Master of one trade - terrible elsewhere?

Eltheza said:
Your English is great! I have never had any difficulty understanding your posts
Click to expand...
•


…coming from an English teacher,
now that is pleasing to read, thank you!
 
One of the pleasures of being an amateur is that we have the freedom to shoot whatever we want. (Not that a pro doesn't, but I don't know how likely a pro would be to shoot stuff for pleasure in their own time).

Conversely, as an amateur, unless you are retired, you are less likely to have the time available to shoot all manner of different genres and to become highly proficient at more than one or two.

I imagine also, although I can't quantify this, that most amateurs are either self taught or have fairly limited formal photographic education, and as such are not exposed to photographic styles, ideas or genres beyond whatever got them into photography in the first place. Hence you get the tendency to be reasonably competent at one area and less so in others unless there is some obvious crossover in style or technique.
 
Ed Sutton said:
As you probably guessed I was being deliberately provocative! But as it's nearly lunch time, I'll pick one section to reply to...
Click to expand...

I know :) You DID say you were playing devil's advocate, so it's all good :)



Ed Sutton said:
Maybe in order to teach it's a good thing to be well versed and versatile, but what's wrong, as a hobbyist or professional, with sticking to what you know?
Click to expand...

Nothing whatsoever. I don't think anyone is saying anything different, including me. However, it was posed as a question: Is specialising in one thing only harmful in some way, or at least detrimental? Just my thoughts on the matter really. If someone is content to just shoot what they enjoy as a hobbyist, then I suppose you could say that this whole debate doesn't really matter to them at all.

We can discuss these things all day... because we find them interesting, but no one's saying you HAVE to be, or do anything anyone suggests. I know many people who are just content to shoot landscapes as a hobby and have neither interest, or skill to do anything else... but they're happy doing just that. For the record, I think it IS harmful to limit yourself, but only if you have aspirations to be more unlimited :)

Ed Sutton said:
I can see no need to be able to turn your hand to every aspect of a particular endeavour to enjoy and/or be successful at doing it. From a business point of view it's possibly wise to specialise.
Click to expand...

Absolutely... I'd say it's necessary actually. However, Toni (the OP) was posing a theoretical question:

"Are there some guys who can take a brilliant and expressive image of whatever they point a camera at, or does one have to specialise at the cost of other areas?"


The answer is yes... there are, but it's not an innate talent that just randomly occurs. They can do so because they have the wide range of technical skills that allow it, coupled with that critical way of understanding subjects that comes from being generally... well versed with a lot of things.... well read, and having a deeper understanding on more stuff than the average person. I think critical thinking is key to a lot of good photography. Even those that on the surface appear to be technically driven only, such as sports.. not so. A deep understanding of subject is clearly needed. Place me on the touchline of a football match, and I'm pretty damned sure I can give you as many well exposed, crisply focused images as you require, but because I know sod all about football I'll have probably missed all the important bits and give you irrelevant images - not through some slovenly photographic technique, but through just not understanding the game properly.

I don't think specialising in one area comes at the detriment of others if you're someone described above. If not... maybe you do have to put all your eggs into one basket.

From a business point of view you usually do, yes, but I didn't read the OP in that context.


Kodiak Qc said:
•


I am not surprised that members may not understand me but I am
always astonished by your nonsense brutality and your venomous
readiness to antagonize!
Click to expand...

I make no apology for being abrasive... I just can't be arsed with dealing with people on the internet... probably because I spend so much time dealing with them OFF the internet. It doesn't bother me... and it's not something I feel I need to work on. I am what I am on the internet.. (shrug)

however... I have just re-read our first exchange, and I do feel I owe you an apology. Coming off the back of that incredibly annoying thread about people bitching about not having good enough gear to be professional etc, I just thought "Here we go again", and quite frankly I just lose my s**t when I hear people banging on about gear as if it's so damned important. Let's not go there again anyway... there's a whole thread on it... one I have chosen to remove myself from. Maybe that's personal growth... who knows :)

Any way.... Sorry. You're clearly a very nice man, and I feel I treated you badly.
 
