A camera doesn't make the photographer

fabphoto

fabphoto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
224
Name
Fabien
Edit My Images
Yes
But if it doesn't what does?
Can anybody become a good photographer?

No one will never be an expert. There is always something new to learn in photography. So at what point do you decide your work is good enough that you can sell your services?
 
Being a 'good photographer' has nothing to do with selling your services.

Selling your services requires you to want to be a salesman and businessman, there are many great photographers that have never sold a photograph, and many people who regularly sell photographs who are barely competant.
 
I totally agree with you Phil but I wouldn't sell to clients if i felt they don't get value for money.

So my question was at what point did you decide you had reached that level and how did you get to it?

I hope that makes sense?
 
fabphoto said:
I totally agree with you Phil but I wouldn't sell to clients if i felt they don't get value for money.

So my question was at what point did you decide you had reached that level and how did you get to it?

I hope that makes sense?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between 'not really good photographer' and 'crap product', don't confuse the two it won't help you analyse the question.

See what Venture produce, it's a lifestyle product, the people who 'press the button' couldn't explain the inverse square law, or even the processing that goes into their products, they have no idea how to light an interior, how to find dramatic light in a natural environment, balance flash with a dramatic sky or lots of other things I'd expect a 'photographer' to know.

But within the confines of their business model, they're using a camera to make money. There are other examples too. I'm sure I've sparked a thought or two.

The 'how do you know you're good enough' isn't easy though because it depends on those factors. What do you want to sell? Can you produce that product of merchantable quality? Is there a big enough market for that product to sustain your business?

It's got very little to do with photographic skill per-se. Just like you can fit exhausts for a living at Quickfit - without being what I would describe as a 'mechanic'. I'd expect the exhaust fitter to be quicker and produce as good an end result - having a narrow field of expertise has it's advantages, it's the basis of the industrial revolution:thumbs:.
 
Spot on Phil, we are a very successful studio, 6 staff who know nothing about photography but take pictures all day.

With the exception of myself, and my knowledge is self taught over a couple of years, there is zero photography skills in the entire studio.

That said we produce fantastic stuff in the niche we are in (fashion).
 
In my view you need an "eye" for a picture, without it, you'll never be a good photographer, all the "flash" equipment, education, filters and photoshopping in the world can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - sadly there are loads of "photographers" who've "done a course", and churn out rubbish to a "formula".
Thankfully their chain collapsed, Olan Mills would take someone off the dole queue, run them through the "set poses" - within a couple of hours they were a "photographer" churning out dross (that sold!)

Many of the best photographers I've come across have the sense to remain amateurs so they can indulge their good taste and artistry - a lot of "pro" photography is formulaic rubbish, and often you have to "prostitute your art" to make a bob...Perhaps I'm a touch jaundiced after doing far too many masonic ladies' nights and their ilk....http://biSPAM/v3WTST
 
I was in the States a few months ago. Next to where we were staying was a massive Walmart and inside was a small studio. It was closed on the first day but had some literature outside, I thought I'll pop in and have a natter with them the next time I was in the store.

When I eventually caught them open, I poped in and said haello and told them I was a photographer and I did some portrait work too. Out of curiosity I asked them how the got into it and how much artistic input they were allowed.

They knew practically nothing... everything was marked out for them and each set had its own lights with a set of instructions on each light. I was really surprised as I expected them to have at least a basic understanding of Lighting and Settings...They did not even know what ISO meant....

Just goes to show that you dont have to be a photographer to be into photography. Or sell your work.
 
The studio you saw in the Walmart was owned by Walmart. They have everything setup and locked down so that you do not need to know anything about photography to work there. The lights are always the same, probably a 1:2 ratio. They just need to figure out how to pose people which Is outlined in a pose book.

I worked for a school portrait company over the past few months, and going from professional creative photojournalist style weddings to assembly line photography was mind numbing. There was literally no prerequisite for being hired. You triangulated your lights and camera distance from where the subject was to sit, and boom. You're done. Rinse/repeat.
 
An artist friend of mine recently helped me along the road to resolving the "is photography art?" question, which has been plaguing me all my photographic life, by very simply separating photography into two most basic elements: "art" and "craft".

A "successful" photographer need only master one or the other. For example, Walmart's studio concerns itself only with the craft of photography and, by all accounts, succeeds. Conversely, a photographic artist can succeed with the faintest knowledge of the craft of photography by excelling in the art of self-expression.

A "great" photographer masters both the art and the craft of photography, and marries them. By so doing, s/he is able to innovate. Most, if not all, of the Nikon and Canon "Ambassadors" whose work/videos I've seen seem to me to be at this level in the photographic field.
 
fabphoto said:
But if it doesn't what does?
Can anybody become a good photographer?
Click to expand...

