Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you're not as good a photographer as you think you are

trendland · Apr 14, 2018

faberryman said:
Dunning-Kruger also posits that high achievers may undervalue their accomplishments mistakenly assuming what is easy for them is easy for everyone. The title to this thread could just as easily be: "Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you're a better photographer than you think you are."

You are not right. The real issue should named with the following (I can ony speak to my own experience) : " Why I am ALWAYS thinking I am not as good as......?"There are allway "heros" who belive they are the best. And others don't belive on themselfes.But (very important) on the second way you can better make a real carrier! .....with regards
PS : It cost me many years to understand : " I can't be soo bad - because from where is the carrier coming"But the real reason was indeed : This amazing "heros" were ALLWAYS much more worst in comparison to my work .....

E. von Hoegh · Apr 14, 2018

trendland said:
You are not right. The real issue should named with the following (I can ony speak to my own experience) : " Why I am ALWAYS thinking I am not as good as......?"There are allway "heros" who belive they are the best. And others don't belive on themselfes.But (very important) on the second way you can better make a real carrier! .....with regards
PS : It cost me many years to understand : " I can't be soo bad - because from where is the carrier coming"But the real reason was indeed : This amazing "heros" were ALLWAYS much more worst in comparison to my work .....

He is exactly "right".
Do you have any idea what the Dunning-Kruger effect describes??

Sirius Glass · Apr 14, 2018

E. von Hoegh said:
Hasselblad cult?? Wannabes. Now, the Linhof cult! Aahhh, that's a cult!! Right up there with the Deardorff cult

For those photographers who want to stay physically fit, shoot Graflexes, Speed Graphics and Linhofs hand held. Real men use #11, #22, and #50 flashbulbs!

Make the photographed people see the stars!

trendland · Apr 14, 2018

E. von Hoegh said:
He is exactly "right".
Do you have any idea what the Dunning-Kruger effect describes??

Suddenly I had the Idea if you understand Dunning-Kruger right? But don't care so much these kind of thesis have allways two sides of perspectives. (minimum - often there are 4 or more) But I gave faberryman right by "you are not right" (as I stated "allways" I just want to higher his point)

with regards

PS : I was before Dunning and Kruger (long long before) - belive me..

E. von Hoegh · Apr 14, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
For those photographers who want to stay physically fit, shoot Graflexes, Speed Graphics and Linhofs hand held. Real men use #11, #22, and #50 flashbulbs!

Make the photographed people see the stars!

I have a series of 4x5s of bobsleds negotiating Shady at Mt. van Hoevenberg.
Sadly, I have not used flashbulbs with 4x5. Although I did recently get a light saber flash, so there is still hope of attaining real manhood! I have a Graflex strobe though.

trendland · Apr 14, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
For those photographers who want to stay physically fit, shoot Graflexes, Speed Graphics and Linhofs hand held. Real men use #11, #22, and #50 flashbulbs!

Make the photographed people see the stars!

Good point Sirius Glass (a real tough training)......but there is allway a tougher training ! PANAVISION (handheld = shoulder cam) :

with regards

NJH · Apr 14, 2018

jtk said:
"Have you ever noticed that as you learn more about the world of photography, you tend to realize just how little you actually know?"

Being a good photographer has almost nothing to do with how much "you actually know."

Boom. Drop the mike right there. You are 100% correct of course, this famous 'effect' is about cases where there is a direct correlation between technical competence and the 'quality' of the output. Photography is not really a good field to apply it to unless of course one wants to debate technique v artistry for the 1 millionth time. I predict of course this is precisely how this thread will go which is just a waste of everyones time re-running the same tired points. Sorry if this offends anyone but raising Dunning Kruger in this context says one doesn't understand what photography is, or doesn't really understand Dunning Kruger, and if it came from dpreview forums its probably both.

Cholentpot · Apr 15, 2018

NJH said:
Boom. Drop the mike right there. You are 100% correct of course, this famous 'effect' is about cases where there is a direct correlation between technical competence and the 'quality' of the output. Photography is not really a good field to apply it to unless of course one wants to debate technique v artistry for the 1 millionth time. I predict of course this is precisely how this thread will go which is just a waste of everyones time re-running the same tired points. Sorry if this offends anyone but raising Dunning Kruger in this context says one doesn't understand what photography is, or doesn't really understand Dunning Kruger, and if it came from dpreview forums its probably both.

To add to this.

