Great / Professional Photographers

anniephoto

anniephoto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
343
Name
Annie
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been here for a week or two now and have been overwhelmed by the wealth of knowledge, support and talent on TP however it has led me to ask another question.... Can you be a great photographer without the best kit and technical prowess?....

I have long held the belief that photography is an art form and as such is very subjective. I truly think that before the kit and technical skills, there needs to be a spark of imagination, inspiration, enthusiasm, creativity and passion and with those in place, whether you use a polaroid or hasselblad you are well on your way to being a great photographer.

However reading some of the threads on here I find myself feeling rather ignorant and a bit of an idiot when some of the technical conversations go way over my head.... I don't claim to be a "professional" however a recent change of circumstances does mean that I hope to make my living from photography in the future and I know I have a lot to learn!

So what do the rest of you think? Those with outstanding technical knowledge... where did you learn it all? Books? Courses? Reading the manual or just practice, practice practice? Those of you that "wing" it on a regular basis how do you feel? Just interested in others perceptions and some friendly debate ;) What is it that "qualifies" someone as a professional? and I suppose Is a great photographer the same as a professional photographer? (I've seen work that is technically perfect but lacks any soul, story telling, action or interest).
 
You are absolutely right Annie. Technical knowledge without the eye, spark and passion for photography is worthless in my book. What the that techy knowhow does do is allow you to be able to turn your visions into photographs more consistantly. The same goes for most kit.

If you want to rely on your photography for your living then it does make sense to give yourself every chance possible. How you do that is down to what works for you. Books, reading on the net or book a course but which ever you go for, you need to shoot shoot shoot as well. :)
 
You can do without some of the kit, to be sure, but you need to couple the 'eye for an image' with the technical ability and equipment to realise your vision - they go hand in hand IMO...

Technical excellence by itself will not create works of art, but without it, your end-product may suffer...

One of my heroes - Larry Burroughs - was a supreme artist and a brilliant technician. He had all of the latest equipment available at that time and siezed on any technological advantage that would allow him to improve his work...most of the great photographers do - they just don't go on about it...
 
No you don't need the best kit, it's pointless if you haven't got any vision (exhibit A my lord, Kev M's camera collection and mediocre output).

I've just been reading Silver Footprint by Robin Bell and some of the photos in it blow me away yet they were taken using cameras that would be considered inferior by today's standard. Many of those images would get slaughtered on here for technical faults but there's that certain something (hard to describe what, perhaps it's vision or stlye) in all of them that is missing from a lot of the photographs you see on the internet.

As cliched as it sounds I think the one thing that is the key ingredient in all of them is the quality of the light. I'm starting to think that in the important equipment stakes, equipment to control light is more important than the latest camera equipment.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you both though I often look at photo's from decades past that are truly outstanding and it amazes me what they captured with such limited kit!

I have recently bought a load of new kit having been made redundant and having a few pennies to spare and it really has helped my photography, as has soaking up the knowledge on here but in life I do often come across loads of people with all the kit and no idea!
 
I'm quite a technical person, but use photography as a creative outlet.
On the other hand, my 12 year old son James knows next to nothing about the technical aspect but takes fantastic photo's. He just has the eye for it.

He did so well I bought him a 400D with kit lens with which he produced the best photo from our WHF visit.

So yup, if you've the ability you can get great shots. The better kit just enables you to get the shots easier, or in more challenging conditions.
 
My personal view is this.

To become a great photographer you first need to be an artist.
If you dont have the magic eye, then the best kit in the world will be useless to you as would a pc to a 2 year old.

Camera's just give you the tools to realise your vision.

I have known people in the past that go out and buy the most expensive whatever, because they think it will make them the best, but it just sits doing nothing because they dont know how to use it.
 
I think a lot depends on what you are photographing but you need the ability to see the ‘image’ in your head before you press the button.

I think all the greats have generally used the best kit for what they are photographing, whether it’s a small Leica Rangefinder for unobtrusive candids, Nikkkormats for war-zones or a huge plate camera for landscapes. Their main advantage though has always been that they think about and use their cameras so much they almost become an extension of their brain and hand – think musician; getting to a point where you just play the music without thinking about where to put your fingers.

