Are you a good photographer?

[Redgum]

My philosophy, after thirty years as a professional...
A good photographer has a story to tell and goes out looking for the photo opportunity.
An ordinary photographer has a photo and tries to tell a story.
The lesson for both is to make it work but a good photographer will always have an advantage.
When you think about it, how do you rate? :confused013

[ameerat42]

Red, I moved your thread to the F-stop forum for general photography but non-specific topics.

Now, what about myself? Well, not a good photographer by the standards above. Some strengths (mostly forgotten) and weakness (mostly forgotten to correct)
and... well... that's about it:rolleyes:

[geoffsta]

In the eyes of friends and family, I'm a Nobel prize winner....:) Then I look on here and I feel like a "Happy Snapper"....
I love it as a hobby, and I want to keep it that way. What others think is irrelevant...

[ricktas]

depends on what you define good as. A radiographer can be great at taking x-rays, but does not mean they are trying to tell a story or find a photo opportunity.

A newsworthy photo might come from an iPhone, it may not be a good photo (technically) but if the person was in the right place at the right time, the photo could be deemed good, simply cause it captured the news. Thus it is better than the 'good photographers' photo, due to timing.

I think a good photographer and a good photo are two different things. One can be a good photographer and take a mediocre photo, and someone else can be an ordinary photographer and take an amazing photo.

Good photography is not the exclusive domain of good photographers.

As for how I rate? Well I am ok, but not looking to make this my profession either.

[MarkChap]

Well to me, a Photographer with a story to tell is a photojouralist
That doesn't necessarily make them a good photographer.

[Redgum]

And that's exactly why this thread was in "New to Photography"
You can't teach old dogs new tricks. Every good photographer is a photojournalist.
It would be nice to hear from the newbies.

[ricktas]

Of course you can teach old dogs new tricks. Any person who does not want to learn something new every day of their lives, is just lazy.

We moved it so that ALL members could feel worthy of contributing their opinions, not just those new to photography, who may not have any idea what is involved in being a reasonably good photographer, let alone a professional one. We thought you would get a wider range of response to this discussion in f-stop.

[Hawthy]

I do not consider myself to be a good photographer, but I am a much better photographer than I was six months ago. I hope to be better still in six months time. A good photographer, in my opinion, is someone who has put in the work to learn the technical rules and then has the chutzpah to break them really effectively.

As for telling a story? Maybe, but I think that narrative is mainly the writers' domain. Excluding photojournalism, compelling images do not necessarily need to tell stories.

[Steve Axford]

I must be new to photography RG, because I totally agree with you. I have always thought of photography as a means of communication, but it is only in recent years that I have come to see the potential for story telling. That has taken quite some time because it can be quite difficult to present more than single photos that just get some comments like "great photo". I have always liked places where you can present a series of photos that do tell a story, even better somewhere where you can present photos, words, videos or whatever in combination - that can really paint a complex picture. But perhaps what I like is a little more than simple photography, perhaps what I like has gone past a simple way to absorb time. I do hope so.

[bcys1961]

I don't think you need to tell a story , just achieve your "vision" or meet "The brief" . That will be different for everyone. The competitions provide a me brief to fulfil . Then I think about it for a while , generate some sort of vision that I want to create and set about trying to achieve it . Am I good ? Well I'm intermediate level and I have won a few of the comps . I'd say better than some , not as good as many wth still a lot to learn.

[bobt]

After my most recent efforts with an excellent camera trying to shoot at night, I think I have been able to establish quite convincingly that I am not a good photographer!

If I were a good one, I would have produced far better photographs in the circumstances. However, as I quite often produce pretty good images, I would say that I am a reasonably competent photographer in certain photographic situations. :)

As far as the ability to produce a compelling story, or to recognise the emotional impact of a situation, I would rate myself much higher - but that isn't necessarily the skill of a photographer - it is a skill in its own right. If you can combine those two skills, then it can make for a powerful result.