Last edited:
Good grief! :D

A gentleman and a scholar!
 
viewfromthenorth said:
but I don't know how likely a pro would be to shoot stuff for pleasure in their own time
Click to expand...
•


I will admit openly that, before the domestic accident
that cost me the normal usage of my left leg, I never
hesitate to grab a hockey stick and my skates when
ever I had some free time. No way then to hand any
gear after work.

Now, it is a very different story; after work, I went to the
marsh for fun and challenge. Things are changing again
as I will shoot and learn about horses after working on
location or in studio. A balloon flying club has invited me
to join them aboard a craft as often as I want — given
that they have a chance to see the arial pictures I will
capture and render of every tour.

(I also play more guitar but that is off topic! :))
 
Eltheza said:
Your English is great:plus1:! I have never had any difficulty understanding your posts, which are always 'spot on' :)!
Click to expand...
Same here. Then again I'm also a non native English speaking person. And can't stand language nazis who decide to choose the worst possible interpretation first. Would love to see them speak my native language as well as I command English. Then again it doesn't really have anything to do with language it is just a nasty character trait IMHO.

Regarding the topic I find it quite interesting. Whilst I agree with what was said earlier that there is no technical reason why anyone should be any worse or better. I do think it is totally non technical - it's to do with interest. And it is not just regarding photography it is everywhere in live. I love people, people love me, and I love photographing people.
 
Interesting topic. I'm definitely a people person. I'm chatty at work, friendly and generally enjoy being around people. I like photographing people as everybody has a story to tell and everybody has an interesting face. My portraits got a lot better once I'd invested in some lencarta lights me starting playing around with them. It made me think a lot more about the light. This then translated to shots when I didn't use flash. Moving people towards/away from natural light, using reflectors (my camera bag always has a reflector in it!)

I'm not a landscape photographer but with patience I could take a presentable photo. I quite like macro but don't always have the patience. Never tried wildlife properly but would love to do it!
 
I also shoot people I enjoy it and like to think I'm reasonably good at it.
I used to shoot Motorsport but it got to the point I was bored with it, I've tried landscapes and they also bore the life out of me but I do like to see the excellent landscapes some on here shoot.

Personally my free time is limited so I'd rather be photographing something I'm really interested in than something I find a chore.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Just to take a snippet...



For every argument there is a contrary viewpoint. And to play Devil's Advocat (sic) for a moment... I have little respect for photographers who control the light and everything else. That's not photography, it's stage management.:D If you had the time you could set up the lighting and the subject and get a painter to make an image. That kind of photography is all about creating an idealised image. Whereas photography's great strength (IMO) is it's ability to record what already exists with a (debatable) level of veracity. I've used this Paul Reas quote before, but it's a good one: "The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."

For a lot of 'available light' photographers photography is all about serendipity - street photography is based on it, photojournalism is reliant upon it to a degree, as are many reportage and documentary pictures. Photography can be all about what is out there already, making photos of it - particularly the things most people overlook. Making good pictures without being able to control things is as much a skill as making everything look the way you want it to.

Photography doesn't have to be about control, it can also be about looking, seeing and recording things as they are, without intervention. I think this all comes down to personality. Some people like to plan things in minute detail - they are the ones who see the ability to control light as essential. There are others who enjoy being surprised by what might happen next - they are the ones who shun artificial light. To generalise, of course. But as photography is a medium which can be used in many ways, neither is more right than the other.

Just my two bob's worth.
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
Absolutely if that's how you want to realise the image you had in your mind. It would be no less an image for it either.... just a different medium.