Probably, but it depends how much you're going to let yourself be brainwashed.

What does?

Creativity and original thinking and the ability to eschew what the rest of the herd are doing and being able to take creative risks.. coupled with immense technical knowledge... plus business acumen and great networking and social skills.
 
Photography is a technical art - You can learn the technical side and to a much lesser extent learn the creative side.

However the difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is someone that already has the creative side in abundance and then simply learns how to use the equipment to realise their vision.
 
PistolPeteUK said:
Photography is a technical art - You can learn the technical side and to a much lesser extent learn the creative side.
Click to expand...


Photography is technical, but operating on a technical level is not art... you're just recording stuff. Very well probably... but recording nonetheless.

I find it odd you feel that it's to a lesser extent you need creativity. If you have no creativity, then your work can not be creative. Surely creativity is vital if you want to produce creative work?
 
The point is it is not always possible to learn the creative side, not that it is less important.

The technical side of photography is straight forward enough and can be learn by pretty much anyone (some may take longer than others)

How do you learn natural creativity?
 
The "eye" is spot on, if you haven't got it your never going to be very good.
 
ernesto said:
T
How do you learn natural creativity?
Click to expand...

Of course you can learn to be creative. Step 1: Stop thinking it's something you're born with. You've learned that from being told to stop daydreaming at school, or by parents telling you to grow up... you have to un-learn all that crap and start dreaming again. It's perfectly possible.

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up."
Pablo Picasso
Click to expand...

I teach creativity for a living... it's possible.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Of course you can learn to be creative. Step 1: Stop thinking it's something you're born with. You've learned that from being told to stop daydreaming at school, or by parents telling you to grow up... you have to un-learn all that crap and start dreaming again. It's perfectly possible.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with this, although I see it from a different angle.
I would say stop believing you're NOT born with it. You are; you're a human being, with the most creative mind that evolution has ever produced.

You might have learned to believe that you're not for the reasons given above.

Absolutely start dreaming again. Dare to think like a child.

Edit: Reading Pookeyhead's post again: did you just accidentally leave out the word not David?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I teach creativity for a living... it's possible.
Click to expand...

I'm a little stuck on this bit. I agree that you can teach someone to hone their creativity into something that is, to whichever extent, meaningful and communicable. I'm not yet convinced that you can introduce/instill a creative streak. I think it's got to be in there to start with, on or at some level.

I certainly think you can teach someone to follow composition rules (and understand their purpose/effect), mimic creative styles and so on, but I don't think you can "give the gift". Rather like you can teach someone to trace an image. It's different from the ideation of the image they're tracing.
 
treeman said:
When someone wants to hire you or buy your work :)
Click to expand...

This looks like the obvious answer but it doesn't hold water.

There are plenty of people stupid enough to pay a small amount of money for crap photography. But that doesn't mean that being good enough to satisfy that market makes you good enough to sell your work. Which is an entirely higher benchmark.
 
SimonH said:
I'm a little stuck on this bit. I agree that you can teach someone to hone their creativity into something that is, to whichever extent, meaningful and communicable. I'm not yet convinced that you can introduce/instill a creative streak. I think it's got to be in there to start with, on or at some level.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can. I do it all the time, with lesser or grater extent.

I certainly think you can teach someone to follow composition rules (and understand their purpose/effect)[/quote]

Following rules is not creative.

SimonH said:
, mimic creative styles and so on, but I don't think you can "give the gift". Rather like you can teach someone to trace an image. It's different from the ideation of the image they're tracing.
Click to expand...

We do it to around 40 students every year, for the three years they're with us. Some are better than others, but they all leave producing original work they wouldn't have been doing otherwise.

The minute you truly believe creativity is something you either have or you don't.. born with, or not born with, you're doomed. Then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wasn't joking: Step 1.. stop thinking it's something genetically encoded. That's BS.
 
Phil V said:
This looks like the obvious answer but it doesn't hold water.

There are plenty of people stupid enough to pay a small amount of money for crap photography. But that doesn't mean that being good enough to satisfy that market makes you good enough to sell your work. Which is an entirely higher benchmark.
Click to expand...

Disagree, on grounds of obfuscation.

The point being made was that you can/might/should decide (subjectively) that your work is good enough to sell when someone else (objectively) is happy enough to buy it. I think this is fair.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Step 1.. stop thinking it's something genetically encoded. That's BS.
Click to expand...

Aah right, I think I see what you're saying now. It's not genetic, like blue eyes or athleticism, it's an inherent human trait.

If that's what you mean, I agree 100%
 
SimonH said:
Disagree, on grounds of obfuscation.