[Redgum]

Thanks Steve, every creator has a story. Why, how, where, when? In reality the story is the purpose and I'm yet to see any good photographer step out for a shoot without one.
Bobt, like Steve, it takes time to realise your story telling skills but when you do your photographic skills will transform for the better.
Like a video editor, you need to understand the story before you cut the film. A good photographer needs the same skills be it portraits, landscapes or motor sports.
After all, a photograph should be worth a thousand words.

[Mark L]

Often photographs without words don't tell the full story. Often they do. You don't have to be a good photog to capture a vision. You can be a technically good photo and have no vision for a story.
Do all photographs need the words? Do all photographs need to tell a story?
I can take a reasonable photograph, though if telling a story is the point, I probably loose.

So what's the story in this photograph? There is one for me, other than a photograph of a bird. You wouldn't know the full story without words though.

110215

And for a few words on this, ..... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?133149-Nankeen-Kestrel-visits

[Redgum]

Excellent example, Mark, and a great photograph. In its current context it probably means little to many who see it. Just a good picture.
Add a caption. "Ready to strike" or "Beware of the predator" and you capture an audience of imagination. A technique often used with serious competitions.
Add a paragraph as would, i.e. National Geographic, and your story will be enjoyed by millions.
My point is, you can be a photographer but not really a good photographer until you tell that story.

[Mary Anne]

Well that puts me at the bottom of the class as I am not a good photographer I am more the storyteller.
I try my best and isn't that what its all about..

[Redgum]

Not at all Mary Anne. Soon as you align your story telling skills with your photographic skills (visualise your photo) the whole concept will change.
I remember doing a poster photo shoot for Virgin in the UK. An aircraft taking off with friendly faces waving goodbye.
One of their larger travel agents added sound effects (simply a plane taking off) from a recorder behind the poster and its attraction was ten fold.
I always wondered what the reaction would have been if the sound was a bomb going off.
Almost like a logo of Big W stamped with the word Cha Ching. Unforgettable, but you know the story.

[bcys1961]

Not sure I understand where you are coming from Redgum. Let's say you take a stunning picture of a flower. A stunning flower , and the photo is perfect in every way with lighting, exposure , DOF ...... . Maybe people regard you as one of the world's best flower photographers ! . But it's just a flower , so where's the story ? Does that mean you are not a good photographer ?

[wayn0i]

When you think about it every photo tells a story Red. Some perhaps tell a short story, like bcys1961 example above may only tell the story of a beautiful flower in the sun, others with more information obviously tell a longer story. Is it good photos tell an emotive story? Personally I think its even more than that, Ive seen hundreds of crime scene photos which have conveyed all sorts of stories, Ive never considered them great photos. So I guess I'm not entirely convinced the story is the be all and end all

[blissful]

Great question Redgum, one that I have been pondering in different ways lately.

For me there are two primary aspects to this question. The first is:

Am I a good (enough) photographer? The "enough" is implied but is at the core of that question and is the driver of some people's photographic journey. Entering competitions or showing photos to family and friends for praise are symptoms of that drive, the quest to be recognised, the need to be validated. I can see this behaviour in others because I can see aspects of it in myself. Armed with that knowledge I can start to lose that need, to step back from my ego and grow into what I would call a "good photographer".

This leads to the second aspect of that question and, to answer it, I must ask another question:

What is a good photograph?

There are many facets that could be explored in that question and each of us will have our own answer. Some may not have formulated an explicit answer - it's a good exercise to do.

I believe a good photograph is one that elicits a response in the viewer.
I also believe the "best" photographs have only the essential elements they need, nothing added and nothing removed. In other words they simply have the essence of what the photographer took, or created, in that moment.

Thus my definition of a good photographer is one who has the ability to connect the viewer with the essence of the moment.

Back to the question: am I a good photographer?
When I am totally present, when I lose myself in the moment and disconnect my ego, then that is when good photographs are created. And I am not "taking" those photographs, they are just happening.
So the answer would be yes, but only when "I" get out of the way. That is when I become blissful.

[ricktas]

everyone is talking about good photos and the interwoven story they tell. But no one has talked about the audience (except blissful - thanks Mike). A good photo or good film can be perfection but if the audience is not interested then that is lost. No matter how good it is or how good a story you think you are telling, someone will not care.

They will look at the photo and be as disinterested as they can be, no matter how good your photo is. so does that mean your photo is rubbish. conversely a grand mother seeing a photo of her grand child for the first time, will not care that the photo is not great, to her it will be the best photo in the world.

There is no such thing as a great photo, only photos that a particular audience might see as great.

EDITED : to fix typos (damn phone auto-correct)

[Redgum]

Mike, with such strong purpose you must really enjoy your photography and I bet you have had some real winners over time. It's a magic feeling when, with audience response, your story is told and their reaction is strong, be it good or bad.
Rick, you're absolutely right. Audience reaction is the key to being a good photographer and unless you understand that, as Mike says, ego will get in the way.
As you said, you only need to look at the film industry. Multi-million budget films flop and so called B-grade films succeed. It's all in the story.
The story is in the essence of your photograph and your photograph will only work well if it has both components. You can't separate them.
The questions are, how do you conceive that story? What do you do before you take a photograph? Why am I taking these photos?

[Steve Axford]

Story telling is crucial to what it means to be human. Think about the way we remember. We can remember almost anything when we can weave it into a story, but items with no attached story are almost impossible to remember. The most lasting photographic images are those that have a story, and the stronger the story the better. Think about those photos that you do remember, or for that matter anything that you remember.

[snappysi]

i often sometimes wonder about the human interest to compartment things, or to have an overwhelming need to put things into boxes. Seems at times if it isnt in a nice category that people feel "at home ' with that something is a miss. Whilst i dont dissagree with your inital hypothesis Red, i do think that sometimes a great photo is just that, a great photo. Will it have more impact if it attaches itself to us via a story we connect to... maybe. Perhaps its just the way i see a lot of things, i see the beauty in lots of things, and i dont feel the need to have a story behind them, or more to the point, i dont NEED a story to make it any more beautiful... to me. And maybe thats it, TO ME...to everyone there is a different point of view, and isnt that what makes these things what they are. A photo that stops me in my tracks and makes me go WOW, you may pass over as just another image, but that doesnt make the maker of said image great, or bad.... its just an image that as personal taste dictates to YOU , is great or bad or somewhere in between.
hope that makes sense....

Simon.

[Redgum]

Simon, it's part of the human genome that we lead an ordered life and none of us are excluded. Do you brush your hair, clean your teeth, go on holidays? We share so much and have so much in common. Photography is no different. Through technology we invented the camera and with the camera we take photographs. Life didn't stop there. With our photographs we compete, often in a big way. And the aim of competition is to find the best, in this case, photographer. Photos don't take themselves.
My question was simple. Are you a good photographer?
I suggested that having a "story" was a key to being a good photographer. Being both a publisher and a published photographer my experience, my friends and my associates I know would agree with that suggestion.
I put the question here to see how the good folk of this forum would respond and so far it has been very interesting indeed. We're not all in the same box at all.

[snappysi]

So continuing on from your answer red, " in this case find the best photographer, photos don't take themselves.".... Say you have 4 photos, all taken by the same person. This person is not a particularly good photographer. 3 of the photos are his / her usual average quality, yet 1 is brilliant. Call it a lucky shot in the dark that somehow ticks all the boxes. Has that person all of a sudden become a good photographer ??? i put it out there that that shot is great because its a great photo, not because of the photographer. Yes someone had to push the button, but sometimes a great shot is just that.... a great shot. A moment in time captured by a piece of equipment that has rendered the scene it sees and frozen it in time. maybe that's more along the line of " just getting lucky ", i don't know...
personally i think that the key to being a good photographer is having the ability to capture shadows well.... lots of people think its light, but you need the light to make shadows, and for the most part shadows add drama and contour. i can think of a few really really good photos that unless told to me by the maker, dont really tell a story, there just great pictures. If someone tells me a story, then adds a picture, it helps set the scene of the story in my head. Are they both mutually exclusive ??? Perhaps the question is does one need the other????

Interesting topic, and i thank you for it.....

[Birdy21]

"Thus my definition of a good photographer is one who has the ability to connect the viewer with the essence of the moment."

Blissful, I have to agree with you and I think you said that beautifully.

