Are you a good photographer?

[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.wo.../nick-ut-1.jpg as a beautiful photo, but perhaps this one could be http://pixdaus.com/phil-borges-asia-...ms/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

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 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 . 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

[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......

[MissionMan]

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

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.

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