A lot of people nowadays take too long to take a shot as they are having to think about the settings they will use, so the moment has passed, I think that’s why a lot of internet pictures have no “soul”, they have to be posed as that’s the only way the photographer can have the time to decide the correct settings, and that’s where someone with non-top-of-the-range kit but who really knows their equipment will have the advantage.

I reckon you could probably get better candid shots of friends at parties with a compact or even a camera phone than a huge DSLR, as it’s easier to catch the elusive moment that makes for a great picture.

I also (and I might get shot for saying it!) think a lot of internet photographers do too much pixel peeping, possibly to justify their expensive purchases, which is why you don’t see much abstract photography on internet forums,

QS
 
Quantum Sprite said:
I think a lot depends on what you are photographing but you need the ability to see the ‘image’ in your head before you press the button.

I also (and I might get shot for saying it!) think a lot of internet photographers do too much pixel peeping, possibly to justify their expensive purchases, which is why you don’t see much abstract photography on internet forums,

QS
Click to expand...

Both points I agree with 100% ;)

You constantly see photographers aim to have very part of every image sharp. I much prefer to have the bits I want sharp ;) I'm a huge fan of more abstract photography and yes there is a dearth of it around. I hope that if I live long enough it will come back into fashion!

You need an appreciation of good imagary however you come about it. Then add the technical knowledge you need to make it and the kit that will capture it just the way YOU want and that's your receipe.

Yes you can still take a cracking image with a 40 year old Hasselblad so long as the subject allows it but I get the feeling it would be slightly outpaced at a premiership match :)
 
Great post, and a constant subject for discussion with me and my mates (and family) I must admit.

My belief is that 'a set of socket spanners does not a mechanic make'. To clarify, my 12 year old son has a Kodak £60 6mp digital camera and takes really great photos with it. I know someone who has a Nikon D200 with their equiv of an 'L series' on the front, and takes nothing but snaps, and not very good ones either.

Yes, good (or even great) equipment does help but you have to have 'the eye' or the ability to see the picture - without that it doesn't matter if you spent £500 or £5K on your kit, your photos won't be up to much.

To be honest, practice, practice, and then practice again, along wth reading, and this forum are some of the best tools in your kitbag. I have been on a couple of dedicated Canon courses too with Experience Seminars and they have helped, if anything just to confirm that what I am doing is right.!

Things to avoid in becoming a good photographer:

1. Pixel peeping. Work up an image then print it - it looks 10 times better printed professionally than it will on screen.

2. Photoshop Master. People that say they are great photographers because they know their way around PS :bonk::bonk: That simply makes you a good photo processor, or image creative. Get it right in the camera as much as possible. PS does have it place (as does Corel PhotoPaint) but it's should be considered part of your tool kit, not THE tool kit.

3. The know-it-all. Help, assistance, advice, and even crit is always helpful in this game, but just be careful you're not getting all your advice and crit from just one source (or person).

Good luck with the future, you've got a great camera :thumbs: and just remember that this is a very subjective matter. I am still stunned sometimes what people think is a 'great photo' and what others simply dismiss as 'one of those old black & white photos'.
 
I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately but thought better of writing a self indulgent woe is me thread but seeing as Annie started a thread on the same lines (without the self indulgent bit) I'm going to tag it on here.

For a while I've been getting really bugged by some of the crit on here. We all know there's not enough of it but 99.9% of the time it always comes down to the technical aspect of the photos, very rarely is it about the more important parts. It makes me laugh when people are giving technical crit on something 800px wide too:lol: My biggest grievance is the "it's not sharp" brigade. It's like a default comment when you can't think of anything else to say, it's like a reverse "nice shot" comment.

Like I said earlier, some of my favourite photos aren't sharp and if they were anonymously posted here and nobody had seen them before they'd get panned. But it's not just this place, I find the same when I go to camera club competitions. These supposed learned colleagues judging prints very rarely comment on anything other than the technical. They ask you to print up to 16"x12" and then get so close their noses leave grease marks on the prints. It's like pixel peeping a physical object instead of a screen. I swear they should put a barrier around the print to force the judges into taking a step back.

