At what stage are you?

[Bitter Jeweler]

Give Yourself an Honest Portfolio Review


This was an interesting take on a photographers progress.
Asking at what stage you are, is rhetorical and you don't need to answer.
Instead just use it as a guide and give yourself a good hard look!

 

[molested_cow]

I wouldn't agree about the HDR part. It's all a part of the skill and knowledge that one acquires and definitely doesn't mean that using a particular tool makes you less than the others.

Personally I don't care for there "grading" system. I myself hate the concept of academic examinations ( spent 10 years doing that). It really doesn't mean anything, just a way for the lost souls to find some comfort knowing that they still relate to something somehow.

 

[MSnowy]

Thanks for the link. After 2 plus years at this I would consider myself a solid 2

 

[paigew]

interesting thanks for sharing

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Interesting read. On that kind of a scale, I think i'm a low 5....

 

[Dominantly]

Meh, seems about right to me.

I feel a 4 is about right.

 

[Overread]

Somewhere between 3 and 4 - however the stages don't really purely connect with talent and seem to also focus around the concept of taste as well. Which leads them to be very odd when they give examples as if a certain kind of "taste" to what the photographer wants to produce is what each level will use (granted there is truth in the maturity of taste, however I'm not sure I agree with this grading system - eh he's clearly not seen any Mish flower photos )

 

[Dominantly]

When I look through my 365 photo blog, I see various parts of what he talked about (even starting off with a weird HDR). I also noticed that one of the first places I started trying to take advantage of good natural light was with flowers. I feel as though they are probably one of the easiest things to photograph with better than average lighting, consistently.

 

[fjrabon]

I'd say I'm at a 3. I mostly agreed with the page, even though I went into it sort of thinking "oh man, this is going to be complete garbage." Sure there were some minor nits I would pick, but as broad generalizations, which it sort of has to be, I thought it was actually very good. It sort of zeroed in on things I know I need to work on, but in a way that it really hit me "man, I need to get my sh** together on this".

Really surprised at how good of an article that was.

 

[fjrabon]

When I look through my 365 photo blog, I see various parts of what he talked about (even starting off with a weird HDR). I also noticed that one of the first places I started trying to take advantage of good natural light was with flowers. I feel as though they are probably one of the easiest things to photograph with better than average lighting, consistently.

Yeah, I've never gone through a flower, selective color or HDR phase (I mean I've done them here and there, but it's never been anything more than a 'i guess I need to try this technique out at least once' sort of thing). So it was a little off for me personally in that regard. But it totally nailed me with:

Their photos almost always incorporate good lighting, but they occasionally leave one in there with bad lighting because they really liked the subject, or because they have some sort of “war story” from the shoot that makes them especially fond of the photo.

and

A few of the photos in the portfolio look quite good, but most of them are just “nice.”

and

They have entered the world of Photoshop and post-processing and can do some really neat tricks, but a professional would look at the photos and clearly see the image quality being ruined by untrained hands. When I look through portfolios, I’m amazed how many pictures are WAY over-sharpened, grainy, or where the colors are all messed up. This makes it easy to spot a stage three photographer.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Neat read and perspective.
I don't know where to put myself since I really haven't used/learned photoshop or lightroom yet.
I'm thinking 3ish with 4 tendencies lol

 

[RanD]

Maybe a high 3. I don't do silly photoshop stuff.

 

[photo_joe]

Great read for sure thanks for sharing.

 

[pgriz]

Nice link, David. If I had to guess, I'm somewhere between a 3 and a 4. Don't have the post-processing tools to really make the photos "zing", so I have to rely on getting it mostly in-camera. While I know the theory, internalizing it to become second nature is still a hill that I'm climbing. But that's OK. I'm not trying to impress anyone. Well, that's not quite true. I'd love to impress my wife who's an accomplished artist. And she's been urging to get some of my shots printed to show alongside her work. So there's hope.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I wouldn't agree about the HDR part. It's all a part of the skill and knowledge that one acquires and definitely doesn't mean that using a particular tool makes you less than the others.

Reading comprehension fail.

Personally I don't care for there "grading" system. I myself hate the concept of academic examinations ( spent 10 years doing that). It really doesn't mean anything, just a way for the lost souls to find some comfort knowing that they still relate to something somehow.

Good to see you are above a little self critique.

I feel sorry for all the lost souls that responded to this thread taking comfort in relating to something, somehow.
Look how little they are, connecting to generalized notions of personal photographic growth!






:roll: