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

[bobt]

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

I can understand where you're coming from, and I have had similar thoughts about the gap between my processing capacity and that of others. I am happy enough with my understanding of composition and achieving certain objectives - but that extra "oomph" that some people manage in PP still eludes me.

However, when I comment on an image it always comes down to my own emotional reaction to what is in front of me. Whether it be a heavily manipulated one or not is irrelevant. It is not a matter of how it came into being, but how it impacts upon my perceptions and senses. If it has the "wow" factor, then I am too busy being "wowed" to ponder how it was created. That said, I think that the image which looks as though it came out of a camera rather than a computer will generally impress me the most.

[bcys1961]

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").

Fair enough. I would call things like adding limbs or opening eyes as photo manipulation (or photo/digital art) rather than just adjusting exposure or colour balance etc. without altering the actual composition of the image , which is what I was referring to. I guess it is a sliding scale ( or a slippery slope) as to where one ends and the other starts.

[Arg]

Not that long ago a photo journalist lost his job, his livelihood and his reputation for manipulating an image.

IIRC this relates to a photo submitted in a competition (or published in the media) under the Photojournalism category. The rules are much stricter for photojournalism than for other categories. Otherwise you will get photographers photoshopping tears onto the cheeks of the poor, etc.

[arthurking83]

......

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

While Hurley's images are now looked upon as classics, and he's regarded as a top level photographer ... at the time(as in his time) his methods were controversial and unloved by the establishment.

They may have looked dramatic and liked by the general population, but the army hierarchy had different views.

He had many clashes with the establishment(both during his war photos and Antarctic expedition) with producing real documentary images for archival purposes.
I suppose what we now consider to be photojournalism.

There is a documentary about his photographic life. A good watch for anyone interested in photography, if it can be found.

- - - Updated - - -

......

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

While Hurley's images are now looked upon as classics, and he's regarded as a top level photographer ... at the time(as in his time) his methods were controversial and unloved by the establishment.

They may have looked dramatic and liked by the general population, but the army hierarchy had different views.

He had many clashes with the establishment(both during his war photos and Antarctic expedition) with producing real documentary images for archival purposes.
I suppose what we now consider to be photojournalism.

There is a documentary about his photographic life. A good watch for anyone interested in photography, if it can be found.

[WhoDo]

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.

And this is the essence of the question for me. Photography, with all of its attendant creative tools, is an Art IMHO. We make Art for ourselves and if someone else likes it that's great. If not, so what? It's important to distinguish between the pure Art form of photography and the related but dissimilar commercial application of a camera and processing tools to make money from that and be "successful". I don't aspire to the latter but I sure do aspire to the former. What makes a good photographer great? That one image, or two, that rises above the ordinary because the artist who created it was looking to provoke a reaction and got precisely the one they were after. JMHO of course.

[Nick Cliff]

Brian, many top photographic artists appear to use all the technological tools at their disposal to achieve a certain effect of course. It interests me that some great photographers trained as artists originally, however they still had or have remarkable talent, to tell a story in a new way to create their uniqueness.One early French [mainly portrait photographer] said he never felt threatened by a lot of the competition in his business because being an artist he knew how to use light and composition in a way few photographers of the time consistently grasped.Talent isnt luck its generally hard earned ability and every time I take a photo it makes me appreciate this more,like learning a musical instrument makes me appreciate a great musical performance to a greater degree than otherwise,thats my thoughts on this interesting subject ,regards Nick.

[Brian500au]

I agree with Waz and Nick - a great photographer is an artist.

My beef is with the post work to enhance the artistic value of the "photographer".

I have no problems with the obvious post processing work - but I do have problems with manipulation of the "photograph". If we can accept the standard processing of a photograph is no more than what is done in camera (ie the same result no matter if done in camera or on computer afterwards) - should we be giving the photographer credit when maybe credit is not forthcoming.

As I said earlier at the moment it is fully accepted I can enter an AP competition with a "photograph" I captured with my camera, send it off to an online post processor for as little as $2.50 and get back a highly manipulated image. I do not have to declare what I have done to the image except the fact I am the legal copyright owner of the "photograph".

The above does not make me a better photographer - but some only pass judgement on the final image, and not the process to get the image.

[bcys1961]

As I said earlier at the moment it is fully accepted I can enter an AP competition with a "photograph" I captured with my camera, send it off to an online post processor for as little as $2.50 and get back a highly manipulated image. I do not have to declare what I have done to the image except the fact I am the legal copyright owner of the "photograph".

The above does not make me a better photographer - but some only pass judgement on the final image, and not the process to get the image.

So do your own PP and then you will not have any problem. It will all be your own work .

[Nick Cliff]

Brian,an interesting conundrum, perhaps the creaters of photoshop etc should be paid a royalty determined by the percentage use of their products in the final photographic product sold.Helps if you put the cat amongst the pigeons,regards Nick.

[aussieray]

I feel in the context of your case study/example, the question should be about the different between a good image and great image/picture. I feel great photographer would be someone who can handle any lighting situation and achieve a great result a majority of the time. A good photographer only publishes their good stuff!

The debate may never be resolved with a clear winner

[Brian500au]

So do your own PP and then you will not have any problem. It will all be your own work .

And that will make me a better photographer???? I think you are missing the point!!!!

[livio]

Hi All what a great discussion, I believe that the difference between a good photographer and a great one is a combination of all things, the Great photographer has a different perspective than most, knows their equipment and understands the relationships between ISO aperture and DOF they are able to see an image in their minds before they take the shot, or they take several shots and select elements from each of the shots to compose the finished product. A good photographer understands how to compose, knows their equipment but don't always have the image in their heads before they shoot and sometimes they get lucky and get a great shot. In the old days it was about time and effort I think they did much the same things in selecting elements from one shot and imported them to another via selectively exposing the photographic paper. Today we can do things in photoshop and generally it is quicker and cleaner than working a dark room albeit a different set of skills. Todays great photographers are connected, they are skillful in visual arts and operating a computer at the end of the day it what is printed on paper or metal. It is the finished product that people remember, how it is created is where the debate takes place in camera or composite, with manipulation or not. I can see both sides of this debate and I don't feel that strongly either way, for me it is about the result and a consistent result at that. A great photographer can take a great photo on a cheap camera, that is they don't rely on their equipment to have all the bells and whistles in order to take a consistently good photo. A good photographer relies on his equipment to make some of the choices and does not consistently end up with great shots. In summary I thinks a great photographer is one who has a wide range of skills from the graphic arts world, vision, courage to be different, and the ability to imagine their finished product in their heads before they pull the trigger. A good photographer has similar shills not as developed possibly lacks the vision and does not always have the image in their minds before they click the trigger so they sometimes with to see what comes out.

Kind Regards
Livio

[arthurking83]

...... Today we can do things in photoshop and generally it is quicker and cleaner than working a dark room albeit a different set of skills. Todays great photographers are connected, they are skillful in visual arts and operating a computer at the end of the day it what is printed on paper or metal. It is the finished product that people remember, how it is created is where the debate takes place in camera or composite, with manipulation or not. I can see both sides of this debate and I don't feel that strongly either way, for me it is about the result and a consistent result at that. ......

This is all well and good, but as has been posted about many times over the years .. the end result isn't always everything!

A couple of years back, IKEA made the decision no stop using photography for it's products altogether .. or at least minimally.
I don't know what percentage of the images in their catalogs are real or rendered .. but when rendering start looking like photographs .. you have to question this notion about "the final result is what counts"

You probably don't even need photoshop to create 'a photo' any more .. any high quality 3D rendering software will suffice .. as will any high quality CAD software.


IKEA news #1

IKEA news #2

The real problem is that renderings are now so hard to distinguish from real photos .. there has to be a decision, at some point, as to how much 'enhancement' is acceptable in a photograph.

A photographer is someone that captures an image with a camera. What type of camera is used is irrelevant.
I'm sure that at some point in the future we will see a photography award given to an artist where the image has been totally computer generated.
If it hasn't already happened! The problem is we just don't know.

[Lance B]

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".

If you are taking a photo of a scene and you discover your car is in the frame and then you Photoshop it out, is it any different than you realising it was there and moved the car before you took the photo? To a lesser degree, photoshopping out a piece of paper rather than wlking over and picking it up pre photo? The result is basically the same.

Is using a ND grad whilst taking the photo acceptable, yet post processing ND grad into it afterwards not ok? If the result is the same I fail to see the difference.

Is adding red to a sunset really that bad or waiting for a day when it really is a red sunset if the result looks exactly the same? It might be a place you'll never get the opportunity to visit ever again and a bit of post processing is not really altering what may have happened, just the time that it happened.

What about removing a blemish from a model's skin rather than waiting until the pimple goes away? I fail to see the difference.

I think we get a little caught up in thinking that what comes out of the camera is somehow sacrosanct and not to be messed with, yet we manipulate images all the time pre photo and somehow some people think doing it afterwards seems like you are breaking some holy vow. I don't see it that way. I see that if the photo looks natural enough and has that wow factor then it's fair enough. Don't forget, even in the film days, post process work was done by the pro's on just about every photo, by burning in and masking photos to get the result they were after. Now we can do it with a computer with better results and anyone with decent skills and a computer can do it. No difference really.

