How good of a photographer are you?

Great article. I'm the same how I look back over my old photos and appreciate how far I've come since taking them - even ones I took 2 weeks ago I look back on and know I could do them better now.
 
Isn't that what it's about? Growing and changing? I look back over my career and am grateful for the people who bought my photos when I was just learning. They were so bad. Even the work I did last year, I can see so much improvement that I don't want to show anything from last year.
 
I am slightly better than the worst. And slightly worse than the best. :p

Always learning something new either by practice or by mistake. ;)
 
I suck but I work my ass off and somtimes I make somthing decent...
 
Wow, what an amazing question.

I have not read your essay. I prefer to answer your question first. Then I will go and read it. Maybe I will come back and comment on it but, most probably, not.


I am as amazing as my clients/customers think I am. But when I am honest with myself, I am nowhere that amazing!
 
I guess in the digital age people just tend to shoot off 300+ images per card, delete 98.73%, and consider themselves good photogs only based on the pics kept.
Oh, yes, that's the money shot baby! They say... nevermind that 290 shots were deleted.
If you had to pay for film, got just 24 or 36 shots per roll, paid for development, you wouldnt have a shoot out like a digital P&S bandit with his/her 8gb card. I see people taking shots of all sorts of nonesense with their digital P&Ss.
 
I like about 15 out of the 300 I shoot in a day, which is better than the 5 from 300 a few months ago. I guess I am starting to make some improvement.
 
Ok. I have read your essay and I will not change my response. Only add a bit to it.

My response was from the point of view of a commercial photog and it is valid, I believe, no matter what your technical level. There are plenty of photogs out there who are not that great but they do have customers so, I guess, someone thinks they are good...

Although I think my original response is also valid for the art photography side, it also is a bit more complicated there. The lack of technique can keep you from getting the shot you want and that is not good. However, obsessing on technique can make you forget to put some soul into your images and, to me, that is not any better.

Here, I'm thinking about a photographer that is considered a master. Ansel Adams. His technique amazes me and if you ever get to see a real live print of his, they are truly amazing but they bore me. I can look at a couple of prints but I would never go out of my way to see a show. His photos just don't give me a boner.

On the other hand, there are photographers (and other artists) whose technique is not all it could be but they give me a boner because of the emotions, feelings, etc in their images.

Technique is great but it should never take over.
 
I guess in the digital age people just tend to shoot off 300+ images per card, delete 98.73%, and consider themselves good photogs only based on the pics kept.
Oh, yes, that's the money shot baby! They say... nevermind that 290 shots were deleted.
If you had to pay for film, got just 24 or 36 shots per roll, paid for development, you wouldnt have a shoot out like a digital P&S bandit with his/her 8gb card. I see people taking shots of all sorts of nonesense with their digital P&Ss.

So?
You can now drive across the country in a comfortable, climate controlled Mercedes in just a couple days; now everyone can do it.
Technology makes our lives easier everyday, and I am personally very pleased with that.
 
I can use my equipment fairly well and that includes a P&S. I think about what I shoot most of the time [some brain farts].
I'm decent I think but can always be better.
 
I really like your essay. It means a lot and kind of makes me straighten out all the feelings I have about photography in my head. I obviously don't consider myself to be great, I still have much to learn just like anyone else...
 

Most reactions

Back
Top