what makes/constitutes a good photographer?

[John McCallum]

c'mon guys
these replies are mostly disappointing
how come you, as a group/generalisation will endlessly discuss stuff like i use such and such film/developer/paper/camera/lens/whatever your hobby horse is ad infinitum yet here the best you can do is discuss whether it be a can of worms

surely there is more to photography/art/craft/any human endeavour than i use blah blah, blah i'm soo good

Uhh?

 

[scootermm]

What makes a good photographer?
Passion.
MIchael

likely the most concise, clear, and true answer available.

 

[John McCallum]

Well, I dunno Dave. Personally I don't mind reading these discussions, as long as there's a few reasonably thought out posts. Good subject to revisit.

 

[Dave Parker]

Well, I dunno Dave. Personally I don't mind reading these discussions, as long as there's a few reasonably thought out posts. Good subject to revisit.

Okay John,

That don't bother me at all, I have posted my opinions, and my answers, which are every bit as valid as anyone one else that chooses to post on a thread, or am I mistaken? and certain peoples opinions have less validity that anothers, my opininon is, it is a redundant question that has no right answer, that is all..

Dave

 

[John McCallum]

BTW I know a few Passionate photographers who couldn't photograph their way out of a wet changing bag.

 

[Dave Parker]

BTW I know a few Passionate photographers who couldn't photograph their way out of a wet changing bag.

I agree 100% John,

I still after 20+ years have not figured out what a good photographer is, often times the best photographers, starve while on this earth and only get recognition once they are dead, then other times, those who make the most money can't figure out how to load a roll of film in the camera, defining what a good photographer is, is such a subjective thing, that often, I think we are all slocks, and other times, relish in the fact that I walk among some of the best to ever live, I just have such a hard time defining what makes something the best or even good, photography is subjective, and at one time or another we are all going to be subjected to the bad and the good opinions..I still take pictures and love it evertime I press a shutter button, for the most part, those willing to keep doing it are the greats.

Dave

 

[Charles Webb]

As John said above:"

- Have mastered their craft end to end. Know how to use it to be expressive in a final image."

The final image is what carries the weight with me. The final image will tell in no uncertain terms weather the maker has trully mastered their craft or is still laboring trying to learn it. I also believe "that a good working photographer" is only as good as his last image! Though I made many illustrations for some major corporations, I am no longer the same photographer. I still have the knowledge of how to, but my last images have pretty much faded away!

Charlie.........................

 

[John McCallum]

Good or Best. By necessity, aren't these required to be observed by other people. Of course some go around thinking and saying they are good. But this doesn't hold up long in the real world until validated by other people.

Isn't this our opportunity?

Isn't that what we are doing in this thread ?

 

[Dave Parker]

Hate to say it John,

Another photographer telling me, I am bad or good, has very little meaning to me, the buying public, whether commercial or artistic is whats determines if I am good or bad, I take pictures, plain and simple, they spend their money..to me it is pretty simple, I have my favorites, which don't pay squat, they have their favorites, which in my life puts food on the table.

Dave

 

[John McCallum]

If someone buys your photograph, they are validating your work.

If it is a non-photographer without a photographers' awareness of the difficulties of achieving the result; surely that is the best validation of all.

 

[John McCallum]

Okay okay okay. Yes, Good Better Best is subjective.

This thread was about "what makes/constitutes a good photographer?".

There's been a lot of dancing around the topic so far. Why not offer an opinion on the specific attributes that make a photographer good at a photographic genre that captures your interest?

Surely we can do better than Passion.

 

[Dave Parker]

Okay okay okay. Yes, Good Better Best is subjective.

This thread was about "what makes/constitutes a good photographer?".

There's been a lot of dancing around the topic so far. Why not offer an opinion on the specific attributes that make a photographer good at a photographic genre that captures your interest?

Surely we can do better than Passion.

John,

That is what I have been saying all along, there is no definition that will define "what makes/constitutes a good photographer" it is not something that can be put into words by definition, there are good technical photographers, there are good photographers with vision, I don't know the correct way to define the question, and most definately say what it is, passion is certainly a very big part of it, why don't you define it for us, maybe that would be a starting place for us to build on, and I am not stepping around the question, I just feel after making a living at it so long, there is not a correct answer..

Dave

 

[Curt]

One that has a good or "great" eye. Seeing what others might miss or pass up.

 

[John McCallum]

I think that being successful and being good require separate and distinct abilities. One won't necessarily follow the other, or is even necessary sometimes.

Being successful requires promotion and a market. The question is What makes a photographer good?

What is it about Joel Peter Witkin that makes him good? I don't know. But I could venture an opinion about what makes a B&W landscape photographer good or photojournalist.

