The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer.....

[ameerat42]

I dunno? I got stuck on "good" and "great"

[Arg]

It is not about the tools, it is about the creative focus. If a digital artist uses a photograph as a base (and just a base) for his or her art, he/she is not really a photographer, creatively speaking.

OTOH, a photographer puts the creativity and artistic communication into the image itself: the subject, the context, the placement of real elements, the use of light and colour and perspective.... IMHO.

[Steve Axford]

I think we're getting too granular, and I think Kel's right. It comes down to the definituion of a photographer.

If a photographer is the person who is resposible for the final image, from nuts to bolts, then they may use a lot of PP in some cases, or no PP in some cases. Regardless, it is the final image which would determine whether they were a great photographer or a good photographer. They can, and have been able to for years, use any tool at their disposal to make a great image. And the sophistication of the tools has changed over those years.

A parallel. Cabinet makers originally hand made all their work. Gradually, more sophisticated tools came about which enabled them to make a better product. They used to plane timber flat and square. Now they use a jointer and a thicknesser. They used to use hide glue to hold sophisticated joints together. Now the joints aresimple and held with more modern, an more suitable, glues. They used to carve decorative edges into cabinets, then they used a plane with a shaped blade, then they used spindle moulders.

There are still cabinet makers, mainly hobbyists, who will not use power tools. They are traditionalists. But would they be the only ones who could qualify as great cabinet makers because they don't used power tools. I doubt it.

The "photographer" produces the end image. The "cabinet maker" produces the end cabinet. I personally don't think it comes in to the equation what tools they used to produce their results.

I would judge them on the result.

But - the cabinet maker produces the same product, irrespective of the tools. Some would even say that the best cabinets of several hundred years ago are more detailed and complex than the best of today. Photography was not around several hundred years ago and the tools of today can produce dramatically different results to that which was possible just 20 years ago.

[Granville]

But - the cabinet maker produces the same product, irrespective of the tools. Some would even say that the best cabinets of several hundred years ago are more detailed and complex than the best of today.

Which means that the cabinet maker from hundreds of years ago may be judged a "greater" cabinet maker than the present day one given how he had to produce his work. But the present day cabiner maker could still be judged a great cabinet maker compared his peers. "Great" is not absolute IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not about the tools, it is about the creative focus.

Correct. Judging is done not on the effort but the result. All cabinet makers today have the same tools available. All photographers today have the same tools available. It's the result that judges goodness or greatness.

[yummymummy]

Photography is very subjective.. subjective to the photographic content, subjective to the person viewing the photos. What one person likes, another may not like.
Take my photos of the storms for instance, most people love them.. then there are always a handful screaming " fake!!!" and "photoshop" .. my photographs of storms are usually stitched panos... on film that would have not been possible for a home photographer. of course they're photoshopped, I can't stitch them in camera, and these cells are far too huge to fit in even with the widest lens.. so .. what do I do? if stitching them together in photoshop is not considered a "Photograph" then what is it? it's not really a manipulation, because they're a realistic composite of what I've seen in front of me.

[Steve Axford]

Which means that the cabinet maker from hundreds of years ago may be judged a "greater" cabinet maker than the present day one given how he had to produce his work. But the present day cabiner maker could still be judged a great cabinet maker compared his peers. "Great" is not absolute IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

My point was that cabinet making has essentially stayed the same, photography has not. I made absolutely no comment on greatness, absolute or otherwise.

[wayn0i]

I think the question is do I like my own photograph, and what techniques can I employ to make it better. Do I spend the time perfecting my photography skills or my post processing skills.

Brian,

I think your on the money here. I couldn't really careless whether what I have created was later regarded as a photograph, an image, art or even a banana! If I like it I like it. More importantly did I enjoy creating it.

If I like one of your images, I like it, I wouldn't not like it because you may have spent hours on PP. Should I?

Some people are almost 'purists' for want of a better description, they are outraged at the thought of even the slightest PP, that's OK works for them. Others see the raw image as the starting point and go on to spend hours on PP, that's also good. Why do we really care.

If I was you I'd spend time on whatever aspect pleases you the most or contributes most to achieving the pleasing result you seek.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bcys1961]

If Ansel Adams, Bresson and the rest had access to photoshop, lightroom and all the other great tools we use now , would they have used them? I bet they would have.

But they also had great photos to begin with.

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear .

[wmphoto]

So what about this..... http://petapixel.com/2012/12/09/phot...-a-photograph/

For me, I like the image but is it still a photograph???? Don't want to start that argument.


(but I say NO)

[ricktas]

The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is the great photographer is out taking photos and the good photographers are on the internet trying to work out what is great and what is good.

The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is that a great photographer earns a lot more from photography than a good photographer.

It seems to me we are discussing more about what makes a great photograph, compared to a good photograph. These can be completely different to what the difference is between a good photographER and a great photograhER.

[wayn0i]

So what about this..... http://petapixel.com/2012/12/09/phot...-a-photograph/

For me, I like the image but is it still a photograph???? Don't want to start that argument.


(but I say NO)

Do you like it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

My only real concern about this preoccupation to create image montage's is the high probability that the creator may not be using images captured of their own accord.

it's easy enough to collate a series of elements into a base photo where the added elements were purchased or otherwise legally obtained in preference to doing the hard work for oneself.

The major issue in all of this is that of the social conscience of this so called photographer.
Do they, or will they be forthright and divulge all their inner secrets.

On the whole, we know what goes into the production of a large unaltered image .. as Rick said contrast, image presets in camera etc ....
With a fair amount of both reputation and financial incentives involved in an industry like this .. my guess is that many of the participants may not be entirely forthright with their creations.

We know where the boundaries are(roughly) when it comes to journalism type events, and have seen many victims now of bogus photographic attempts.

I think either way it really makes no difference, as what now seems like an insurmountable obstacle to achieve(this high level of editing in images) .. will one day be a point and click affair.
That's how software is going .... it's quite obvious to see.

I was(and probably still remain) a bit of a dunce at using PS and couldn't get past much of it's workflow.
But I'm sure if I had a go at it again, I could probably collate a series of elements into an image and people could easily be mislead into thinking I knew what I was doing.


My thoughts have always centred along the lines that .. if a photographer has to use deblur features in software, they aren't one of the greats.
I like many different types of photographers, but if what I'm seeing and hearing about them is to be believed they're generally great because the entire image was great .. both capture and final edit.

Also the simple fact that they've producing awe inspiring images doesn't elevate them to greatness as a photographer.
Greatness is also a product of other aspects of photography .. such as patience and perseverance.
Like the folks that wade through thick gooey gloop for days in oppressive conditions for countless years, just to get a single image of something not yet captured.
The image may not be technically great or visually fantastic ... but that yellow bellied sap sucker captured in that deepest darkest equatorial African rainforest whilst giving birth is as worthy as any of these highly processed collages.

Wow factor images don't wow me any more. I think this is simply due to the prevalence of it all. it seems to be 'easier to achieve' or something. Maybe they're all really using some action, or software add on that we've yet to hear about.

I think the great photographers are the ones that capture images of the Night Parrot(unless it turns out to be a fake) .. or the Giant Crystal Caves(Mexico) or that yellow bellied sap sucker ...

I suppose that where the problem could be is in the use of the term 'great' in a vocational topic like photography because it can be used in such varying methods .. great as in the most highly sought after .. or the one with the largest bank balance .. or the one that works hardest .. or has the most photographs in their collection.

Anyhow, as already said it's such a circular topic(s) (greatness/editing/capture/collages/boundaries) that there couldn't possibly be consensus on the issue.
I'm sure that when all this uber greatness that will be possible in software soon, is then transferred to SOOC status .. only then the arguments will end. We'll all be great photographers!

[Nick Cliff]

Brian I feel generally with over use of hdr and a Disney land type effect with many top landscape photos almost too much and have found a preference for more natural colouration now.Having said that my son can have a lot of fun with ant macros transposed into giants wreaking havoc in a city ,and I would like to have his graphic artistic ability ,each to his own ,regards Nick.

[Mark L]

.... but if I was in this to make money (which I am not), should time be invested in the art of photography, or the art of post processing?

Or the art of business?

[ameerat42]

So an artful dodger would be good at PP?

[Grant S]

Is this a great photo or greatly reduced by being a heavily manipulated image?

World War 1 photo by Frank Hurley - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense

Frank Hurley used different tools but I'm sure he would have embraced Photoshop as the means to an end that it is.

[Brian500au]

Appreciate everybodies thoughts.

My beef is really not with the obvious PP enhanced image- the graphic artist wants to show case their PP skills and there is no secret. My beef is the "fraudulent" photographer. The photographer who showcases their photographic skill but really it is a highly skilled montage.

I really brought up this subject in my own pursuit of becoming a better photographer. In order to do so I have studied some of the most popular photographers in this and other forums.

Especially in environmental portrait photography I have wondered "how do they get the face and the background exposed correctly in the same shot without the use of fill light". What are these photographers doing to make their shots jump off the page? I would compare my own shots with those I was looking at, and eventually come to the conclusion - I will never be able to be that good (great) - I am missing the "mojo" factor. You know the feeling when you (or the better half) have cooked up a meal, then you taste it and you know, there is something missing but you just cannot put your finger on it.

I was becoming very frustrated. I had spent a lot of time in the last 30 years learning and practising exposure, shutter speed, ISO, lighting, teaching a model how to pose, using good equipment, taking some pretty harsh criticism on forums blah blah blah. In the end I come to the conclusion I will never improve - I just have not got that artistic ability to have my images appreciated by my fellow photographers (the highest accolade).

The penny finally dropped when i started seeing some before and after shots. I realised the photographer/s in question were not any better than myself - I realised the "mojo" I was missing was not my photographic skills, but my post processing skills. The untouched image was in some cases not as good as I was doing. I also realised of the 1000's of rejected photographs I have on my computer, they are just one step away from becoming good "images" - I just need to improve my post processing skills.

If I really want to fast track this quest for "greatness", I could concentrate on my taking of photographs and outsource the post processing to somebody who specialises in that type of work. But then again I would still have to look at myself in the mirror next day, so this is not going to happen, (until I enter the next AP competition ).

So the next time you leave a comment on a thread "great shot" what are you really commenting on - the "photograph" or the "image".

[bcys1961]

I think you are judging both . Good PP will enhance a good photo , but it won't fix poor composition , incorrect DOf selection , OOF , so you need the good photo to begin with.

[Brian500au]

I think you are judging both . Good PP will enhance a good photo , but it won't fix poor composition , incorrect DOf selection , OOF , so you need the good photo to begin with.

Actually I have to disagree with you here. PP will fix poor composition (add limbs, turn heads, open eyes, make taller, remove and add people / obtrusive backgrounds, adjust fill light levels, even add motion to stationary objects), and incorrect DOF is just blurring the parts not required in focus (you have around 20 different filters in PS to do that).

Probably the only thing not fully accomplished in PP is to correct OOF - but that is just a matter of time until this is perfected.

PP even removes the need for the photographer to be imaginative and creative - because I can do that later in PP.

Just checked online - I can pay someone between $2.50 and $10 an image to do all the above (and I can still display the image as my own "photograph").

[ameerat42]

(Ultimately they're both just words we tend to ascribe loosely to things that we think impress. If you don't do it consciously yourself,
then there's plenty of popular adulation going around. You almost find yourself being pushed up onto some bandwagon or other.)