At the end of the day, it is the public/viewer that makes the end decision and if they like it then it succeeds, if they don't then it has obviously missed the mark for what ever reason, be that too much manipulation or not enough.

Personally, I wouldn't beat yourself up about it, just do what ever it takes to get the result you want. If that means going back when the light is better or doing it post process, then so be it. It is the public/viewer that will make the final judgement as to it's worth.

[WhoDo]

I think we get a little caught up in thinking that what comes out of the camera is somehow sacrosanct and not to be messed with, yet we manipulate images all the time pre photo and somehow some people think doing it afterwards seems like you are breaking some holy vow. I don't see it that way. I see that if the photo looks natural enough and has that wow factor then it's fair enough. Don't forget, even in the film days, post process work was done by the pro's on just about every photo, by burning in and masking photos to get the result they were after. Now we can do it with a computer with better results and anyone with decent skills and a computer can do it. No difference really.

I'm sure it's more a question of degree rather than the black & white to do or not to do (apologies to William S). The other day I used the Liquify filter in PS for the first time, and felt guilty doing so! Why? Because it was a personal admission that I found the model's looks didn't meet MY ideal in some way. Well, that's not strictly true. After talking with the model who has a terrible body image, I hoped it might make her feel better. Same issue, different perspective. Photoshopping elements OUT of an image if they destroy the shot, I'm comfortable with. Photoshopping elements IN to the image that weren't there? Not so much. In one group I frequent the other day a 'tog presented a photo of the ubiquitous SHB during Vivid, with the moon above the city on the southern side! What the? It was low in the sky, so obviously taken from a moon rise at another venue and Photoshopped into the image. Why? Was the naturally different lighting of the Vivid festival not enough Wow factor? I think that's more the issue, Lance. Of course I could be wrong, and often am.

[arthurking83]

..... The other day I used the Liquify filter in PS for the first time, and felt guilty doing so! .....

LOL! I'm hearing 'ya Waz.

I once felt guilty in removing a small insignificant fence post in an image .. simply because I couldn't be stuffed cropping it.
But at the same time, I had this feeling of finally taming a wild bucking bull at a rodeo too .. if you've ever tried CaptureNX's auto retouch brush .. you'll know why

I only remove dust spots in my images.
I once tried to use HDR in camera .. with a high degree of failure. Although I have had very minimal success with HDR via the PC.

Adding further to Lance's reply re removing litter or colour alterations .. I suppose this is what makes a committed photographer.
A photographer will most likely do the changes in post.
A committed photographer will remove the litter(piece of paper) or wait for the right colour and/or go back again and again till it's right.

Whether one is 'greater' than the other(as per the OP's topic) is a moot point(there's never going to be agreement).

I think it comes down to whether you're in the photojournalist camp(stricter rules re editing) or digital artist camp(almost anything goes) .. and to what degree.

wmphoto's reply with the link .. reply #29 page 1 (butterflies in the forest image).
When I first saw that image a while back, my immediate reaction of horror wasn't due the added butterflies .. but the little alien sitting on the fence(I think it's supposed to be a girl).
That artist isn't a photographer .. no matter how many Hasselblad cameras he has! .. he's a butcher!
I have no idea why he'd spend a small fortune on that type of gear, when any old P&S would have given him the same results .. massively distorted pixels(mainly on the alien on the fence).
99% of this picture's pixels are generated in photoshop!


The problem not having defined boundaries as to what is photography and what's not, is that you place images such as the butterfly one alongside images from the great photojournalists in the same genre.
If you can do that, then why not also include those CAD rendered IKEA images into the same stream too. They also look like photographs.
If all that's required to classify an image as a photograph is that a part of it came out of a camera, then why not simply add into the image just one pixel out of the 50 million that a top end Hassy can capture.

[Brian500au]

Kym's post below is a perfect example of what I am referring to:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...n-she-hates-it

[Lance B]

Well, there you go. As I said in my post, it will be the public/viewer that ultimately decide if it has gone too far, as they did in this instance above, and you have to make that decision as to what constitutes too far or not enough and I am sure that you are more than capable of making that destinction. As I also said, don't beat yourself up about it, if you think you've gone too far, then you probably have and visa versa.

[WhoDo]

Kym's post below is a perfect example of what I am referring to:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...n-she-hates-it

And some more specific examples of what I consider Digital Art and NOT Digital Photography. Enjoy, courtesy of Petapixel.

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/28/digi...e/#more-138921

[MissionMan]

I'm in the camp where I believe majority of the work should be done in the camera. I think lightening shadows etc is fine but the moment the final production looks nothing like the original image, you have to question whether it's photography or Photoshop as an art form. I can understand the use of Photoshop for customers as ultimately you are paid to produce the best result but that is something different and I don't think it should be confused with photography itself. It's post processing which could be done by a different person.