Dave, I guess the reason I'm a bit hot on this is that I believe if you can't define or describe something that is good, how will you ever hope to be good yourself. Assuming that you wish to do so of course.

 

[Sparky]

duh. the one with the biggest LENS! (or is that the largest format?) -I ALWAYS get those two mixed up...!

 

[Graeme Hird]

Empathy with the subject and the ability to distill the story of the subject - consistantly.

In my opinion .....

 

[Dave Parker]

Dave, I guess the reason I'm a bit hot on this is that I believe if you can't define or describe something that is good, how will you ever hope to be good yourself. Assuming that you wish to do so of course.

John,

You opinion is valid and I respect it, I just don't agree with it, I can give you all of the "Right" answers, which to me is meaningless.

So, I guess that is all I have to say.

Dave

 

[Ed Sukach]

Surely we can do better than Passion.

I don't think there IS anything "better" than passion.

Passion is probably the one most common denominator among all the photographers we consider to be ... what would be the proper label ... "Great"? "Significant"? "Highly Regarded"?

This raises an interesting question: "Do I WANT to be a `good' photographer?"

After churning that question around in my mind for some time ... I think I would have to answer, "No". It is NOT my main concern, my main direction. I want to produce really GREAT photographs, and to me that means, "Work that has a profound effect on the viewer - experiencer."

If someone else - it would have to be `someone else' - decides to hang a label of "good", or "bad" or "indifferent" on me --- Frankly, Scarlet. I don't give a damn. Those labels are not what I am striving for.

I remember one cocktail party. A GUSHING fan (stereotypical "gushing matron") approached one of the "Great Lights" in photography;

"Oh, Mr. AB (not his real name), You are the GREATEST photographer in the world!"

AB, (not his real name), was truly embarrassed. His reply: "Uh .. well ... I DO photography. I guess, once in awhile, I get a good one."

 

[jd callow]

Empathy with the subject and the ability to distill the story of the subject - consistantly.

In my opinion .....

I like this.

 

[John McCallum]

So do I.

 

[Maris]

I agonised for years about what it meant to be a photographer, a good photographer, as opposed to a camera user who makes only exposures and has the actual photographic production process executed by others. Because I offer my photographs as art objects the idea occured to me that to be a morally good photographer I should be held to the same standards as a genuine painter or sculptor. The key principle is to actually make the work one is claiming credit for.

A while ago I abandoned the appelation "photographer" and adopted "photograph maker". In this part of the world I believe the word photographer has become so debased (any jerk with any camera using any medium resulting in any kind of picture) that I neither feel good or moral in applying the term to myself.

The following reads like a manifesto and it is my regular one but it represents to me the minimum standard of goodness/honesty one needs to project to be a fair dinkum photographer:

I make real photographs, actual surfaces bearing marks because they have been struck by light, and not other things that may resemble photographs.

Only traditional cameras, traditional materials, and traditional methods are used.

I employ no back-room people nor have shareholders to please. No assistants or laboratories touch my work.

My photographs are made one at a time, in full, start to finish, by my own hands. I guarantee no digital anything.

All finished photographs are signed and dated.

I guess that reads pretty trenchant but being a good photographer and feeling good about being called a photographer are important to me.

The really huge problem is, of course, making good photographs. That is another deeper question. Sometimes I win, mostly I lose. I hope applying honest effort to the challenge is the answer because that is all I have got.

 

[joeyk49]

What makes a good photographer?

Passion.

MIchael

....and parents......hopefully with passion.....

 

[vet173]

I would say it is how well do they know their craft. Vision can be subjective. Technical ability is just nuts and bolts. When I'm looking at a print ( judging the photographer )the first thing I look at is quality of executition. Then balance of composition, Does it have schnitt? Then the shooters vision. As was stated before, did the image show me a new view of an otherwise mundane subject. Can the image draw me in like a fly to a bug zapper. That will be different for each of us.

 

[ricksplace]

What makes a good surgeon?
cop?
teacher?

It's more than technical ability. Passion pretty much sums it up.

The College at which I teach has a teaching excellence award. The criteria were decided by students, and the recipient must be nominated by students. The nomination process is lengthy and students still take the time and effort to nominate exceptional teachers. The award is very highly regarded by students and faculty alike.

Think back to the really great teachers you had. What makes them great? Why do students flock to their classes? Why is attendance for their classes almost 100%? Why do students who fail the class still say they are a great teacher? Now apply that thinking to photograhers.

Rick.

 

[RAP]

Has this been stated?

How about dying?

Oh wait, the thread is for "good photographers" or artists. No, only great photographers have to die first to be deemed great.

Only the living are good.