If You're a Good Photographer, Can You Photograph Anything Well?

JerryPH · Dec 4, 2007

I voted "it all depends". And basically it all depends on your definition of "shoot well". If we lower the standards VERY low, yeah, sure, every photographer can take a snapshot "well", if no consideration to quality or results is required.

I feel I "shoot well", but compared to a professional my results are sometimes laughable at best.

Photography is an incredibly diverse field with too great a range of challenges to slot into the two words "shoot well".

If someone is a musician, does that mean that they can play any insturment "well"? Of course not. I was a world class musician on keyboard, but if someone gave me a million dollars to play a C scale on the trumpet, I was not able to.

If one is a star athlete with a background as a wrestler, does that mean that they can play basketball at the same level? Of course not.

I think we can pretty much agree that the answer to your question is a definite NO. Though that wrestler may be able to toss a ball through a hoop 100 times in a row very "well", he will never match the abilities of someone that focuses their talents on one area of expertise and that basketball player would just kill the wrestler on the court. Visa-versa is true as well.

Same can be said of photography. I can take someone and look at their family shots and say that they shoot "well", but how is their portrature vs their macro vs their wedding shots vs underwater photography vs wildlife vs.... see what I mean?

The real life answer is very clearly a resounding no.

You cannot lump them all together and say if you do one aspect well, that you can do all aspects well... no more than any athelete can perform ALL sports or any doctor perform ALL surgurys "well". Anyone that wishes to dispute this, go ask your dentist to perform heart or brain surgury on them! :lol:

Anyone that thinks this is so about photography, simply doesn't comprehend that this is an art with way too many variables and catagories to lump into one generalzation and define some vague level of competance as "shoot well".

If I heard a judge tell me this, I would then ask them why we have lawyers and judges that specialize in crimial law, family law, accident law, etc... Would I want a judge who specializes in divorice to rule over a murder case? No. Could they do it? Yes, but at a VERY low level of competance in relation to their knowledge and area of expertise. They could not and would not be able to comprehend the intricacies of laws that they have no knowledge or experience with. Their results would be a "snapshot" and not a "photograph".

Bad call Judge Judy!

Mesoam · Dec 4, 2007

as an "artist" you should be able to find the "art" in just about anything...so yeah and no

astrostu · Dec 4, 2007

I agree with the general sentiment (I wanted to wait before posting my own opinion). I think that if you're "good," you can be technically good at photographing anything, especially compared with the average person who uses a P&S when on vacation.

But, I agree that there are so many diverse types of photography that call for a certain skill set that while a landscape photographer may be able to shoot a model with proper exposure, lighting, etc., they won't be able to get the same effect as someone who specializes in portrait photography. Or a sports photographer probably isn't the best person to ask to photograph a wedding because they simply require their own skill set and experience.

phakimata · Dec 4, 2007

....it depends on many things; a photographer who works solely in a studio will maybe not be so good in the outdoors. A portrait photographer might not be as good in landscapes.

JDS · Dec 4, 2007

I voted it all depends...

Depends what is 'successful'. Once you know how a camera works and the relation of aperture, shutter and ISO to get a good exposure, you can successfully expose any scene/object I believe.

But that doesn't mean it's 'successful'.

Alex_B · Dec 4, 2007

Clear no from me.

Iron Flatline said:
I voted No, but Patrice is correct. A good photographer under most circumstances is capable of getting a shot that is sufficiently well exposed to document whatever is going on right at that moment.

well, but photography does not end with good exposure and documenting a scene ... this is only where it starts.

Mrsforeman1 · Dec 4, 2007

I know an awsome club photographer. I wouldn't dare allow him to take my wedding pictures.

Nuf said.

JerryPH · Dec 4, 2007

Mesoam said:
as an "artist" you should be able to find the "art" in just about anything...so yeah and no

That was very artistic! Ever consider a carreer in poltics? :lol:

Mesoam · Dec 5, 2007

i hate politics...:lmao:

JerryPH said:
That was very artistic! Ever consider a carreer in poltics?

YoungRebel · Dec 5, 2007

Yes/No

IMO as a photographer you should definitely know how to expose pictures well. Means, that you WILL know what the right exposure settings are for different situations and concepts (portrait, landscape , etc).
THIS is the "yes"

BUT

All the great and well known photographers found their niche to create their own view of things and their own style, that is just "their" thing.
They grow in their own field and bring it to the highest level of skills.
This beeing said, a fashion-photographer (my favourite Peter Lindbergh) , met him last year in NY

) knows exactly what he is after in his shoots.
It is HIS vision that inspires people to buy the product...
He will know how to shoot a good landscape picture too, but it won't be as good or creative as one of a a professional and experienced landscape photographer...

this are just my few cents...

AnselAdams · Dec 5, 2007

Garbz said:
I will say NO for a different reason. The best photos come from inspiration. A boring object may not inspire a photographer to take the picture.

Now something mundane under certain conditions can invoke an interesting feeling which a good photographer can put into his photos. However given the object if the condition to stimulate his emotions and senses are lacking then there's nothing that can be done with the subject.

:thumbup: