Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Takes good pictures or Good Photographer?

JammyBee
Posted 27/05/2014 - 03:50 Link
I was having a disscussion with my daughter the other day about photography and I explained that I would love to become a good photographer.
"I have seen your pictures and they are great" she replied (well trained you see).
But I went on to explain that I feel that I have a natural feel for what makes a good picture and if I am lucky I can capture that on film/digital. But for me a good/great Photographer is one who can engineer the correct location/conditions to create a stunning picture.
Therefore as far as I am concerned ATM I am a man who takes good pictures but with time and teaching I hope to become a good photographer.

I guess I wanted to see what makes a good Photographer in you opinion.

Peace James
johnriley
Posted 27/05/2014 - 07:35 Link
Perhaps somebody who is concentrating on making a great image, rather than concentrating on how it's made. Somebody who is after expressing a thought, a feeling, or perhaps even trying to get that bit extra out of a mundane project.

There's probably no single, simple answer.
Best regards, John
Jonathan-Mac
Posted 27/05/2014 - 07:43 Link
You take good pictures? Surely that must just mean that "Wow, you must have a really good camera"?

Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
bwlchmawr
Posted 27/05/2014 - 08:08 Link
I'm not sure that's possible James. It's hard to engineer a great photograph when the conditions are against you or you're in less than inspiring surroundings.

The great photographers are often professionals and can ensure that they go to the best locations and wait, sometimes for hours or even days, for the light and weather conditions to be just right. I love to go to North Wales and have taken some OK pictures when luck has been with me but there's a couple of local photographers who have galleries there and whose work makes your jaw drop. They live amidst the scenery and can pick and choose when to take a particular shot.

Of course, this applies to landscapes. If you can control the light in a studio you ought to be able to learn the art of composition, to take great portraits or stunning still lifes (lives?).

Subjects like motor sport or music events need the best equipment and lots of practice as well as access to prime positions (I imagine, never having done either).

Macro and bird photography again needs the right lenses and lots of patience as well as some specialist knowledge.

I think that specialising must make you better as well as studying the work of others who take similar shots. I expect others have different ideas.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
LennyBloke
Posted 27/05/2014 - 08:26 Link
I think Andrew has summarised it pretty well but most of us can improve if we put a little more thought into our photos. I'm very good at taking pretty average photos, but I do sometimes produce better photos just by using these two techniques...

1. Composition is one of the easiest things to get wrong - we are often so excited about capturing what is a beautiful subject to our eyes that we often forget that the composition changes as soon as we look through the viewfinder. Too often we will centralise a subject - try moving it to another part of the frame for a different impact, a simple technique but often very effective.

2. Where to focus is another thing we often overlook, it's easy to set a small aperture and get as much in focus as we can (which is effective for some subjects), but picking a key point of interest and ensuring there is just enough depth in front and behind of it draws the eye better.

And as Andrew said, study the work of others and learn from them
LennyBloke
gartmore
Posted 27/05/2014 - 08:27 Link
Great photographs are made not taken
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
vic cross
Posted 27/05/2014 - 09:47 Link
I am now a retired person and am still not a "GOOD" photographer. I sometimes take a decent photo or two. Even back in my school days I was jealous of the other kids who could draw and paint good pictures. Everything I know about photography I've had to be taught and learn. Some people just have "THE EYE" for it and some don't. Me, I have the artistic talents of a banana. My grand daughter on the other hand has "THE EYE" and is coming on in leaps and bounds and if she keeps it up she will be very good. We all have the capacity to learn but others just have "IT".
CHEERS Vic.
Born again biker with lots of Pentax bits. Every day I wake up is a good day. I'm so old I don't even buy green bananas.
Fletcher8
Posted 27/05/2014 - 10:10 Link
What makes a good photographer? I think it depends on what they capture. photography can be a very subjective thing in terms of what makes a good photograph. I guess a good photographer needs to have a mixture of attributes. Here are some of the aspects that I personally think play an important part :

Creative
Consistant
Original
A Problem Solver
Technical Ability
Adaptable
Resourceful
Communication Skills
Luck
Timing

I am sure there are loads more things, but thats my starting point.
Fletcher8.
Edited by Fletcher8: 27/05/2014 - 10:10
bforbes
Posted 27/05/2014 - 11:06 Link
I think it's all about seeing the photograph, having in your minds eye how you would like it to turn out. I think that is innate, it may be possible to teach it, but very difficult.

After that it is skill that makes your photograph happen. You may need different skill sets for different situations, lighting for studio, field craft for wildlife or PP for digital art, but those can all be learnt.

If you have that innate ability I think you have a head start, certainly on me.
vic cross
Posted 27/05/2014 - 12:27 Link
Barrie. That's what I said. Different words but the same meaning.
Fletcher8. I'm OK with all but the top 3.
The top 3 are the "THE EYE" the "IT" the (as Barrie puts it) innate ability to see the photo.
CHEERS Vic.
Born again biker with lots of Pentax bits. Every day I wake up is a good day. I'm so old I don't even buy green bananas.
Steep
Posted 27/05/2014 - 12:45 Link
Surely a good photograph comes from it's content? it doesn't have to be the most technically perfect image to be a world beating image although clearly combining both is better. Having a feel for the subject is what makes a good photographer in my mind too James, without that feeling it's still possible to take a great image but it's more down to luck and timing. Depending on what kind of photography you're into you can engineer the situation (studio) or just make sure you're in the right place and ready when the conditions are right to make the image you want (see Colin Prior in the Karakoram as an example).
LennyBloke
Posted 27/05/2014 - 12:52 Link
If taking good photographs consistently if of interest to you, you could do worse than to take a look at the work of Asahiflex (Peter Jonkman) over on PentaxForums (I won't link because his photos are scattered around many posts) you will see that he produces a lot of very good photos of often quite ordinary subjects, mainly by using the depth of field effectively and taking care over the composition (IMO)

There are some really good photographers that contribute on this forum too, but the work of this guy demonstrates the simplicity of these two key points

I don't agree that a good photograph always comes from its content (although clearly it helps in many cases), just look at some of the Macro shots we often see posted here - the content of one photo is often very similar to another but the results can be stunningly different.
LennyBloke
tyronet2000
Posted 27/05/2014 - 14:15 Link
All of the above.
Regards
Stan

PPG
ChrisA
Posted 27/05/2014 - 14:16 Link
Do we pick up a camera with the intention of being a good photographer, or of taking a good picture?

I think you can only become a good photographer on the basis of the good pictures you've taken.

They're two very different things. One is what you do, the other is how people judge you.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
cabstar
Posted 27/05/2014 - 16:47 Link
bforbes wrote:
I think it's all about seeing the photograph, having in your minds eye how you would like it to turn out. I think that is innate, it may be possible to teach it, but very difficult.


If you have that innate ability I think you have a head start, certainly on me.

This is correct, if you don't know the result how can you frame it. I am amazed sometimes at the amount of photographers who take a shot and then decide how it is going to look using PS or LR or other PP method. We where taught this at art college, shooting blindly can occasionally get you something but you need a vision to start with. Would a painter start throwing paint at a canvass randomly and step back and go hey thats good? Why should photography be any different?
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.