lens did for me, and then what my first 300/2.8 lens did for me when I was a photojournalism student with about a decade of photography practice under my belt. Same with my first studio lighting kit with umbrellas, softbox, boom stand, light stands, reflectors...it elevated my entire photography game, a lot. I've given some photo lessons over the past year to people who have consumer lenses, and I bring along pro-level loaner gear that we use, and a high-end Nikon speedlight, in addition to what they own. Something as simple as the 85/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor, and the 70-200 VR, and the 300/4 AF-S, these simple (and yet approach $4,000 worth of gear...) items really help people who do not have a lot of equipment. For the kit-lens-only person, the 85/1.8 brings their first ever taste of really shallow DOF/selective focus work. Without it, they are limited to 55mm at f/5.6....

Again, there is a certain point where, if you have simple, low-spec equipment, if you are a beginner you're going to literally BE frustrated by its limitations. The more experience one has, the easier it is to come back with "something", but for people who have say, an 18-55mm kit zoom, and they go out to shoot say a nighttime high school football game...their gear is going to limit them a good deal compared to say a serious shooter who has a couple of FAST-aperture, fast-focusing lenses.

I mostly agree with that. and my point wasn't completely a put down of bad photographers. To a certain extent it is partially their gear. It's also partially that their gear doesn't inspire them to go out and shoot.

I was just pointing out that bad photographers often are the first to point to their gear. And while there may even be some truth to it, blaming your gear isn't particularly useful. Either do with what you have or buy better, complaining about gear wont make you better, it just gives you an excuse for crappy photography.

Also part of it was to point out the journey a lot of photographers make, from being gear obsessed, to being technique obsessed, to being skill obsessed, to being moment/subject obsessed.

A good tradesmen never blames his tools

 

[Gary A.]

Here's one of the Reuters survey results articles. Lens-wise, 52.9% of the images were shot with the Canon 16-35/2.8-L zoom. Next was the 70-200 with 38.2%. The 24-105, and 24-70, and 100-400mm lenses each had TINY slices of the reminder; yes....the 24-70 was used for only a small fraction of Reuters news photos! f/2.8 was the most commonly-used aperture.

The Most Popular Cameras and Settings for Reuters 2012 Photos of the Year

The same "oligopoly" of cameras used by top-level shooters has existed since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Look at 1940's press scrums....4x5 Graphic after Graphic! In the 1980's Nikon F3 and Canon F1 dominated about 75/25; by 2005, Canon EOS camera dominated. At Reuters in 2012, only TWO lenses took almost all the photos...meaning the top photographers were using, in over 90% of all situations world-wide, just TWO pro-grade zooms; 16-35, or 70-200. Almost everything else is bordering on almost statistically irrelevant...

This is part of the reason that good photographers don't worry about equipment: they almost ALL have access to the top equipment possible. And it has been this way for over a hundred years. The Rolleiflex 2.8, Leica III, Leica M3, Nikon F and F2, Hasselblad 500 C and C/M, Mamiya RB67, Canon EOS 1,Canon 5D, all have come to dominate specific segments of the entire world, each in their own times.

That is so interesting ... that exactly matches how I still shoot, both with lenses and aperture.

 

[e.rose]

The bad photographer blames his equipment.
The mediocre photographer blames his lack of experience.
The good photographer credits his skill.
The great photographer credits the moment.

thoughts?

I don't like it.

I know bad photographers that blame their equipment. I know bad photographers that think the sun shines out their own a**.

I know mediocre photographers who blame their experience. I know mediocre photographers who credit their skill. I know mediocre photographers who.

I know good photographers who think they suck, and I know great photographers that credit their team, the fact that they never stop learning and/or the moment... and ALSO have blamed their equipment (although in those cases they're most often right).

Point is... I don't like your generalizations, because they're not even really generalizations. They're too narrow.

I get you're going for a really deep thinking moment here, but it's not working for me.

 

[Light Guru]

"Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light." - Vernon Trent