[Steve Axford]

My view on photography is that it is a means of communication - and how do we communicate? We communicate with story, be that a song, a book, a poem, a painting or a photograph, they all tell a story. Have you ever been surprised at seeing a painting you remember and thinking "I'd forgotten just how beautiful it is"? The beauty is important, but it is not usually why we remember something. I think of my favourite photos and they all tell a story. I looked up "famous photos" on the internet and every one listed told a story. Of course story need not be happy and it is hard to describe this http://fotografiaunigranrio.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nick-ut-1.jpg as a beautiful photo, but perhaps this one could be http://pixdaus.com/phil-borges-asia-church-monestary-religion/items/view/17274/ . The first makes a very powerful anti-war story and the second transports us into another world where we wonder what it would be like to live there totally removed from this world. Both are great stories. What's your story?

[Redgum]

Snappysi, one lucky shot doesn't make a photographer nor a good photographer. We've all been there.
You could say that a good photographer is one that has lots of lucky shots. I'm more inclined to say a good photographer is one that tells a story and there is little luck involved at all.

[feathers]

I will be, if I continue getting and using the great advice given on this forum:D

Interesting discussion. Think the question though should have been Are you a good general all round photographer?

- - - Updated - - -

As seen there are so many facets to this craft, that a lot call for particular expertise.

[Mark L]

^ so are you a good photographer at the particular expertise you choose?
Can a good landscape photographer take good studio photos of people?
Expertise macro, go take astro.
Do you have to do it all to be a good photographer?
Reckon the photographers that tell the stories have specialised in a couple of genres?

[Redgum]

Mark, that's a good question. Try this analogy.
A policeman may be a good marksman or he may be expert at forensics. He may be a good driver or even a smart detective.
But if a policeman can't write reports or speak coherently he's probably not a good policeman.
Because a photographer can handle only one genre and can't deal with story telling I don't believe he's a good photographer. Perhaps he's a good technician?
As all teaching institutes (and clients if you're a professional) expect a photographer to be multi-skilled, I believe a photographer must have story telling skills to be good.
I can't recall any acknowledged (famous) photographer that in fact developed their skills without first being a story teller of some form and despite the genre they choose.

[MattNQ]

Thus my definition of a good photographer is one who has the ability to connect the viewer with the essence of the moment.

.

I'm not a newbie...but might comment anyway.
Blissful's comment sums it up for me. When I shoot, I want to somehow elicit something of what I feel in my viewer. Be it questions like who, or why , or just thoughts like "wish I was there" or "I'm glad I'm not there!"
I generally take shots with a viewer reaction in mind, and compose accordingly. Eg, I’ll have a picture in my head of whether a cemetery shot will be moody/spooky/gothic, or documentary, or emotive. They are all telling different types of stories I guess

I've done some freelance writing/photography for a couple of 4wd/camper trailer/fishing mags (both local & national) and I am always interested when they select the photos to include with my story. Typically 6-10 images are selected out of the 40 odd I submit, depending on the layout, length of article, and how big the “hero shot” is . To my mind, they often do not choose my technically best photos. But they select images which tell the viewer the most about the destination/subject in question before they read the text - the pictures that tell the story on their own, I guess, and draw the viewer into the written text for more detail.

Am I a good photographer?
No. Not yet. I may have taken some good photographs along the way, but in terms of actually being a good photographer, I don’t consider myself multiskilled enough. I am very lacking in skills in things like portrait, macro, astro etc. Like many I probably stay in my comfort zone too often :)

[jev]

The original questions was: "are you a good photographer?". Now, IMHO there's a difference between a "photographer" and a "picture maker".

The word "photography" comes from the Greek words φῶς ("light") and γραφή ("writing" or "drawing"). A photographer thus is someone that writes or draws* using light. When going back into ancient times, drawings where made to convey a story or to share a memory, not to invoke an emotional response to a "nice" picture.

*): You won't find old rockdrawings that show a flower just because it was a beautiful thing. "Drawing" in this context doesn't mean "making a nice picture", but more documenting before writing was invented.

