What Makes a Photographer Good?

[amolitor]

Nowhere did I express that no one else should do such a thing. That however does not change the fact that it pretentious.

Oh, if you want to play rhetoric chopping games, I suggest you look up the definition of pretentious first. On second thought, not interested in playing.

 

[shefjr]

For me personally, I look at it logically. First off to me if a photograph is "good" I'll stop and look at it for a while (which is subjective to the image). Otherwise, I just look quickly and move on. So, with that said getting lucky and taking one "good" photograph doesn't make a person a good photographer. To create or capture consistently "good" photographs makes a photographer "good". In addition, all of this is merly from the perspective of a noob and as I continue to learn I'm sure my opinion will change and I'll probably begin to appreciate photographs for more than just the look of the photograph. I'll probably appreciate it for the technical difficulties and challenges that it took to capture the photograph.
IMHO

 

[jake337]

If I like their work I guess...


Everyone keeps mentioning consistency.



How come the medium is so important to everyone?



If someone likes to spray and pray, let that be their medium of choice.

 

[jake337]

I don't consider Dave Hill a photographer so much as I do a graphic designer. At the point in time where there is more computer than camera in your image, its no longer photography. IMHO.

Although his B&W stuff is nice.

Why is his medium so important in defining him as a photographer or not?

 

[jhodges10]

Why is his medium so important in defining him as a photographer or not?

If I took a picture of a white wall then used a computer to make an image on it would you still consider it photography?

 

[table1349]

I would say a photographer should be able to capture emotions of people, without appearing to have staged the shot. The ability to capture genuine expressions and emotions of people, transcending the limitations of a photographer and creating a masterpiece.

So does that mean there are no good landscape photographers?

 

[jake337]

Why is his medium so important in defining him as a photographer or not?

If I took a picture of a white wall then used a computer to make an image on it would you still consider it photography?

And this is what the person your speaking of does. White walls and all the rest computer work?

 

[jhodges10]

And this is what the person your speaking of does. White walls and all the rest computer work?

Never said that but you asked why he can't do more computer than photography. My point is there has to be some point where it's graphic design on a computer not photography. Sure the white wall analogy is at the far end of the spectrum but where is the breaking point? 49% photography 51% GD? 75-25? 25-75? I can't give you a definitive answer because just like the "what makes a good photographer" question everyone could have a different response to this. People that shoot film probably think using a computer for anything instantly leaves the realm of photography whereas the people that actually made photoshop might say the white wall image is perfectly acceptable.

 

[pgriz]

There are many fine technician photographers, who have mastered the tools and the techniques. On one level, those are "good". There are photographers who are able to capture "the moment", be it a fleeting slash of light, or an event, or a person's smile, or wildlife, which makes the difference between a nice photo and one that causes most to go "WOW!". Some are also good technicians, but not necessarily. However, those photographers who fairly consistently can capture "the moment", are the ones that I would call "good", for it implies to me the ability to use the equipment, and the ability to anticipate the action and the moment.

Another class of "good" photographers is those who create a new way of seeing for the viewer. Often, this directly translates to emotional impact - sometimes pleasureable, sometimes wrenching and hard. But when the image frames dissolve and you respond to the subject or the event, then the photographer who created that image succeeded in creating a "good" one.

 

[rexbobcat]

Never said that but you asked why he can't do more computer than photography. My point is there has to be some point where it's graphic design on a computer not photography. Sure the white wall analogy is at the far end of the spectrum but where is the breaking point? 49% photography 51% GD? 75-25? 25-75? I can't give you a definitive answer because just like the "what makes a good photographer" question everyone could have a different response to this. People that shoot film probably think using a computer for anything instantly leaves the realm of photography whereas the people that actually made photoshop might say the white wall image is perfectly acceptable.

Because purchasable prepackaged Photoshop actions.

In my local photo club there's an ongoing debate on the best action set to buy for portraits. I mean, I'm not gonna condemn that if it makes you money - whatever works, but don't go boasting to me about how good you are as a photographer if you don't even have the knowledge or are too lazy to even PP your own photos.

I would feel the same way of 35mm photographers dramatically automated the darkroom process

 

[amolitor]

Automation is always a philosophically problematic thing.

Darkroom automation - many of the "greats" did none of their own darkroom work, or very little. Isn't that much the same?