I disagree completely. It's about a REALISED image, as you make what you wanted to make, and not be limited by what is placed in front of you. Anyone can photograph what's just.. there... but to craft every aspect of the image and be in total control of everything, surely takes more skill than just being lucky enough to catch the light. Also, to pick up on the first point.. what's wrong with stage management any way? It's not of course.. it's photography. Creating the lighting is not stage management... it's lighting :) A key Photographic skill.





It's ONE of it's strengths, but to suggest it is it's only strength is showing a very limited grasp of it's potential, surely. Plus... lighting something in a studio is not recording something that DOESN'T exist. The object exists, and once I've set up the lighting, the lighting exists. I'm not seeing your point here. You suggest that the only valid photography is the type that merely captures reality that's naturally occurring.

You know full well though that photography does not objectively record... the photographer ALWAYS influences the reading. There's still cropping, angle, viewpoint, and framing, all of which MASSIVELY and subjectively alter the subject.





In it's subject matter, possibly, but not necessarily in any other means. You can still light, manage or interpret that reality as you see fit if you have the skill and ability to do so, and the result can be richer for it. However, that aside, yes. I shoot a great deal of documentary where more often than not I am NOT lighting things and trying to objectively record. My point is (in light of this thread title) is that I can. I'm utterly confident I could shoot anything as well as I shoot my chosen genres because I've been taught to, and have practised a wide range of photographic skills. I'll be bringing my own take and creativity to those subjects regardless.

More often than not, and this is my point... what makes someone be good at one thing, and crap when they try something else, is lack of understanding of the subjects they are are shooting as much as it is a lack of technical skill.

Also... the Reas quote is just his opinion :) He has a valid point, but I think he's wrong. I think it can often be more interesting, but it's not infinitely more interesting :)




Absolutely, and you're preaching to the choir here :) What makes that work successful is an understanding of the subject. That's why Winogrand's street stuff is good, and most amateurs just snap old people looking sad with long lenses. There's no empathy or interest. They're thinking of the image, not the subject. They don't actually give a crap about the old person - they just want to objectify them to get a shot that will get likes on photo-media such as Flickr and.. well.. on here I suppose.

however.... add to this Di Corcia's documentary work, where serendipity and craft skills are brought together, and you can't deny it's effective.

There's no argument I can think of that has an outcome that suggests photographers will not produce better work if they can control lighting. It may not always be something required, or even wanted, but it's a skill that can only ever be a strength. Even if it's just simple stuff like thinking of the surroundings and appreciating the reflected light as much as the direct light (not always visible with the naked eye), or being able to understanding contrast, and being able to control it. I'm not saying all good photography is lit photography, and I think you know full well I don't mean that.... but it IS what stops people being able to diversify, and it is what traps people into genres sometimes. Add to that mix a lack of understanding of a different subject, and the result is often disappointing.




Again, yes. And again, I know you don't think I'm suggesting it can not be. The thread, remember, is what traps people into a genre, and makes them be less able to work outside of a genre. Even with complete available light though, you can still make things look exactly as you want them to.. if you know what you're doing.





That doesn't mean you are not in control though. I'm in full control when I shoot documentary stuff. I choose what YOU see... I choose how I represent the subjects. I show you exactly what I choose to show you, as you do when you make your final editing choices (not processing... editing).

There's no such thing as objectivity without an appreciation of reflexivity and understanding of your subject, and even then you're still not being utterly objective. This is why ethnography is often criticised as a flawed social science.




Then there are those that can do both, and choose what is appropriate, which is my point, and answer to this thread title. A good photographer should be able to do both. If I'm shooting recording equipment for Beyerdynamic or Shure (which I used to do a great deal of) then I'm going to light it, and manage the studio set and do so much digital work it would make even most process obsessed amateur's head spin. If I'm shooting documentary... it will be me... some film, a camera.. and perhaps a speedlight... often just a camera.
Click to expand...

As ever, @Pookeyhead speaks with far more authority and erudition than I can.

