The Bad, Mediocre, Good and Great Photographer

[Derrel]

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

Yeah...it's pretty interesting how news men, from your era, and this newer era, tend to go with what works the best, and which has worked for so,so long! I think it shows also that people are in general, more alike than they are different. It also shows the strong wide-angle bias in photojournalism, due mostly to the way the real world tends to work...a perp walk in Tel Aviv is pretty similar to one in Milan or Paris or NYC...same with a celebrity showing up at a red carpet event in Berlin or Miami or LA...

In today's world, there are now actually far fewer PJ cameras than there were in the 1960's...no Graphics, no Mamiya Press, no Rolleiflexes mixed in with Leicas and Nikons. Today, it's just two brands pretty much. And I mean, wow...like 92% of a whole year's worth of Reuters news images shot with either the 16-35-L or the 70-200?

What about the generalization the data shows? That 92% of Reuters news photos could be shot with just two specific lenses?

 

[fjrabon]

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.)

Yes. I'd ideally like to amend the "moment" part to something a little more universal. Something that encapsulates subject, model, moment, story all into one. To me it's the same basic idea, but I can't think of a good single word that gets at what all the genres of photography are trying to express.

 

[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?

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.

Not going for anything deep. Simply going for some discussion on photography that isn't "film v digital" or "help me pick a new camera"

 

[Vtec44]

Annie Leibovitz creates the moment, and charges for it.

 

[pgriz]

My mom says I'm a great photographer. And you don't want to argue with my mom.





(edit: I've been less of a great photographer since I've gone to digital and don't automatically give her a copy of all the family prints. She doesn't think the images in the photoframes are the same.)

 

[Derrel]

Simply going for some discussion on photography that isn't "film v digital" or "help me pick a new camera"

Fjrabon, your recent Fuji Experience is interesting, in that it sort of represents a move backward in time, to a size and type of camera that was popular in a bygone era.

The portability and unobtrusiveness of the Contax, Leica,and Nikon rangefinder cameras from the 1930's to the 1950's have been sort of re-envisioned by Fuji in a small, affordable, ultra-portable package with amazing image quality.

I know as recently as last week, you were crediting the new Fuji camera for getting you back into being enthusiastic about photography. And it seems like almost everybody that has picked up one of the smaller Fuji's is really pretty stoked about whatever one they have.

 

[Gary A.]

@ Derrel-

I have graduated/evolved to shooting with Fuji's (APS-C). The lenses I use most are the f/2.8 10-24 and the f/2.8 50-140 ... which approximates the FF 16-35 and 70-200.

(Back in the film-only days, when I was working news, my most used lenses were 180mm, 85mm and 20mm.)

I am a Fuji Fanboy.

 

[fjrabon]

Simply going for some discussion on photography that isn't "film v digital" or "help me pick a new camera"

Fjrabon, your recent Fuji Experience is interesting, in that it sort of represents a move backward in time, to a size and type of camera that was popular in a bygone era.

The portability and unobtrusiveness of the Contax, Leica,and Nikon rangefinder cameras from the 1930's to the 1950's have been sort of re-envisioned by Fuji in a small, affordable, ultra-portable package with amazing image quality.

I know as recently as last week, you were crediting the new Fuji camera for getting you back into being enthusiastic about photography. And it seems like almost everybody that has picked up one of the smaller Fuji's is really pretty stoked about whatever one they have.

It's what I've always wanted. The first camera I ever truly lusted after was a Leica M9 and the M6 was the only reason I've ever thought about shooting film.

 

[KenC]

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!

Interesting that I've never had or used any of these lenses (or any others with these ranges). I guess I always knew I was a little eccentric.

My current most frequently used lenses are 35/2 IS, 70-300/4-5.6 IS and 100/2.8 macro. The cited survey was of photojournalists so I realize the macro was not even in the running. In fact, I've never owned any zoom except the 70-300 (and the one that's built into my G11).

 

[The_Traveler]

I think there is lots of selection bias in the Reuters survey.
I could list a great many reasons why these data are off but you can think of those for yourself.

 

[fjrabon]

I think there is lots of selection bias in the Reuters survey.
I could list a great many reasons why these data are off but you can think of those for yourself.

I don't think there's selection bias, because the survey is very clear on what its population is. It's working photojournalists that submit to Reuters and other major outlets. If I'm releasing a survey of what music 18-24 year olds like, the survey isn't biased because I left out 30 year olds. It's simply a survey of a different demographic. Same thing here. Just because they left out landscape photographers, doesn't make it biased, it makes it a different survey.

These types are going to settle in on a couple of workhorse lenses because they're easy to get a replacement if your is stolen, sent in for repair or lost by the airline. Doing sports professionally, the pros only use a very small handful of lenses: basically Canon and Nikon's f/2.8 70-200 and their f/2.8 300s.