The point being made was that you can/might/should decide (subjectively) that your work is good enough to sell when someone else (objectively) is happy enough to buy it. I think this is fair.
Click to expand...

Exactly! But worded slightly better than I did :)
 
It is, yes. I put the Picasso quote up for a very good reason. It's true. ALL peopel are born creative. Life drains it away from you. A prescriptive school system sucks it out of you... working life sucks it out of you.

Anyone involved in education worth their salary will know this guy... but others may not.

Please watch this... all of it. It's 20 minutes, but it's 20 minutes that hopefully will inspire you to believe that you, and everyone else reading this is exactly as creative as everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
 
Pookeyhead said:
Following rules is not creative.
Click to expand...
That was a point I was making.
Pookeyhead said:
We do it to around 40 students every year, for the three years they're with us. Some are better than others, but they all leave producing original work they wouldn't have been doing otherwise.
Click to expand...
I understand you believe you do, but I don't believe you're right. Sorry.
Pookeyhead said:
The minute you truly believe creativity is something you either have or you don't.. born with, or not born with, you're doomed. Then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...
I don't think creativity is different from any other trait - a gift with mathematics, for example, or long-distance running. Some people just don't have it; are not built that way.

That you can get someone who's not so good to be better than terrible is not a demonstration that you can introduce a gift, only that you can hone what is there already. A gift can be completely obscured for a long time by many factors - not least of which might be self-belief/confidence - but it has to be there.
Pookeyhead said:
I wasn't joking: Step 1.. stop thinking it's something genetically encoded. That's BS.
Click to expand...
In other news, someone who is 6ft tall can be 5ft tall if s/he wants. :shrug: People are who/what they are. You can unlock potential, but there has to BE potential.
 
SimonH said:
I don't think creativity is different from any other trait - a gift with mathematics, for example, or long-distance running. Some people just don't have it; are not built that way.


In other news, someone who is 6ft tall can be 5ft tall if s/he wants. :shrug: People are who/what they are. You can unlock potential, but there has to BE potential.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way.. and I feel sorry for you as well. You are wrong. I don't expect you to believe me, but you are. I see the results in graduate folios and exhibitions every single year. Some are fantastic, some are average, but all are immeasurably more original and creative than when they started. So they have become more creative. If it wasn't possible to become more than you are by predisposition, then how is that possible?


PistolPeteUK said:
I find it odd that you read what I said and decided that I'd said something completely different!
Click to expand...

Many apologies. I misread your post.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sorry you feel that way.. and I feel sorry for you as well.
Click to expand...
Back atcha, buddy! :|
Pookeyhead said:
You are wrong. I don't expect you to believe me, but you are.
Click to expand...
You'd have to make a compelling case to convince me.
Pookeyhead said:
I see the results in graduate folios and exhibitions every single year. Some are fantastic, some are average, but all are immeasurably more original and creative than when they started. So they have become more creative. If it wasn't possible to become more than you are by predisposition, then how is that possible?
Click to expand...
That's a compelling case for MY point, if anyone's, rather than yours. I remain convinced that some people don't have it. Showing me that some other people do doesn't address my point.
 
SimonH said:
Back atcha, buddy! :|

You'd have to make a compelling case to convince me.

That's a compelling case for MY point, if anyone's, rather than yours. I remain convinced that some people don't have it. Showing me that some other people do doesn't address my point.
Click to expand...

How is it making your case? Are you telling me that it's a co-incidence that every single year, every student graduates with a folio of work that is more creative than when they began? The fact that the work is more creative than when they began surely demonstrates that they have become more creative. I fail to see how you can argue with that logic. If some people were just destined to be uncreative, then THOSE people would never see a creative improvement. That however, never seems to happen. I'm not suggesting everyone ends up being a great photographer, but everyone improves creatively, therefore you can become more creative. Simple.
 
If you are a human being then you are a creative creature.

How that is encouraged and nurtured at an early age varies from person to person.

Everyone has it, some have come to believe they haven't. Some will always believe that to some extent.

Everyone can be helped to rediscover it to some extent. Unless of course they close their mind to it entirely. They can't be helped.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wasn't joking: Step 1.. stop thinking it's something genetically encoded. That's BS.
Click to expand...

That could be BS. You have admitted to a vested interest in that viewpoint being accepted. If it is impossible to teach creativity you're out of a job! :D
 
SimonH said:
Disagree, on grounds of obfuscation.

The point being made was that you can/might/should decide (subjectively) that your work is good enough to sell when someone else (objectively) is happy enough to buy it. I think this is fair.
Click to expand...
I guess I'll have to add meat to the bones.

We've seen over the years quite a few photographers who have been commissioned by friends to shoot portraits where the customer has been happy with what we'd all describe as awful results.