I admit much of my stuff is very stagey. It's partly my background, partly a flaw and partly deliberate, and it's something I'm trying to address - partly by doing some simpler work and some street photography. But you're wrong, @Ed Sutton, to think that serendipity doesn't play a part in elaborately lit studio photography. Most of my own favourite pictures have had a fair degree of luck involved - that's what comes of working with another human element. Their input, their response is what makes the difference between a 'product' shot and what to me is a piece of magic.

I've said this before - I think that the best way to learn how to understand and use natural light is to master light in a controlled environment, i.e. a studio. A fair bit of what I've learned there readily transfers to the outside world.

Though I still suck at landscapes :)
 
Last edited:
That wasn't me you quoted :)
 
juggler said:
But you're wrong, @Ed Sutton, to think that serendipity doesn't play a part in elaborately lit studio photography. Most of my own favourite pictures have had a fair degree of luck involved - that's what comes of working with another human element. Their input, their response is what makes the difference between a 'product' shot and what to me is a piece of magic.

I've said this before - I think that the best way to learn how to understand and use natural light is to master light in a controlled environment, i.e. a studio. A fair bit of what I've learned there readily transfers to the outside world.

Though I still suck at landscapes :)
Click to expand...

I must correct you, Simon. I am never wrong. :D

Whenever working in a collaborative way there are bound to be deviations from the original plan. Embracing those deviations is part of the creative process. (y)
 
jerry12953 said:
But that doesn't mean that he's right. I had a quick look at this thread with an idea to contribute but having seen his lengthy and inflammatory contributions I think I'll give it a miss.
Click to expand...

He may or may not be right but it's certainly worthy of discussion. It rather comes across as though you've just popped in to say 'his comments are rubbish but I'm not going to hang around to explain'.
 
The flowers and bird brigade hate me.... He's not really adding anything to the thread. Just popped in to let us all know that he's not taking part because I'm here and no other purpose... but doesn't want to slag me off in public. LOL

You can contribute to the thread without interacting with me you know. It's called the ignore function.


Child.
 
Last edited:
juggler said:
He may or may not be right but it's certainly worthy of discussion. It rather comes across as though you've just popped in to say 'his comments are rubbish but I'm not going to hang around to explain'.
Click to expand...

His comments are seldom rubbish, but they are usually the other things jerry described. It's a reason I've stopped participating in the thread.
 
Phil V said:
I shoot people, and occasionally Motorsport, only do animals at the zoo, and I'm useless at it.

People though... Whether it's candid or posed, natural light, flash, anything, but it's got to be people.
Click to expand...

Flipside for me, anything but people I can deal with.
 
I firmly believe that curiosity, open-mindedness, a thirst to learn and recognition is the key to acquisition of skills and knowledge, and that is what I hunger for. I might be a jacqueline of trades and perhaps a master of none, but I earn a living at what I do, regardless of a title after my name. (which I do have, but just a different field).

Marie
 
i shoot what ever i want whenever i have my camera on me, are all my photos great? "nah i wish" but taking photos is the part i enjoy and getting really good shots now and then just makes it better. if its there i'll try to get something out of it.i do get some odd looks now and then when i'm led on my tummy at the side of the thames.;) 1st time trying an airshow tomorrow wish me luck.:(
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
It doesn't matter what I point my camera at; I'm equally inept at it all. :D
Click to expand...

Well I used to think I was inept too - then realised I was merely lazy and incompetent - now feel so much better! :LOL:
.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think this is the problem. When I Was being taught, flash was part of the deal, and it still was when I was teaching it. Photography is about light, so why would the ability to shape, form and modify light NOT be part of EVERY photographer's training and education?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with this but then I maybe not a photographer as I have never recieved any training in photography.
I have read about it I enjoy taking photographs I am not trying to sell them I take photos for me.I would like to be better at taking photos and there things I would like to do that I have not yet.

Can I take shots of all subjects, maybe but they would not be good enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top