'If you under/over expose use developer a/b you will make a good photograph an excellent photograph'

An outstanding photograph will hold its own regardless of what film, camera, lens, developer you use. Sure you can make a technically better photo but that's not what makes a great photo.

And on the original point of this thread.

Who cares? I don't care if I'm 'Good' or 'Great' I just want to take photos. If my clients are happy and me Mom thinks I'm the modern Michelangelo who really cares if I'm Krugering.

removed account4 · Apr 15, 2018

some of the most memorable photographs of edwardian france were taken of lartrigue, when he was like 10?
did he think he was an expert, and did he care ?

the main thing about excellent photographs is knwing how to use the camera, ifyou can't use the camera
you hire or ask someone else to, and be a director instead of a camera operator .. same goes for processing and printing
who cares they are just photographs. and if someone gives someone BS about not being the camera operator just mention
tarintino has someone do his filming, and maybe even photographic icons whose names i won't drop. and regarding printing and
processing, just tell them HCB and walk away. they might not take you seriously if you aren't using a leica body and nikon glass tho ..

i have known excellent technicalphotographers over the years. their technique was great, but i got tired of
looking at the same bland view over and over and over again, made them happy, so my point is MOOT.
i think the other part of the equation aside from
acknowledgment that you are never as good as you think you are ( converse is called hubris ) is knowing
when to just not give a hoot about all the garbage technique perfection nonsense and just do what you want
and not give a hoot if the technicians talk trash because you agitated wrong or printed wrong or didn't use a tripod or
every other nit picky chortle that technicians zero in on ...

vivre la difference !

E. von Hoegh · Apr 15, 2018

NJH said:
Boom. Drop the mike right there. You are 100% correct of course, this famous 'effect' is about cases where there is a direct correlation between technical competence and the 'quality' of the output. Photography is not really a good field to apply it to unless of course one wants to debate technique v artistry for the 1 millionth time. I predict of course this is precisely how this thread will go which is just a waste of everyones time re-running the same tired points. Sorry if this offends anyone but raising Dunning Kruger in this context says one doesn't understand what photography is, or doesn't really understand Dunning Kruger, and if it came from dpreview forums its probably both.

It's probably both, as you say.
There are, or were, niches in the field of photography which are primarily or wholly dependent on technical skill - I'm thinking graphic arts and process work, virtually extinct and not what Photrio is about anyway.

faberryman · Apr 15, 2018

Not sure why there is so much effort at dumbing down photography.

removed account4 · Apr 15, 2018

faberryman said:
Not sure why there is so much effort at dumbing down photography.

not sure if that was directed towards me or not, but
how is knowing your gear and doing what YOU want dumbing down photography.
its like suggesting miles davis et al. dumbed down music because he/ they improvised ..

faberryman · Apr 15, 2018

jnanian said:
not sure if that was directed towards me or not, but
how is knowing your gear and doing what YOU want dumbing down photography.
its like suggesting miles davis et al. dumbed down music because he/ they improvised ..

Not directed at you. There have been several posts claiming there is no correlation between great photographs and technical expertise. I think the number of great photographers who didn't know what they were doing is small.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 15, 2018

faberryman said:
Not directed at you. There have been several posts claiming there is no correlation between great photographs and technical expertise. I think the number of great photographers who didn't know what they were doing is small.

Chance favors the prepared, and if you don't know how to use your tools, you aren't prepared.

Cholentpot · Apr 15, 2018

faberryman said:
Not directed at you. There have been several posts claiming there is no correlation between great photographs and technical expertise. I think the number of great photographers who didn't know what they were doing is small.

The number of great photographers is small to begin with.

MartinCrabtree · Apr 16, 2018

Of course I am as good as I believe myself to be. Others may disagree but it's not for them I shoot.

BradS · Apr 16, 2018

faberryman said:
Not directed at you. There have been several posts claiming there is no correlation between great photographs and technical expertise. I think the number of great photographers who didn't know what they were doing is small.

The problem, of course, is that the concepts "great photograph" and "knows what they're doing (photographically)" are not well defined and different people have different opinions about their meanings.

No matter what position one wishes to argue with respect to these two concepts, it will be easy to find any number of counter examples.

The marketing of digital cameras has narrowed the meaning of what is good, what is excellent to such an extreme extent that many practitioners today conflate great photography and technical excellence and equate both concepts with resolution / mega pixels. I see that mindset bleeding over into traditional photography as well. People have forgotten that great photographs are often not technically excellent.

blockend · Apr 16, 2018

Cholentpot said:
The number of great photographers is small to begin with.