I am on the record as stating that Auto mode is not the great sin so many people think it is, and the way is open for much more in that direction. I see ads for the Lytro camera all over TPF now. You may not know what this thing is, but it captures data that is not quite an image, but allows an image to be computed later. Interestingly, the technology allows plane-of-focus and depth-of-field in the output image to be whatever you like. Couple this to a hypothetical sensor of, say, 16 bits, for a comfortable 2 stops of range either way and suddenly for 99% of photography your camera needs one (1) button. You can do whatever else you like in post, you've got enough data.

The only thing that seemed to matter for the no-darkroom guys, and the only thing that will matter in a few years, and really the main thing that matters now (people who spent a lot of time learning the technical details place, in my opinion, too much weight on them) is this: Put the right things into the frame in the right spots. This is what photography truly is.

On a separate note:

There is a continuum between "digital painting" and "photography" and in the middle I don't care to draw sharp lines, it seems to serve no purpose. Some people are doing a mixed media thing, ok. Good for them!

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Automation is always a philosophically problematic thing.

Darkroom automation - many of the "greats" did none of their own darkroom work, or very little. Isn't that much the same?

I am on the record as stating that Auto mode is not the great sin so many people think it is, and the way is open for much more in that direction. I see ads for the Lytro camera all over TPF now. You may not know what this thing is, but it captures data that is not quite an image, but allows an image to be computed later. Interestingly, the technology allows plane-of-focus and depth-of-field in the output image to be whatever you like. Couple this to a hypothetical sensor of, say, 16 bits, for a comfortable 2 stops of range either way and suddenly for 99% of photography your camera needs one (1) button. You can do whatever else you like in post, you've got enough data.

The only thing that seemed to matter for the no-darkroom guys, and the only thing that will matter in a few years, and really the main thing that matters now (people who spent a lot of time learning the technical details place, in my opinion, too much weight on them) is this: Put the right things into the frame in the right spots. This is what photography truly is.

On a separate note:

There is a continuum between "digital painting" and "photography" and in the middle I don't care to draw sharp lines, it seems to serve no purpose. Some people are doing a mixed media thing, ok. Good for them!

^^^ this. Very well said, Amolitor. I think the Lytro may very well be the harbinger of the next-next generation of mainstream imaging products. The next one of course being the electronic viewfinder mirrorless generation.

 

[rexbobcat]

Automation is always a philosophically problematic thing.

Darkroom automation - many of the "greats" did none of their own darkroom work, or very little. Isn't that much the same?

I am on the record as stating that Auto mode is not the great sin so many people think it is, and the way is open for much more in that direction. I see ads for the Lytro camera all over TPF now. You may not know what this thing is, but it captures data that is not quite an image, but allows an image to be computed later. Interestingly, the technology allows plane-of-focus and depth-of-field in the output image to be whatever you like. Couple this to a hypothetical sensor of, say, 16 bits, for a comfortable 2 stops of range either way and suddenly for 99% of photography your camera needs one (1) button. You can do whatever else you like in post, you've got enough data.

The only thing that seemed to matter for the no-darkroom guys, and the only thing that will matter in a few years, and really the main thing that matters now (people who spent a lot of time learning the technical details place, in my opinion, too much weight on them) is this: Put the right things into the frame in the right spots. This is what photography truly is.

On a separate note:

There is a continuum between "digital painting" and "photography" and in the middle I don't care to draw sharp lines, it seems to serve no purpose. Some people are doing a mixed media thing, ok. Good for them!

It's not the fact that they do automate that irks me so much as the fact as several modern photographers that I know as acquaintances automate because they don't know how to do anything else.

I'm sure that several of the greats knew how to use the darkroom. It was just more efficient to hire others to churn out work.

I do have some issues with some big name fashion photographers who seem to push the shutter button and then have editors Liquify, blemish remove, and move whole appendages. I just don't consider som of those guys to be all that awesome because I'm about 80% sure that those PS skills are acquired by extensive PS experience and not just the study of photography.

I also think that sometimes it's what separates the handcrafted glass bowls from those you buy at IKEA that came off of a machine.

Maybe not to that extent, but if a photographers is going to hand over, in a sense, control to some $30 set of actions then I can't say that they're gaining much respect from me. Lol

There is a difference, in my book, between laziness and efficiency concerning post-processing.

(And yeah the Lytro is pretty neat stuff)

 

[Derrel]

Wow...somehow this thread has been resurrected and is becoming actually a decent thread! Thank you rexbobcat,pgriz,and amolitor!

 

[bentcountershaft]

I know of a great photographer that doesn't do his own digital processing at all. He has an assistant do it. Why? Because he never did his own darkroom work either. I don't think that makes him any less of a photographer and I'm sure his clients agree.