And it's all a bit narcissistic isn't it? The only person whose opinion should matter is our own, but we all love approval from our friends and peers don't we.

But do you know what I find truly depressing? That these great photographers can make technically imperfect works of art, yet all I can make is technically imperfect snapshots.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a 6 month ban on all gear talk and really focus on discussing the important aspect taking photos.
 
Kev M said:
I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately but thought better of writing a self indulgent woe is me thread but seeing as Annie started a thread on the same lines (without the self indulgent bit) I'm going to tag it on here.

For a while I've been getting really bugged by some of the crit on here. We all know there's not enough of it but 99.9% of the time it always comes down to the technical aspect of the photos, very rarely is it about the more important parts. It makes me laugh when people are giving technical crit on something 800px wide too:lol: My biggest grievance is the "it's not sharp" brigade. It's like a default comment when you can't think of anything else to say, it's like a reverse "nice shot" comment.

Like I said earlier, some of my favourite photos aren't sharp and if they were anonymously posted here and nobody had seen them before they'd get panned. But it's not just this place, I find the same when I go to camera club competitions. These supposed learned colleagues judging prints very rarely comment on anything other than the technical. They ask you to print up to 16"x12" and then get so close their noses leave grease marks on the prints. It's like pixel peeping a physical object instead of a screen. I swear they should put a barrier around the print to force the judges into taking a step back.

And it's all a bit narcissistic isn't it? The only person whose opinion should matter is our own, but we all love approval from our friends and peers don't we.

But do you know what I find truly depressing? That these great photographers can make technically imperfect works of art, yet all I can make is technically imperfect snapshots.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a 6 month ban on all gear talk and really focus on discussing the important aspect taking photos.
Click to expand...

Well said. Now get out there and start taking some art.

Seriously though, i do agree, i think the art is lost in togging. I can't talk, sometimes i have left the "its not sharp" crit, but i do try hard to see the art or the thought behind the image first. Being an artist myself, i see so much more to images than just techincal ability, but thats what photography is to me, art.

And there are many different styles to it, which does not appeal to everyone, yet you will get the comments from those that do not like it, like HDR's, if you don't like them don't reply in the thread thats titled, HDR.
 
anniephoto said:
... Can you be a great photographer without the best kit and technical prowess?....
Click to expand...

Easy.. you can't buy whats needed to be a great photogrpaher.. You can be a great footballer without the most expensive boots.. A great chef without the most expensive pans... the list is endless..
 
Without a doubt, knowledge is just as important as creative ability.

If you don't have the creative ability then nobody will want to look at your picture, however good it may be in the technical sense. But if you created your artistic masterpiece only by luck, without understanding the technical aspects, you won't be able to create another one, so both are equally important.

I think that modern digital cameras are part of the problem, not part of the solution, simply because so many people seem to think that if they press the button thousands of times they'll get a good shot once in a while, and then they take the shot that their little computer fitted with a bit of glass to it produced and put it onto a bigger computer where they try to iron out the technical problems that shouldn't exist in the first place...

Before we had 'intelligent' cameras we had to understand at least the basics of photography, and before we had 'free' digital captures we had to pay for film, so we used to do more thinking and less button pressing.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Without a doubt, knowledge is just as important as creative ability.

If you don't have the creative ability then nobody will want to look at your picture, however good it may be in the technical sense. But if you created your artistic masterpiece only by luck, without understanding the technical aspects, you won't be able to create another one, so both are equally important.

I think that modern digital cameras are part of the problem, not part of the solution, simply because so many people seem to think that if they press the button thousands of times they'll get a good shot once in a while, and then they take the shot that their little computer fitted with a bit of glass to it produced and put it onto a bigger computer where they try to iron out the technical problems that shouldn't exist in the first place...

Before we had 'intelligent' cameras we had to understand at least the basics of photography, and before we had 'free' digital captures we had to pay for film, so we used to do more thinking and less button pressing.
Click to expand...

