Are you a specialist or generalist?

[chuasam]

would more than 80% of your photos fall into a specific category? or do you prefer to test around different kinds of photography?

 

[tirediron]

By choice or because that's how it plays out? I would say that the vast majority of my paid work is headshots & sales-related. Not necessarily what I have chosen, but that's how it's worked out.

 

[table1349]

You don't have the third choice which is both. I can shoot just about anything, but I have two or three ares that I choose to shoot these days. When I started in photography you were expected, at least if you wanted to survive in the business world, to be just that, a photographer. You learned how to shoot everything. Once you were well enough established you could limit what you shot and still make a living.

Now it seems like everyone wants to specialize. They want to be an "Environmental, natural light, pet photographer specializing in puppies with dark coats and medium long hair who like kittens and meditation" or they want to be a "Short focal length, in your face, senior photographer who only shoots in full sunlight in the park on even numbered days." It's getting easier to define the drinks at Starbucks than it is to find an all purpose photographer.

 

[chuasam]

Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.

Seriously Dude? Give me a giant break. Perhaps you need to have a look around.

IMO, standards for everything in the past were higher, and many outstanding photographers specialized.

Contrast that with today's "talent".

There is absolutely no legitimate comparison that would indicate today's top photographers are anywhere close in real artistic accomplishment to the big names of yesteryear.

You've got it exactly backward.

 

[snowbear]

I guess I'm a specialist - 99.9% of what I shoot are things that interest me.

IMO, standards for everything in the past were higher, and many outstanding photographers specialized.

Contrast that with today's "talent".

You mean back when there was no green box auto nor scene settings?

 

[weepete]

Specialist. Landscapes are where my real interest lies and that tends to be what I make an effort to shoot. Everything else is just a bit of practice and passing time.

 

[Derrel]

I guess I am a generalist.... no, wait...I am a special...no, wait...general....wai...no,lemme reconsider...wait,wait,wait...okay, what was the question again?

 

[Peeb]

If the choices are either special or general then my answer is most certainly yes.

 

[chuasam]

I really suck at landscapes because that involves being outdoors and waiting for the moment and whatever.... you lost me at being far from the comfort of my indoors.

 

[will_f]

I'm a special hobbyist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[weepete]

"The Almight says, "Don't change the subject, just answer the ******' question."" - Stephen, Braveheart.

 

[rexbobcat]

Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.

Seriously Dude? Give me a giant break. Perhaps you need to have a look around.

IMO, standards for everything in the past were higher, and many outstanding photographers specialized.

Contrast that with today's "talent".

There is absolutely no legitimate comparison that would indicate today's top photographers are anywhere close in real artistic accomplishment to the big names of yesteryear.

You've got it exactly backward.

The past is rose-colored indeed. That's like saying music used to be better. It only seems that way because all the shitty stuff sank to the bottom and was forgotten lolol

For every Annie Leibovitz there were ten more people smearing Vaseline on a lens filter...and charging for it. Higher overhead just meant that the barrier to entry for both would-be pros and wanna-be pros was higher.

 

[nerwin]

I guess I'm a specialist - 99.9% of what I shoot are things that interest me.

IMO, standards for everything in the past were higher, and many outstanding photographers specialized.

Contrast that with today's "talent".

You mean back when there was no green box auto nor scene settings?

I don't think I ever used those settings on my last two DSLRs. The dial hardly moves from M.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm an artist trapped in a gelatin emulsion and silver halide crystals.