Let's discuss what makes a good photographer...

[yippee2000]

Some things that have crossed my mind..... Let's discuss! :--)

do you think PART of what makes a good photographer/artist is the "skill" or eye with which they determine which of their photoes the rest of us will see? I mean, let's face it.... many of us probably have alot of stuff we'd consider "crap" in our arsenal, but we either delete it or store it elsewhere. I'd bet with some of the better photogs. here, we'd be "shocked" at the poor quality of some of their other stuff. And conversely, there may be some here whose galleries we think are just so-so, and if we were to look at some of what they discarded, we'd be like "huh?"

Also, do you think that it's harder to be a good COLOR photographer than it is to be a good B&W photographer? It seems to me that it's alot harder to take a "bad" b&w photo than it is to take a bad color photo. B&W photoes seem "easier" to me. Of course, diehard b&w fans may not agree, but that's my opinion at least....

Do you consider photographers true "artists"? I know that alot of people do not. I do think that taking photoes is vastly separate from people who draw, paint, illustrate, sculpt, as they are creating something from nothing, whereas photographers are taking something that already exists (in most instances) and documenting it (in their own way of course). I guess the only exception to this would be photographers who actually stage their photoes.... who pose the models a certain way, who add props, etc. But I think if you just happen upon a situation, adjust a few buttons, and "click", well.... I think that's very different from people who actually create art with their own hands.....

Thoughts?

[pdehoog]

First of all, my apologies for poor english (if applicable )

Some things that have crossed my mind..... Let's discuss! :--)

do you think PART of what makes a good photographer/artist is the "skill" or eye with which they determine which of their photoes the rest of us will see? I mean, let's face it.... many of us probably have alot of stuff we'd consider "crap" in our arsenal, but we either delete it or store it elsewhere. I'd bet with some of the better photogs. here, we'd be "shocked" at the poor quality of some of their other stuff. And conversely, there may be some here whose galleries we think are just so-so, and if we were to look at some of what they discarded, we'd be like "huh?"

It's funny. Tonight I had an IRC-chat with someone who was looking at my pictures. She thought that, since I only started taking photo's in may of this year, I was some kind of gifted person.

In those few months I took over 5000 photo's. Only less than 10% of those are listed here at pbase. I also looked at a lot of photo's. I learned what I liked and disliked.

In those few months I didn't learn how to take better pictures technically. I learned to look the right way at subjects. Nevertheless, I am still not a good photographer by the way

Therefore I believe that, next to technical skills (DOF, Light etc.), a good photographer indeed should have some kind of skill or eye for taking the right picture (or at least get the right picture in his head).

Also, do you think that it's harder to be a good COLOR photographer than it is to be a good B&W photographer? It seems to me that it's alot harder to take a "bad" b&w photo than it is to take a bad color photo. B&W photoes seem "easier" to me. Of course, diehard b&w fans may not agree, but that's my opinion at least....

I think that both types have their advantages and disadvantages. B&W is not that easy at all. If you are not carefull, B&W could completely weaken your photo. It takes a whole different look at things.

Do you consider photographers true "artists"? I know that alot of people do not. I do think that taking photoes is vastly separate from people who draw, paint, illustrate, sculpt, as they are creating something from nothing, whereas photographers are taking something that already exists (in most instances) and documenting it (in their own way of course). I guess the only exception to this would be photographers who actually stage their photoes.... who pose the models a certain way, who add props, etc. But I think if you just happen upon a situation, adjust a few buttons, and "click", well.... I think that's very different from people who actually create art with their own hands.....

Thoughts?

I believe photographers ARE true artists. It is their job to record things at a way that the reproduction is valuable for the future and attractive. It is not that easy to take a photo which is attractive, inviting etc. to look at just as it isn't easy to create a drawing which is attractive, inviting etc.

I hope I made myself clear. I don't write that much english, so much has slipped away

[matiasasun]

Some things that have crossed my mind..... Let's discuss! :--)

You´ve come to the right place then...

Do you think PART of what makes a good photographer/artist is the "skill" or eye with which they determine which of their photoes the rest of us will see?

After some discussion here I´ve decided that there is no such things as a "good" photographer... Basically because there is no such things as a good photo. As a text, the picture needs a viewer that can conceive an idea because of the picture. There are techniques, right, but they will always remains as tools; the problem is in the creation. And the creation is a link between the creator-the creation-and the viewer.

Also, do you think that it's harder to be a good COLOR photographer than it is to be a good B&W photographer? It seems to me that it's alot harder to take a "bad" b&w photo than it is to take a bad color photo. B&W photoes seem "easier" to me.

I´ll have to agree with you. I do also think B&W seems easier, but that does not mean it is REALLY easier. I have this personal feeling mostly because I have a lot of hard work trying to calibrate the whites all the time. B&W means one less thing to care some times... It may sound ridiculous but I´m some times. By the way, "color photography" does not means "real color photography"... I suppose it only means not monochromatic.

