what makes/constitutes a good photographer?

[haris]

Result.

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

The assumption in most of the answers above is that there is an answer. How can this be squared with the fact that our opinions about photographers can evolve? When I knew Joel Peter Witkin's work only from books I thought it too tricky by half. When I saw one of his big prints I was impressed. On first viewing Gabriele Basilico's work left me cold. A couple of years later I did a 180 on it. For me to maintain the position that I didn't know 'before,' but 'now' I do would be short-sighted as I have no reason to suppose that my opinions won't continue to change.

 

[John McCallum]

Great post. Coming from the premise that it takes other people to decide if you are a 'good' photographer.

Should the number of followers who understand and appreciate a photographers' work be an indicator of whether they are good? I don't know if that fits either. It must be relative within their chosen genre. For Photographic Artists; a level of sophistication in their message and in the viewer is necessary in order to be successful (successful in the sense the viewer connects with the work). Also, the right circumstances may need to prevail in order for the viewer to connect with the work - which could take time.

On the other hand, Salgado is widely regarded as good. He can gain a connection with almost anyone who views his images.

I still think Passion is wishy washy. Yes it's an important ingredient to be good, essential to be great. But, what of the other specifics?

 

[bobbysandstrom]

The Photographer!

 

[Andy K]

What makes a good photographer?

The same two things that make all good photographers. Parents.

 

[blansky]

Great post. Coming from the premise that it takes other people to decide if you are a 'good' photographer.

Should the number of followers who understand and appreciate a photographers' work be an indicator of whether they are good? I don't know if that fits either. It must be relative within their chosen genre. For Photographic Artists; a level of sofistication in their message and in the viewer is necessary in order to be successful (successful in the sense the viewer connects with the work). Also, the right circumstances may need to prevail in order for the viewer to connect with the work - which could take time.

On the other hand, Salgado is widely regarded as good. He can gain a connection with almost anyone who views his images.

I still think Passion is wishy washy. Yes it's an important ingredient to be good, essential to be great. But, what of the other specifics?

If having a following were indeed important how do we explain an artist such as van Goch. I took a long time for the following to emerge and unfortunately not in his lifetime. Granted his photography wasn't all that good.

I stated passion because, it is often the driving force to learn the craft, and passion is contageous. Everybody responds to it and respects it.


Michael

 

[John McCallum]

Yes, if the viewer senses passion in the image, it is bound to be attractive. Either passion revealed in the subject by the photographer or somehow imbued by the photographer stemming from his passion for the subject.

The image Paul Sorenson just posted is a good case in point. I think it is a very touching image - even though I'm not that way inclined.

And there's no question that passion is a pretty good motivator or the reverse; it might come as a consequence of success in meeting milestones along the way. I didn't meant to belittle its importance.

Regarding a following - I think that is important to every artist/photographer (whether they acknowledge it or not). Well at least, it is important to have their work viewed and appreciated by others. The ones that are clever enough and have the courage, strive to line up the ducks so they are able to do it for a living. Prof portraiture and the arts are surely very rewarding.

Some pretty visible angst can be found in artists who don't show their work. Down right scary sometimes. Van Gogh perhaps a case in point there. I haven't seen his photography either. Why wasn't he or the many classic American photographers that are mentioned so often in these discussions, wealthy during their own lifetimes? Was it only salesmanship that was missing in order for them to be successfull?

Mentioning Salgado again - incidentally I love his work - has been described as one of the most influential photographers ever. At a guess he's doing ok financially from his current work, in his own lifetime. Misery and good work in humanitarianism sells.





Not sure that my parents made a good photographer.

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/index.html
Read to the bottom and then relate to this discussion.

 

[mark]

most of them are dead?

 

[blansky]

The image Paul Sorenson just posted is a good case in point. I think it is a very touching image - even though I'm not that way inclined.

I think the picture shows love. So I would guess that were all that way inclined.




But I knew what you meant.



Michael

 

[John McCallum]

Quite right. Good picture - poor illustration.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

Tools! the rite tools for the image in construction. Each person evolves through their own process and through this evolution needs to recognize what it takes to answer their questions that the images or statement or whatever they are attempting to complete requires to get to their point.

 

[RAP]

So what is a good photographer, competent photogrpaher? In what discipline, commercial, portraiture, fine art, photo journalism?

Essentially, Photo I is learning the craft, technique, Photo II is perfecting those abilities. Photo III is learning to apply the craft intuitively to vision and application and visa versa.

Everything after that depends on the end result, making images that work and elevate above the technique, mundane. This requires in part, self perception, that I AM a good photographer with the ability to produce speaking images so to actually invest the time and money to work. But also the acceptance and admiration of viewing public, peers and paying clients.

As far as being great photogrpahers, that requires more. Producing images that are individualistic so that viewers can just look at the image and know who the photographer is. Also admiration and adoration of the photographer in part while alive and more importantly, beyond the grave into history.

Not bad for a cold 7:30 Sunday morning in NJ.

 

[joeyk49]

RAP:

COLD ain't the word for it! NASTY COLD is more like it...and I worked all night in it!

Besides parents, it is the work produced that makes the photographer good. He can be a passionate photographer, but not be a good one. He can have extreme technical skill, but still not be a good photographer.

Now for the tough part...

Who makes a good photograph?.....A good photographer, silly!

Harder still, WHAT makes a good photograph?