Another good point.
 
interesting to hear all your thoughts! Thanks for sharing everyone! I think the affordability of a half decent camera makes many people flick to something like "MACRO" mode and snap a bug up close and they are so amazed that they got so close that they suddenly think they must be really skilled! At the same time I see so many people uploading shockingly awful snapshots onto sites like facebook and even though they're just snap shots I find myself wondering why they're even bothering but both those observations seem to have been made by many people who now call themselves photographers.... since starting my own photography business I have trawled through hundreds of sites, loaded with flash code and snappy web design but the images of many of these photographers are just appalling.

I didn't study photography but I did study fine art and have a degree in it (for what it's worth!) and I think this has made me a better photographer because it developed my understanding of story telling, composition, colour etc but the bottom line is I've always been creative.... I suppose some of my reason for starting this thread is there seems to be some very technically skilled photographers without an ounce of creativity out there (not on this forum.... I am referring to the other research I have done!) and that frustrates me!

Kipax, to use your football analogy there are some very technically skilled footballers but the exciting ones to watch are those that have the balls to go for the really challenging shots on goal!

Keith, I too am bored of hearing "It's not sharp"...yawn!
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
Well said. Now get out there and start taking some art.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Well, therein lies problem number one. I don't have a creative bone in my body, that's why I chose a technical profession.

It's much easier to sit around talking about photography than it is to actually do photography, even really bad photography.
 
All cameras are is a lens with a shutter. Everything else is just a computer based aid to assist in consistently getting exposure and focus correct or at least acceptable. A good photograph starts before you pick the camera up!
 
Kev M said:
:lol::lol::lol::lol: Well, therein lies problem number one. I don't have a creative bone in my body, that's why I chose a technical profession.

It's much easier to sit around talking about photography than it is to actually do photography, even really bad photography.
Click to expand...

Is that why on the Home page lately the amount of "Techy" threads allways outnumbers the piccy posting ones?
 
There is quite a big difference in being a great photographer compared to a professional photographer.
I think you can be great without knowing the tech stuff.
But being a working pro is about delivering good results every time without fail, to your client. No excuses, no reshoots (think...wedding!).
And if you don't know the tech stuff, chances are you will struggle to get good quality shots at every shoot.
 
I wish having a good looking photo rather than a "technically" good photo were more important. I would say that because I'm pretty much 100% self taught and after only having my first ever camera for just 2 years I'm still learning a lot about the technicals, something new every day it would seem.

To me, if a print looks good from a foot away or on screen looks good at normal viewing size, then what is the problem?

Its nice to have sharp shots yes to blow up to huge sizes, but people do get too hung up on it I think.

I try and get as much right as I can in camera and use lightroom to recover some lost data, but I've found the more and more I've been concentrating on this, the more and more I perhaps miss the light or something!

Also, I have noticed a few "professional" photographers in magazines, books and people on the net who actually make a living out of it take some really mundane shots and wonder how they survive. But I guess the plus point to that is, if they can make a career out of it theres hope for me yet.

Also, if it helps I won a competition with about 1.2k worth of prizes with a shot I took after just owning my camera for just 3 months. Even better the shot was taken with a
Sony A200 with the kit lens. Its not technically perfect, was taken in the "landscape" auto mode etc but it must have had something about it. I hope I don't sound too up myself there because I don't intend to be.
I've always said "You can't give a monkey a 5k camera and expect David Bailey results".
 
you can only go so far without a decent understanding of the science of photography, and a good practical working knowledge of the craft of photography. If you have the skill and knowledge, you can pretty much use any camera from first principles. too much emphasis is put on equipment, when in fact much more emphasis need to put put on learning the basics solidly

I learnt by doing a few darkroom courses, then C&G level 1,2,3 and working where photography was part of the job. I studied Optics to degree level, and did a HND in Imaging. Then I learnt by using a camera day in day out for over 20 years, setting myself tasks and not progressing to the next one until I cracked the first one
 
adamduckworth said:
There is quite a big difference in being a great photographer compared to a professional photographer.
I think you can be great without knowing the tech stuff.
But being a working pro is about delivering good results every time without fail, to your client. No excuses, no reshoots (think...wedding!).
And if you don't know the tech stuff, chances are you will struggle to get good quality shots at every shoot.
Click to expand...