Do you consider photographers true "artists"? I know that alot of people do not.

It depends on the concept. If artist means a professional who lives of this, then it is not. If an artist is defined by the academic canons about arts, or any other canons, then probably there will be very few artists from each point of view... But if artist means a creator, like my neighbor the baker or like a poet, that´s a different thing. One day I´ll take some pictures of his cakes.. they are a piece of modern art!

I do think that taking photoes is vastly separate from people who draw, paint, illustrate, sculpt, as they are creating something from nothing, whereas photographers are taking something that already exists (in most instances) and documenting it (in their own way of course).

I´m not the only one to say that we can not create things, we can only transform it. It is a matter of energy in deed. I mean, the sculptor sees something inside the rock, and then just remove the pieces that don´t need. The guy who draw just waste some pieces of pen in a paper, neither created by him. A creation is always a transformation... and that´s what I care about art.

I guess the only exception to this would be photographers who actually stage their photoes.... who pose the models a certain way, who add props, etc. But I think if you just happen upon a situation, adjust a few buttons, and "click", well.... I think that's very different from people who actually create art with their own hands....

The lord works in misterious ways... Have you hear about dadaism? By the way, some artists does not have hands...

I´m serious with all I said. I just don´t agree with the ideas of good or bad. There are ways to analize why does people like things, always refered to our points of view, but there is a big difference between that and the rigid category of "this is good/bad"

[lord_of_the_badgers]

Black & White.. well I don't know about easier.

For me, b&w is about playing dark against light, especially in a landscape. I've managed it once IMO
http://www.pbase.com/lord_of_the_badgers/image/29711981

Colour is harder though.
I tend to hide behind photoshop layers. I see some people's natural colour work & just find myself in awe.

as for what makes a good photographer?

Luck (right time right place) & Compositional ability, I'd wager. If you believe dpreview, maybe your wallet too.

[graylady]

as for what makes a good photographer?

Luck (right time right place) & Compositional ability, I'd wager. If you believe dpreview, maybe your wallet too.

I believe that "luck" is not enough. A lot of people will pass by the same place at the same moment and not SEE what the potential is there.

I haven't tought about this very long but here are my impressions :

Photography is sometimes the art of uncovering what is there to be seen.

Photography sometimes is the art of creating from scratch like abstract that convey emotion.

Photography is sometimes a report of what was there more like a fact sheet.

Graylady

[jcboyd]

The following is my belief about B&W Photographs:

The quality of an image cannot begin to be told by looking at a thumbnail or even a larger image on a computer screen, at least for the "casual" viewer. To get a real feel for the quality you need to see a print. A good B&W will tease the blacks but not cross over into total blackness. Small areas may indeed be black but never large areas in the print. Likewise the whites should still have a tiny amount of detail in them. To achieve this small amount of detail the whites will actually be a very pale shade of gray. This very pale shade of gray may not be recognized as gray until compared with a bright white, often a piece of the unexposed but processed B&W paper. Again very small areas of white may really be white with no detail. Large expanses of blank blacks or blank whites with no detail will not do. When viewed, the bright areas of a B&W should have a luminous quality about them, almost to the point of glowing.

The above is a description of a full scale B&W image. There are of course, great images that have very little of the darks in them (high key) and those that have very little of the light areas in them (low key).

A good Photographer?
1. The ability to see something special in the ordinary
2. The ability to extract that special something from its surroundings when needed
3. Quality equipment (not necessarily the most expensive)
4. The knowledge of that equipment.
5. Luck and the ability to make his/her own luck
6. That equipment always near
7. And the ability to put it all together

Everyone has the capabilities of producing a few great images. The people who create these images on a daily basis have all seven of the above working for them. (I can usually get 4 or 5 of these)

Many times great images are created because of unusual circumstances. Only by being prepared, seeing, and knowing our equipment can we be ready for that unique instance.
john

[donutrun]

I think ...

The vision to see the interesting image amidst all the distraction of the world around it;

The flair for composition and lighting that draws the eye through the image;

The ability to be subtle to capture photos without disturbing the subject or distracting onlookers;

The emotional fortitude to allow others to critique your work - art - foolishness ...

and perhaps, just a bit of shameless self promotion to get noticed never hurts!! http://www.pbase.com/donutrun

[hevezimj]

A fellow photographer once said of this question:

"It takes three things. You must have talent. You must work very hard. You must be a good person."

He was speaking of professionals, but I feel it applies here.

Matt

[ckuhn55]

Since starting pbase last yr, it has opened up a wonderful world for me. Searching other sites and attending fairs, open markets, I always go straight for the photography stands. As I look at my own, I see my picture enriching and the passion shows in many areas. I should for pleasure and the INTERNET has certainly opened ALL of our eyes.
http://pbase.com/ckuhn55