I don't think the survey set out to make any claims about other fields of photography.

 

[Gary A.]

I think there is lots of selection bias in the Reuters survey.
I could list a great many reasons why these data are off but you can think of those for yourself.

I don't think the survey is biased, those two lenses are a photojournalist's goto, everyday, workhorses. It isn't about replacement lenses, a staff photographer has access to practically any lens they desire. It is about what works for them, what lens enable them to easily get the shot the want. I suspect that the majority of images were shot at the extremes, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm and 200m (or close to the extremes). I tend to use a single zoom as two primes, I suspect most photojournalists shoot similarly.

 

[fjrabon]

I think there is lots of selection bias in the Reuters survey.
I could list a great many reasons why these data are off but you can think of those for yourself.

I don't think the survey is biased, those two lenses are a photojournalist's goto, everyday, workhorses. It isn't about replacement lenses, a staff photographer has access to practically any lens they desire. It is about what works for them, what lens enable them to easily get the shot the want. I suspect that the majority of images were shot at the extremes, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm and 200m (or close to the extremes). I tend to use a single zoom as two primes, I suspect most photojournalists shoot similarly.

from the travelling photojournos I know, replacement is important. They highly value being able to step into a Canon shop anywhere in the world and know that the EXACT lens they're used to will be there 100% of the time. If they're on assignment in Sochi or Hawaii or South Dakota, they can have their kit rebuilt within an hour or so. One I know loves his Leica M9 more than anything for his personal use, but doesn't use it on assignment, because it can be hard to dig up a summicron 50mm f/2 on a moment's notice if his bag is stolen. Insurance will replace the lens, but it won't get that replacement there in a couple of hours unless you can find it locally.

Heck, they can even use CPS and just borrow their gear on location if need be and they have a high enough CPS level.

 

[Parker219]

My best photo ( voted on by my millions of followers....*read* based on my girlfriends opinion* ) is 2 red shoulder hawks mating. It lasted a whopping 5 seconds and I am sure I will never see that again. So in some cases timing is everything. Am I a GREAT photographer because I took that photo....no. Is the photo great...yes.

 

[Gary A.]

I think there is lots of selection bias in the Reuters survey.
I could list a great many reasons why these data are off but you can think of those for yourself.

I don't think the survey is biased, those two lenses are a photojournalist's goto, everyday, workhorses. It isn't about replacement lenses, a staff photographer has access to practically any lens they desire. It is about what works for them, what lens enable them to easily get the shot the want. I suspect that the majority of images were shot at the extremes, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm and 200m (or close to the extremes). I tend to use a single zoom as two primes, I suspect most photojournalists shoot similarly.

from the travelling photojournos I know, replacement is important. They highly value being able to step into a Canon shop anywhere in the world and know that the EXACT lens they're used to will be there 100% of the time. If they're on assignment in Sochi or Hawaii or South Dakota, they can have their kit rebuilt within an hour or so. One I know loves his Leica M9 more than anything for his personal use, but doesn't use it on assignment, because it can be hard to dig up a summicron 50mm f/2 on a moment's notice if his bag is stolen. Insurance will replace the lens, but it won't get that replacement there in a couple of hours unless you can find it locally.

Heck, they can even use CPS and just borrow their gear on location if need be and they have a high enough CPS level.

There is much truth that replacement is part of the equation. I used Leica for a short period on one assignment just to be different and bitchin, but I never gave any thought about replacement because I knew there was always a ton of Nikon equipment I could readily pick-up. For newsprint, there isn't much, if any, difference in IQ between a Nikkor lens or a Leica lens after it's printed in the paper at 10DPI. So other than personal preference ... what's the point of shooting non-Nikon or non-Canon, (plus a rangefinder will restrict you to a much smaller focal length range). I just never gave replacement much thought. If you're shooting in "No Man's Land" you're screwed period, regardless of who makes your equipment. You just have to get back to civilization for new gear or wait for the next supply helicopter to bring it to you. If you're shooting in a big city you either walk into a shop or the home office cuts a deal with the local wire service to loan you some gear ... or you're working for the wire service. I always saw broken cameras as a much deserved time-off. I always shot with two cameras so losing one just slowed you down but you kept shooting, losing a lens meant you had to shoot around that lens which meant you had to work harder until you got a replacement. Losing all your gear meant time off for beer.

When I was shooting news, back in the dinosaur days of film-only ... there was always pressure for deadlines and not getting scooped. But I think that in this electronic/internet age of instant news ... that the pressure is even greater than when I was shooting and now photogs have to consider replacement into their daily lives. (Plus a mechanical cameras/lenses are less prone to failure than electronic cameras/lenses.)