That's very true. Aspiring to photographic greatness is a fool's errand. However beneath the pantheon of greatness are any number of serious photographers ploughing their own particular furrow. In the end it may not matter whether you want to record every street corner in your town, or TV transmitters. What matters is that you do it to the best of your ability, you do it to its natural conclusion, and people can access it even if you're no longer around.

The internet is a mixed blessing, but one of its saving graces has been to allow hitherto unseen work to rise to the surface. While I was worrying how such-and-such a camera looked on me, they were busy shooting their private obsessions on Zenits, or Instamatics or whatever, and we benefit from their persistence.

Cholentpot · Apr 16, 2018

blockend said:
That's very true. Aspiring to photographic greatness is a fool's errand. However beneath the pantheon of greatness are any number of serious photographers ploughing their own particular furrow. In the end it may not matter whether you want to record every street corner in your town, or TV transmitters. What matters is that you do it to the best of your ability, you do it to its natural conclusion, and people can access it even if you're no longer around.

The internet is a mixed blessing, but one of its saving graces has been to allow hitherto unseen work to rise to the surface. While I was worrying how such-and-such a camera looked on me, they were busy shooting their private obsessions on Zenits, or Instamatics or whatever, and we benefit from their persistence.

I keep shooting transformers on electric poles. Because I can and they stay still.

MartinCrabtree said:
Of course I am as good as I believe myself to be. Others may disagree but it's not for them I shoot.

Just keep shooting. What may be dull today can very well be a timeless gem down the road. I live in a small insular community and I shoot every day things going on. I know from the past that 30 years from now people will wonder 'Hey? Anyone one got a photo of the old book store?' welp, I take photos of the boring old book store now. Does this make me great? Nah. It makes me perceptive.

MattKing · Apr 16, 2018

There is a vast sea of very good, very valuable photography out there. One doesn't need to be great to have made worthwhile contributions.
I always take Dunning-Kruger to mean that everyone's perception of the quality of what they do is inaccurate.

Arklatexian · Jul 31, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Kodak's R&D was financed by many crappy snapshots.

Why limit that to Kodak R&D? The whole photo industry was financed by them. Not so much any more, I think. The crappy snapshots are still being made but with the advent of non-film photography, the "industry" mostly died in the USA. and probably the rest of the world. It would be completely dead in the world today were it not for people in groups like this and for the natural curiosity of young people about "film".

bobsteele · Jul 31, 2018

eddie said:
Maybe 99% of photos ever taken weren’t good, but for most of them the purpose wasn’t to create a work of art. Rather, it was to preserve memories in time. We all have poorly executed photographs of loved ones which are now cherished heirlooms. The fact that the photos don’t meet the aesthetic levels of some other, more aspirational images, does not make them any less successful.

This is more than just about right.

bobsteele · Jul 31, 2018

Cholentpot said:
I keep shooting transformers on electric poles. Because I can and they stay still.

I shoot manhole covers (personhole covers?) for much the same reason.

Theo Sulphate · Jul 31, 2018

bobsteele said:
I shoot manhole covers (personhole covers?) for much the same reason.

About 20 years ago I saw such a book in the photography section of a bookstore - the book was entirely photos of manhole covers. Amazing work - sorry that I don't remember the title or photographer.

mooseontheloose · Jul 31, 2018

bobsteele said:
I shoot manhole covers (personhole covers?) for much the same reason.

Theo Sulphate said:
About 20 years ago I saw such a book in the photography section of a bookstore - the book was entirely photos of manhole covers. Amazing work - sorry that I don't remember the title or photographer.

We've got some great manhole covers here in Japan - every municipality has their own special covers, although the coloured ones tend to be in the more touristy areas.

Here's a snapshot of one my favourite manhole covers in Hiroshima (the Carp are the baseball team there).

Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you're not as good a photographer as you think you are

trendland

E. von Hoegh

Sirius Glass

trendland

E. von Hoegh

trendland

NJH

Cholentpot

removed account4

E. von Hoegh

faberryman

removed account4

faberryman

E. von Hoegh

Cholentpot

MartinCrabtree

BradS

blockend

Cholentpot

MattKing

Moderator

Arklatexian

bobsteele

bobsteele

Theo Sulphate

mooseontheloose

Attachments

Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you're not as good a photographer as you think you are

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency