What makes a good photographer?

bigaudiofanatic

I use to think the person made the picture good but now with all this new tech in cameras to help improve the quality of pictures I am not sure anymore. I saw a commercial for the new canon point and shot cameras that the pictures will come out great even in low light with no flash. I was given a canon rebel about 4 years ago and I still have not used all the features or gotten a better lens. But I know I can get better over time and taking more and more pictures.

What do you think? Does the camera now make a good photographer or is it the person doing the picture taking? Or maybe the editing software?

bobman1235

It is ALL the photographer. Hand an awesome camera to someone like me and you'll still get crap - I just don't have the eye for it, and only get good shots based on pure luck (take 9000 pictures and you're bound to get 3 good pictures out of it).

New P&S cameras certainly make people take PASSABLE photos, but you don't get GOOD photos without a good operator.

Rivrrat

You have to see what will make a good picture before you can take it. It's all about composition.

gdb

It is ALL about how you "frame" the subject, fiddling with Fstop,shutter speed & filters etc. is secondary.

AudioGenics

the photographer's eye
and his/her ability to use the technology at hand to its advantage.
There certainly is a talent to recognize and capturing that unique moment.

and folks are just as passionate about photography as audiophiles to their gear and use.

joeparaski

If you mean the actual "quality" of the picture, then yes, a novice can use a very good camera and take an excellent "picture", quality-wise. However, it may not be a good picture in regards to composition and framing etc.... as others have stated. The opposite is true also, a great photographer can get a great shot with a cheap camera, but the photo itself may require some work if it is to be published.

Joe

dee1949

....inner vision of the photographer to "Capture" a unique experience. That certain "something" that connects to an emotion of the viewer. Anyone is capable of creating one photo art and experience their 15 minutes of fame. Connect to the "emotions" of universal viewer. Make them smile, cry or recollect.

emoxley

The person taking the pic has to have a good eye for photography. As was said, give a great camera to someone without the good eye, and they'll still take bad pics. I used to have a decent eye, back in the early 70s, but haven't had a decent camera since then......until now. I bought the new Nikon D7000. Very nice camera, but being all digital, I have to learn all over again. Slower learning now than it used to be. I used my P&S camera to take this pic:

dorokusai

It has nothing to do with the actual camera, that's for sure.

Nice gear Emoxley....clearly you're into it

Sherardp

Agreed it's all in the person taking the flick. I have a nice Sony Alpha series DSLR and can't take a great picture to save my life.

McLoki

I think the biggest trend in digital photography twords taking better pictures is the fact that they are essentially free (once you purchase the camera and storage card). So where someone used to take a picture and hope it was what they wanted, or would have to take notes on each picture (Shutter speed, f-stop, etc.) in order to learn - now they shoot and can see what they took right away, if they don't like it or are not sure, take a few more.. (or even bracket pictures where 5 are taken at a time all at slightly different exposures)

The willingness to take lots of pictures and the ability to see the effects of changes you make work together to make learning to take pictures much easier now - but you do still have to learn and it still takes practice and research on how to improve. There is a lot more to an interesting picture than the camera used. It all goes back to the old saying - you can't polish a ****... A sharp, focused boring picture is not that much better than a dull, fuzzy boring picture. They both get looked at about the same length of time and with the same amount of interest...

Michael

shack

Since the proliferation of techincally loaded digital cameras...I've seen lots of sharp, properly exposed "bad" photographs. I still see a lot of blurry, poorly exposed "bad" photographs as well.

"Look and think before opening the shutter. The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." ~ Yousuf Karsh

There is a reason they are referred to as "point and shoot" cameras.

bigaudiofanatic

I love taking photos and hope to get better at it and get more experience.
Here are a few I did last year in NYC.

Polkersince85

Just close one eye to get a perspective of what the camera will see. Fairly close to a 50mm lens view. Light can be your friend or enemy, just depends on where and how much.

It's just like audio, start with the source and post editing a digital is a lot easier and more realistic than digital effects.

vmaxer

A couple of articles to read from Ken Rockwell.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

It's another hobby of mine, but I am no expert!!

fatchowmein

The ability to paint with light, well.

obieone

You have to have a passion for it. Like cooking.
I have a nice camera, but I have no interest, so, I can't take good pics. Tools and technique only go so far. Your brain has to be wired for it, to complete the recipe.

shack

vmaxer wrote: »

A couple of articles to read from Ken Rockwell.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

It's another hobby of mine, but I am no expert!!

I generally think Rockwell is a bit of a self-serving hack. There is more mis-information on his site than you can imagine.

Even though the articles you list have some good thoughts...they also are very misleading in some aspects.

His contention that gear is not important is just wrong. Sure a really good photographer can see creatively and get a "good" shot with average or poor equipment...and sometimes it can be a "great" shot. But there is a reason the people who make a living from photography use pro level gear. Of course...one reason is the durability...but just as important is the quality of the image the gear can produce. There are some shots the photographer can see...but only the right lens and the right camera can produce the acceptable image. The professional photographer is in business and if they could do what they do with a $300 P&S vs $10,000 -$25,000 in gear...don't you think they would do so?

His assertion that Ansel Adams didn’t worry about his gear is not true. He was a real techie of his time…both in the cameras and the processing aspects of photography. Ansel would be all over the digital camera and photoshop, etc…

A great camera cannot make a great photographer. However...a great photographer will gravitate towards the gear that enhances their ability and will allow them to capture the image they want.

So yes...a stunning image can be made with a crappy camera...if everything falls into place and the photographer has vision...and a bit of luck. People get struck by lightning all the time as well.

vmaxer

shack wrote: »

I generally think Rockwell is a bit of a self-serving hack. There is more mis-information on his site than you can imagine.

Even though the articles you list have some good thoughts...they also are very misleading in some aspects.

His contention that gear is not important is just wrong. Sure a really good photographer can see creatively and get a "good" shot with average or poor equipment...and sometimes it can be a "great" shot. But there is a reason the people who make a living from photography use pro level gear. Of course...one reason is the durability...but just as important is the quality of the image the gear can produce. There are some shots the photographer can see...but only the right lens and the right camera can produce the acceptable image. The professional photographer is in business and if they could do what they do with a $300 P&S vs $10,000 -$25,000 in gear...don't you think they would do so?

His assertion that Ansel Adams didn’t worry about his gear is not true. He was a real techie of his time…both in the cameras and the processing aspects of photography. Ansel would be all over the digital camera and photoshop, etc…

A great camera cannot make a great photographer. However...a great photographer will gravitate towards the gear that enhances their ability and will allow them to capture the image they want.

So yes...a stunning image can be made with a crappy camera...if everything falls into place and the photographer has vision...and a bit of luck. People get struck by lightning all the time as well.

Most everything has to be taken with a grain....

I don't agree with everything the Ken Rockwell says, but a lot of what he says is backed up with examples. Did you look at the photos taken with a .3 mp phone camera??

Somewhere in one of many boxes stored I have some photos I took in London with a cheap point and shoot 35mm film camera that turned out unbelievable, it wasn't the camera, (or me for that matter, I got lucky).

I have some pro glass for my camera, but 90% of the time a 18-200 lens is what you will find on my camera, certainly not the most professional lens, but very convenient so I don't spend most of my time swapping lenses, I just shoot.

For very specific shots I will change the lens, but not that often, I sometimes wonder if I should sell some of them off.

Modern equipment and a variety of lenses will make things easier, but will not make everyone a great photographer.

shack

I know quite a few photographers that I consider to be true artists. Many have been published in national publications including covers and feature articles and one even has some of his work in the Smithsonian. To a person, they will tell you they get the best equipment they can afford. But as you say...they are not great photographers because they have great equipment...they are great photographers who use the best tools they can to improve their art.

The photographers I consider great are rarely the ones just walking around...shooting whatever they see. Street photography or "photojournalist" style photography can be interesting and provocative and certainly be considered art. However, IMO great photographers are the ones that spend a great deal of time understanding their subject, understanding all of the factors that determine the "look" of the image they are trying to capture, understanding what their gear will or will not do...and only then attempt to capture the image.

Then again...like all art...photography is subjective. I see photos that some folks think are "stunning"...and I look at them and think..."that sucks".

It's all good...(but Rockwell is still a hack...)

zarrdoss

having an eye for it, patience, practice and learning your gear. but anyone can get lucky from time to time and take the next Pulitzer prize winner with their camera phone.

BeRad

It is ALL in the photographer. Had a pro an iPhone and they will get better shots than I can with 3 thousand dollars worth of gear!

I've got some OK equipment that can take very nice pictures, and I have got a lot of the technical aspects of photography down pretty good, but I just don't have the eye or, as someone else mentioned: the PASSION to turn out gems.

Here is a good video showing how with proper lighting and a pro running the show, even a phone can capture stunning shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOoGjtSy7xY

Does the cue make the pool player?
Does the ball make the bowler?
Does the kitchen make the chef?
Does the car make the driver?

I'm pretty much of the opinion that no matter what advances are made in any sort of technology, the ability to use that technology to achieve the absolute best result will always lye in the hands of the most passionate professional.

disneyjoe7

Operator of Camera any day.

vmaxer

It seems that we all agree, it takes someone with the eye-talent to use the equipment. As with most things, the better you get and the more you do it, the better equipment you tend to get.

shack

Several people have mentioned the a great photographer can take great photos with a phone camera. Maybe. If the photographer has a good understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the camera being used. Seeing a great image is only one part of the process. Understanding how to get that image on film (in the old days) or on the sensor is something altogether different. The human eye and brain work so much better than even the best camera. A great example is the building the OP posted earlier. The eye sees the buildings with perfectly vertical lines...as opposed to the convergent lines the camera shows. The eye can see the detail in the shadows, but the camera has a problem properly exposing for both the bright areas and the shadows. The truly great photographer knows the limitations of the camera and how to get the shot or manipulate the equipment and/or environment (if possible) to make it work.

Still...as nearly everyone has stated...the vision of the photographer is the key, but both artistry and technical skill are important. You can teach the technical aspects of photography to someone with an artistic eye. You can teach someone with great technical photography skills to see more artistically. The former is MUCH EASIER than the latter.

Going back to the iPhone issue, I viewed the work of the guy mentioned in the Rockwell article. Is it art? Of course. Is it great photography or even great art? That depends. I find the work of the artist interesting to a point…but not particularly pleasing to my eye…but that is just me. That is why it is art.

cnh

Can't agree more with most of you above and I would add film and video to this debate as a good friend of mine is a filmmaker. Just think of all the BAD student films that you have seen. Not just bad scripts and acting but also amateurish cinematography? Taking a picture or shooting a film is an Art. Of course, in a Democratic society where the emphasis is on 'everyone being equal' the populous is encouraged to 'think' it can do ANYTHING if it REALLY tries? I've seen this hundreds of times with my students who are quite bright and mostly come from that more the 250K a year income bracket. They 'think' they can produce great art (photos, videos, essays, stories)...but only a VERY few have real talent! The rest are suffering from inflation. They're good kids but they just have no clue. Kind of like the people you see on the old talent shows who think they can 'sing' or 'dance' but can not carry a tune or have two left feet?

Democracy is a POLITICAL idea not a license to masquerade as an Artist! Obviously, the Auteur is STILL primary....Postmodernist DRIVEL aside!!

cnh

bobman1235

Really? You have to restart the stupid Facebook debate in a thread about photography? Die in a fire.

cnh

bobman1235 wrote: »

Really? You have to restart the stupid Facebook debate in a thread about photography? Die in a fire.

Took it out for you? I'm a social scientist so I have real opinions about this. However.....THIS is probably NOT the place for them. It belongs in a REAL article where people would welcome the discussion and add to it--it's what we do?

So I deleted the entry!

cnh

wayne3burk

Photography is for artists who cannot paint



-- wayne --

<edit> just kidding

I have heard that photography freed up painters to delve into impressionism, cubism, expressionism, pop art, etc, etc.

Before the advent of photography most paintings were either portraits or historical in nature, with the exception of maybe one or two dutch painters who bothered painting peasants in everyday scenes.

falconcry72

wayne3burk wrote: »

Photography is for artists who cannot paint



-- wayne --

<edit> just kidding

I have heard that photography freed up painters to delve into impressionism, cubism, expressionism, pop art, etc, etc.

Before the advent of photography most paintings were either portraits or historical in nature, with the exception of maybe one or two dutch painters who bothered painting peasants in everyday scenes.

Both are true statements!

The truth (and we're all looking for truth, aren't we?) is that a good photpographer is made by exactly two things...




















1 sperm + 1 egg.

Fongolio

At the beginning of the film "It Might Get Loud" (Jack White, The Edge, and Jimmy Page) we see Jack White building something with wood a couple nails some tie wire and an electronic pickup. It's a crude one string guitar that he plugs into an amp and plays and makes it sound somewhat like music. Even an artist with a very crude tool is still an artist. Same is true in photography.