The photographers then seek advice on how to take this 'business' further, to be told, learn about photography and find your feet before advertising any further.

Now they have had customers 'buy' a service but don't have the talent either photographically or in a business sense to 'sell' their work.

Is that clearer, or do we disagree about the premise?
 
Ed Sutton said:
That could be BS. You have admitted to a vested interest in that viewpoint being accepted. If it is impossible to teach creativity you're out of a job! :D
Click to expand...



That's quite a cynical view... but OK... I'll play along. It would make no difference, as just as many students come to a degree course with the attitudes being displayed in here right now, and have no pretensions of becoming more creative. They'd still sign up regardless. They still leave producing work that's more original and creative however... whether they realise it or not.

I fail to see why you need to get person by suggesting I have a "vested" interest. My interest is teaching photography because it#'s my life passion. I need no other excuse.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
How is it making your case? Are you telling me that it's a co-incidence that every single year, every student graduates with a folio of work that is more creative than when they began? The fact that the work is more creative than when they began surely demonstrates that they have become more creative. I fail to see how you can argue with that logic. If some people were just destined to be uncreative, then THOSE people would never see a creative improvement. That however, never seems to happen. I'm not suggesting everyone ends up being a great photographer, but everyone improves creatively, therefore you can become more creative. Simple.
Click to expand...

My point is that the creativity scale starts at 0. Your point, that you are able to escalate a % measure of creativity in students, is my point about honing an inherent ability.

If you could teach creativity, rather than hone existing creativity, then everyone's % score of creativity would be most correlated with % effort. It isn't, because you can't introduce a gift. You work with what they have, which is why - with the best will in the world - you cannot help them all on their way to being great photographers.
 
Phil V said:
I guess I'll have to add meat to the bones.

We've seen over the years quite a few photographers who have been commissioned by friends to shoot portraits where the customer has been happy with what we'd all describe as awful results.

The photographers then seek advice on how to take this 'business' further, to be told, learn about photography and find your feet before advertising any further.

Now they have had customers 'buy' a service but don't have the talent either photographically or in a business sense to 'sell' their work.

Is that clearer, or do we disagree about the premise?
Click to expand...

That's helpful, thank you. I think both statements - yours and mine/treeman's - stand. It's probably helpful to distinguish between a piece of work and a body of work. If, on balance, your body of work isn't commercially viable then you're not going to be able to make a business in photography. At the point where you're able to sustain a high standard of throughput, that changes.

Would you concur?
 
SimonH said:
My point is that the creativity scale starts at 0. Your point, that you are able to escalate a % measure of creativity in students, is my point about honing an inherent ability.

If you could teach creativity, rather than hone existing creativity, then everyone's % score of creativity would be most correlated with % effort. It isn't, because you can't introduce a gift. You work with what they have, which is why - with the best will in the world - you cannot help them all on their way to being great photographers.
Click to expand...

Creativity is just a way of thinking, and you can change the way people think quite easily. Creativity is not a physical attribute like being a fast runner, or being a concert pianist. These are things that rely on physical as well as mental attributes, like strength, freakishly high cardio/repository systems, or immense dexterity. Creativity is just thinking... a way of looking at the world, and we can all think. Some people are just more closed minded than others. You can change the way people think though... it's actually quite easy.

Creativity is lost when you grow up unless you are particularly strong willed. Most people therefore feel they are not creative and see creativity in others as some kind of gift of nature, but it really isn't. It's just that they have lost the magic of being a child sometimes. All children are massively creative.. immeasurably more than most adults. The only thing that stops them from all becoming prodigies is lack of motor skills and maturity to focus that creativity. When you get the rare cases that CAN channel that creativity, we call them a prodigy. The fact is though... that creativity is there in all children. They get TAUGHT to NOT be creative in schools and by their parents.

You can unlearn that process.

I'm interested to know Simon. Do you see yourself as creative?
 
Gifted or Driven?

I'm afraid I'm in the driven camp.

The amount of time and effort put in to practice by those who are seen by many to be gifted is astronomical. All of those child prodigies didn't pick up a violin at 13 to find they were brilliant at it, they've been playing 2 hours a day since they were 6. Teaching, drive, ambition has produced what people then call 'natural ability'.

Listen to David Beckhams mum talk about him playing football as a kid. Out with his mates after school, like we all did. Then when all his mates had gone in to watch TV, he's still out for another 2 hours practicing his dead ball skills. Now I'm not a fan of the bloke, but he's one of the best dead ball specialists we've ever produced.

Bill Gates, as a 13 year old, getting up at 5 to cycle to the local college to get some screen time where there's the only computer for miles and after school there's queues to get time on it.
It's that level of drive which creates the success. Jimmy Page on Blue Peter at 12? How much practice do you think he'd had?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top