OH NO! Sorry dude, I'm only going to help open that can o worms, not dump it all over myself. Besides...I gotta get some shut eye...

Cheers

Joe

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think what makes a good photographer is the same as what makes a good artist, or as mentioned earlier, a good teacher.

Someone who has ideas/vision, a desire to communicate those ideas/that vision, and the ability to communicate those ideas/that vision so that it resonates emotionally not only with their intended audience, but also those who they did not intend to reach.

If you only reach your intended audience, you're nothing more than an effective PowerPoint briefer. If someone you never intended to speak to can look at your work/hear your message and be moved by it, your work can be said to be great.

 

[Cooki]

It would seem IMHO that asking a room full of photographers "what makes a good photographer", is akin to asking a room full of anthropologists "What is cuture"
Cooki

 

[avandesande]

good photos?

 

[Ed Sukach]

The opposite of "That which makes a BAD photographer".

Anyone want to tackle that one? What DOES make a "bad" photographer, assuming that such a type exists?

 

[Vahid Naziri]

You are a good photographer when you take artistic nude photos.

I am just joking!

Vahid

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The opposite of "That which makes a BAD photographer".

Anyone want to tackle that one? What DOES make a "bad" photographer, assuming that such a type exists?

Someone who allows technical perfection (or the illusion thereof) to overwhelm the message of the medium. Someone who mismatches the medium to the message - there are some images that were better paintings, drawings, or sculpture.

A genius is someone who can photograph in such a way as to convince you the photo IS a painting or drawing, but you don't feel let down when you find out it isn't (I'm leaving sculpture out of this since it's kind of hard to confuse 2D for 3D).

A bad photographer is someone who fails, and doesn't even realize it.

 

[removed account4]

what makes a good photographer ?

i dunno, maybe coming to the realization that a camera, lenses, paper, film, filters &C &C &C are just tools to show how s/he to see the world - kind of like the way a bird who feeds its young - a photographer can eat (up) her/his reality and then spits it out for us to see (what it is inside their head.)

 

[Ed Sukach]

Someone who allows technical perfection (or the illusion thereof) to overwhelm the message of the medium. Someone who mismatches the medium to the message - there are some images that were better paintings, drawings, or sculpture. ...

A bad photographer is someone who fails, and doesn't even realize it.

Good thought here. Do you know of any specific examples (rhetorical question - PLEASE do NOT name names here!)?

I've been searching my memory ... I think "overwhelming the message with the concern for technical perfection" is certainly close ... but I cannot think of ONE "bad" photographer, if the evaluation is done by the consideration of their WORK.
Personality, integrity, the desire to "get ahead over the bones of others" ... I've seen a lot of that, but I still cannot directly link the idea that "their work is `bad', ergo, they are `bad' photographers."

I have seen a lot of "dead" photographs, where there may have been (n.b. "may" .. I really don't know) an unreasonable amount of attention to getting the photograph technically perfect, to the point of elimination of the human ... read: aesthetic ... quality.

There is a second question raised here: How do we - or anyone else, KNOW when a photograph "fails"? --- or, "succeeds"?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If he were a photographer, I'd say Thomas Kinkade would qualify.

I don't think mastery of the craft is a prerequisite for being a good photographer, and lack thereof is a prerequisite for being a bad photographer. Henri Cartier-Bresson is certainly a great photographer in that his images resonate emotionally with so many people, and not just photographers. He was hardly a master of the craft side of his photography, however. Another example would be David Hockney (who is more of a painter than a photographer anyway). He took the constraints of the instant polaroid form and used them to his advantage, creating a very distinctive signature style.

I think the reason we have a hard time finding real examples of "Bad" photographers according to my proposed definition is that almost by definition, they are unmemorable. Their work, however technically perfect, is so emotionally void that we intentionally forget them. If I were to be barbarically cruel, I could probably name a few classmates from various photography seminars and courses who would fit that definition in my book. However, it would take an excess effort of memory, because they were so banal.

Good thought here. Do you know of any specific examples (rhetorical question - PLEASE do NOT name names here!)?

I've been searching my memory ... I think "overwhelming the message with the concern for technical perfection" is certainly close ... but I cannot think of ONE "bad" photographer, if the evaluation is done by the consideration of their WORK.
Personality, integrity, the desire to "get ahead over the bones of others" ... I've seen a lot of that, but I still cannot directly link the idea that "their work is `bad', ergo, they are `bad' photographers."

I have seen a lot of "dead" photographs, where there may have been (n.b. "may" .. I really don't know) an unreasonable amount of attention to getting the photograph technically perfect, to the point of elimination of the human ... read: aesthetic ... quality.

There is a second question raised here: How do we - or anyone else, KNOW when a photograph "fails"? --- or, "succeeds"?

 

[Drew B.]

If you are a commercial photographer, the only person who can answer that question is the client. Do you deliver the goods? Are they happy with what they paid for? But, a good architectural photog might be a lousy portrait photog. If you do this out of individual passion, you and maybe your peers, family, friends have to love your work. You have to want to grow. Each day, learn something new, try something different. ..ie, I work for a 77 year old architect and when he goes out to a job site, he still gets giddy over the structure going up...like a school boy! For ourselves, its passion...its seeing an image before setting up the tripod. ...sorry, just ranting here.

 

[philldresser]

What makes a good photographer?

Passion.

MIchael

Michael

I would say the ability to put passion in ones images is more true than passion alone. Passion and no skill amounts to luck

Phill