Very true, there are many professional photographers that aren't that great in my opinion. Funnily enough, I often find that the work I like best from the great professional photographers isn't stuff they've shot for their customers. They've not been constrained by some other person's agenda, they've gone and shot what they've wanted to do and there's no doubt that whilst they may not have had the most technically able kit of all time they knew their techniques, they knew their equipment and most of all they had vision.
 
A few years ago my mum had some portrait photo's of her dog done by a pro photographer before i got back into photography again and on close inspection he's completely blown the highlights on her neck & nose (she's a collie) it was obviously a bright sunny day but as a pro he could have dialled in -3 or something.
 
interesting thoughts from you all... thanks... I think I often consider art from the viewpoint of art and I suppose I see it that some people produce technically accurate and aesthetically pleasing products....others produce works that make me really stop... completely stop and really look and understand and appreciate!

When I studied Fine Art I spent some serious hours looking at people like Jackson Pollock (who reduced his art to least technical and pure instinctive mark making), Bridget Riley (whose grasp of form, pattern, dimensions, colour is awesome), Andy Warhol (whose got other skilled print makers to "produce" most of his work) but the art that moved me was none of these.... it was the images that made me stop because they somehow just said something... I guess I'm just trying to find the "art" in a lot of photographers portfolios and I am dissapointed with the lack of it. Notwithstanding I fully accept there is a place for technical skilled photographers who merely document the world in front of there lens!
 
Notwithstanding I fully accept there is a place for technical skilled photographers who merely document the world in front of there lens!
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you're missing the point. Art and technical excellence are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are often inseparable because technical excellent makes the creation of art easier (as well as more consistent) because it alows the creator to concentrate on the content instead of wasting time and effort on the technicalities
 
Garry Edwards said:
Sorry, but you're missing the point. Art and technical excellence are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are often inseparable because technical excellent makes the creation of art easier (as well as more consistent) because it alows the creator to concentrate on the content instead of wasting time and effort on the technicalities
Click to expand...

I know that what you say is true, however in my search to understand the market for photographers at the moment I am seeing more and more "new" photographers popping up who seem to have grasped the technicals without getting to grips with the creative aspect.... there are plenty who as you say show that art and technical excellence can be inseparable and I watch and learn from these people... it just frustrates that there are many who lack some creativity or "art" in their portfolio.

It sometimes seems that you can have a technically excellent photographer who gets nothing but praise whilst totally lacking "soul" but a technically inferior photographer whose images speak volumes get slated from technical shortfalls (not sharp enough etc!).... seems unbalanced I suppose.

I admire people like Richard who posted earlier to highlight how much study he has done.... I aspire to get that much "photography education" under my belt and will pursue it... I also admire Luke who bravely hyped his heroin project on TP (even if IMO he didn't achieve quite what he set out to) but I am also bored of seeing hoverflies... captured with technical excellence by someone with a steady hand, good understanding of their macro lens but totally lacking soul. It's like a birdwatcher going out looking for pigeons... a bit boring!

I'm probably loosing the plot a bit now but I know what I mean! :bonk:
 
I often feel that a lot of the 'new photographers who haven't got to grips with the creative aspect haven't got to grips with the technical aspects either, all that they've acually managed to do is to fool people (including themselves) by using PP to make poor shots look acceptable at web sizes. Often, they are lost sheep masquerading as sheepdogs.

And often, the people who slate shots because they consider them to be technically inferior don't know what they're talking about. It doesn't pay to take the internet too seriously :)
 
Garry Edwards said:
I often feel that a lot of the 'new photographers who haven't got to grips with the creative aspect haven't got to grips with the technical aspects either, all that they've acually managed to do is to fool people (including themselves) by using PP to make poor shots look acceptable at web sizes. Often, they are lost sheep masquerading as sheepdogs.

And often, the people who slate shots because they consider them to be technically inferior don't know what they're talking about. It doesn't pay to take the internet too seriously :)
Click to expand...

:agree: :)
 
My view is you can get a great shot with any camera but you're creativity is limited with a disposable camera compared to a basic £400 DLSR. However the difference between a £300 DSLR and £4000 one isn't a great deal, I rekon 95% of my shots could have been taken on a basic rather than a "pro" camera. So you don't need the best of kit, but if you do have it then it's giving you every possible chance of capturing what you wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top