Anyway, telling a (hi)story is one thing - you'll need someone to consume that information too. How good that communication is, is determined by the receiver, not by the transmitter. A good transmitter however is capable of telling the story in such a way that the receiver actually understands what the transmitter wants him to hear, see or otherwise experience.

A "good photographer" thus is someone that is capable to tell a story (using photo's) in such a way that people are actually interested in "getting" that story. A pretty picture OTOH to me is just that: a pretty picture. It can technically be a good picture, but chances are it still is like singing a song without words.

I went to visit Fotografiska (http://fotografiska.eu/) in Stockholm last week. Lots and lots of works. I noticed there hardly where any people looking at the works that showed the "pretty picture". Instead, many stood fascinated at the works where contact was made between an element in the picture and the viewer. Communication, making the connection to the viewer, that is key.

Thus, in conclusion, a good photographer to me is someone that makes photos that effectively convey ideas, visions, stories if you will. Someone able to technically make a good picture is not, IMHO, a good photographer per sé.

Am I a "good photographer" according to my own definition? At the moment: definitely not. I shoot pictures for myself, for my family, to keep memories on things I do and see and that's all at the moment...

[Mark L]

Am I a "good photographer" according to my own definition? At the moment: definitely not. I shoot pictures for myself, for my family, to keep memories on things I do and see and that's all at the moment...

So if the receivers are happy with your photographs, maybe you are a good photographer?

[jev]

A "good photographer" thus is someone that is capable to tell a story (using photo's) in such a way that people are actually interested in "getting" that story.


So if the receivers are happy with your photographs, maybe you are a good photographer?

Ha ha, thank you, but really... no. "The receivers", that currently is limited to myself and my family (read: my wife). The pictures I shoot for this purpose I'm pretty sure won't get others interested whatsoever. They don't tell a story, they don't invite others to take a closer look, they merely document parts of my personal story for my own benefit. I'm sure my children (if I had any) would collect them after my death and dispose them with the rest of the garbage that I leave behind once my time is up :D. I am trying to restart this hobby, to get back to the level I like to think I was, but life keeps getting in the way somehow...

[virgal_tracy]

I'm going to go back to basics to answer the question.

Snappysi touched on my answer as to what a good photographer is. A good photographer is someone who has a consistent High (ish) standard. Someone who can repeatedly produce the same level of quality. Everyone can fluke a good to great image but could they do it again if asked.

The best photos do tell a story and evoke an emotional response in the person looking at it. Do this repeatedly and you will be known as a good photographer. If you are unable to consistently produce these images and are relying on taking hundreds or even thousands of images to get the next good one then you are not a good photographer.

[MissionMan]

I'm an amazing photographer. It's just these damn people judging the Ausphotography competitions that have no taste :D

[geoffsta]

I'm an amazing photographer. It's just these damn people judging the Ausphotography competitions that have no taste
You and me both...:) These voters couldn't see a good shot, if it had bitten them on the bum......:lol:

[MissionMan]

You and me both...:) These voters couldn't see a good shot, if it had bitten them on the bum......:lol:

Damn amateurs I tell you. One day people will look back at me as the Picasso of photography and talk at length about my artistic talents. PSC, RMIT etc will all have an entire semester dedicated to my work.

I also think the rules of competitions need to be changed to:

1. Did MissionMan enter? If yes, change from multiple choice to only selecting MissionMan with a rating system that offers "1. Wow, 2. Amazing, 3. How the hell does he do this? 4. I am speechless", each set with a standard 10/10 rating and excludes all other photo submissions from other members.
2. If no, then it should only offer ratings from 1-7 because if my photos are a 10, the highest anyone else could possible achieve is at least 3 points lower so there is no point in giving people the 8, 9 and 10 option and giving them a false sense of achievement. :D

It's just a suggestion, throwing it out there for the mods to consider.

[cupic]

It is a hobby,and I take it as such.Many a time this lead to frustration and self doubt.
But it is a work in progress so I must rate myself below average with improvement to come
Only in time

[Jad]

I feel that a good photographer is happy with the images they create without the need of seeking approval or praise from an outside sources. If your primary motive is to please others than you have missed the point and you are not photographing for yourself and developing a true image that was created from within.