What good Photography is about

[Jed]

i guess for me i wasn't really looking for an answer when i read it - i just wanted to know what these people who had probably tossed and turned about it before thought. and they were all great photographers no doubt.

i guess in some sense - it isn't really vision versus style, they probably go hand in hand somewhat. even the preference for particular subjects can be considered a style, if we break it down into its simplest form.

Actually I think I remember what my real issue was. I got it expecting to find lots of Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite and David Ward. Given those are the names on the cover and in the blurb, I think that's a reasonable expectation! Only to find of course most of it by other photographers that aren't as famous ^^

 

[fevernova]

oh that...... i got tired of hipshotting, i guess.

anyways, maybe a bit of an OT but i think eikin, if he were around would be more than happy to join in.

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/photography_works

well, it's kind of sad that he doesn't come here anymore.

Lovely shots!

That's why I said, you need to learn to translate



Personally no, I'm a bit of a traditionalist although I might be thawing ^.^

I don't want to discredit anyone and by no means am I dissing this forum but I feel that on average, clubsnap is alot more equipment orientated than photo-orientated. Came across an overseas forum once and was simply blown away by how much folks over there were into serious photography.

By that I meant shots that were worthy of going on covers or mags....Of course, a lot of them members there were living off photography so its not a surprise...

Then again, there are a couple of great shooters here...Guess I don't have to point out who they are....:lovegrin:

 

[night86mare]

True true....

Anyway, I've seen friends who took up photography versus friends in the arts design media stream take up photography and needless to say, given the same amount of time to develop the necessary basic skills, the ones with the keener artistic skills always came up with greater photos.

It seems that they already have what they want in mind. So am I right to say, photography is about practicing, learning but sometimes, there are exceptions? I know a dude who spent thousands on equipments and still produces lackluster shots after a couple of years of shooting.

well, as with anything else, there are different learning curves.

needless to say, even if you give a photoshop god something scatty and he made something out of it it's definitely not going to be as great as something that was conceptualised and followed through.

i may be wrong in some cases, since sometimes mistakes do produce some really cool results, but like i said, it's all about consistency when it comes to differentiating good photographers and bad.

it is not a given that every photograph shot by someone good is going to be a drop-your-socks shot. similarly, bad photographers can produce good shots too. i've seen these breathtaking pictures in flickr, when i went to browse the stream expecting more i got generally disappointed.

it is not that different from academic aptitude i guess. i'm sure at one point in life we've all met these people who really just don't study much at all and produce great results. at the same time, we've also seen those that give their all, and still fall short of the mark. do i fault the first group for not making the most of what they have? not really. do i not give the second group credit for trying? not really either.

one thing's for sure, given equal abilities and aptitude levels, a person who works harder is going to be better than the person who does not.

 

[fevernova]

well, as with anything else, there are different learning curves.

needless to say, even if you give a photoshop god something scatty and he made something out of it it's definitely not going to be as great as something that was conceptualised and followed through.

i may be wrong in some cases, since sometimes mistakes do produce some really cool results, but like i said, it's all about consistency when it comes to differentiating good photographers and bad.

it is not a given that every photograph shot by someone good is going to be a drop-your-socks shot. similarly, bad photographers can produce good shots too. i've seen these breathtaking pictures in flickr, when i went to browse the stream expecting more i got generally disappointed.

it is not that different from academic aptitude i guess. i'm sure at one point in life we've all met these people who really just don't study much at all and produce great results. at the same time, we've also seen those that give their all, and still fall short of the mark. do i fault the first group for not making the most of what they have? not really. do i not give the second group credit for trying? not really either.

one thing's for sure, given equal abilities and aptitude levels, a person who works harder is going to be better than the person who does not.

Can't agree more to that!

Anyway, I'm not sure if any of you guys have seen these, but I find her shots beautiful. They're so tranquil and sweet and pleasant to look at....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mayu_/

 

[Jed]

I don't want to discredit anyone and by no means am I dissing this forum but I feel that on average, clubsnap is alot more equipment orientated than photo-orientated. Came across an overseas forum once and was simply blown away by how much folks over there were into serious photography.

You are preaching to the choir my son

I've spent 10 years overseas now and I've been talking about the difference between the average photographer here and the average photographer on CS for quite a while now.

Then again, there are a couple of great shooters here...Guess I don't have to point out who they are....:lovegrin:

night86mare is a legend

 

[fevernova]

You are preaching to the choir my son

I've spent 10 years overseas now and I've been talking about the difference between the average photographer here and the average photographer on CS for quite a while now.



night86mare is a legend

Haha, I guess so....

Yeah, night86mare's shots are beautiful! And he's only 24 to begin with (that is if he's nick really means what it means....). Young and aspiring!

Anyway, back to the topic about good photography, are good photographers able to make boring subjects stand out? Are they able to capture it in a completely different way? If given the same conditions, how can a boring candid shot turn out great?

e.g. I was sitting downstairs with my bag and got bored so I started playing around with the camera. Given an unassuming subject, in this case, my tote bag, how am I supposed to make it a little more interesting? Sadly, I only managed to get 4 shots before having to go off and I'm very disappointed with what I got....

Here's the pic...The background is a little cluttered, subject and composition is plain and boring.

Good photographers can tell immediately what to do and the remedy to it. For me, I know that its bad but I need time to experiment with different angles and shots to understand why it was bad....

 

[riotvan]

Haha, I guess so....

Yeah, night86mare's shots are beautiful! And he's only 24 to begin with (that is if he's nick really means what it means....). Young and aspiring!

he's actually 45

 

[fevernova]

he's actually 45

:bigeyes: Nevertheless, he's shots are amazing!

 

[Jed]

he's actually 45

Old enough to be your father then, tsk ;p

 

[riotvan]

:bigeyes: Nevertheless, he's shots are amazing!

Old enough to be your father then, tsk ;p

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[cabbySHE]

Also, I feel that one doesn't have to be able to know how to taken good photos to be in the position to critique one. I'm not good, I admit it. I don't have the keen eye or ability to capture that magical moment. But when I'm viewing works by others, alot of thoughts run through my mind and its often easy to distinguish between keepers and non keepers....

Do you have the same thoughts when you do your own shot, as mentioned ?

 

[cabbySHE]

e.g. I was sitting downstairs with my bag and got bored so I started playing around with the camera. Given an unassuming subject, in this case, my tote bag, how am I supposed to make it a little more interesting? Sadly, I only managed to get 4 shots before having to go off and I'm very disappointed with what I got....

Here's the pic...The background is a little cluttered, subject and composition is plain and boring.

Good photographers never get bored, they are always thinking and probing into how they could possibily improve on their subject...whether it is composition, angle, lightings, colour, moods, ambience, weather, climate, settings, props and lastly post processing by using photo editing software.

Generally speaking, most exciting, stunning, amazing, aweinspiring etc pictures are usually "made" rather than just " taken ".

Simply put...they know what they want rather than by mere luck of pushing a button.
Of course there are exception like striking a lottery draw, but that does not apply to biz ( professional ) photographers.
And all this ability does not happens overnight.
This is also stand true for those taking the wildlife or sports photography...coz they are " anticipating " and not " waiting " for action to appear.

 

[Southbeach]

Very informative, was interesting reading the posts and comments made by you guys. Actually i was googling all night last night trying to find the answer as to what really made a professional photographer stand out and differ from an amateur or aspiring hobbyist.

Professionals may no doubt tote the very best camera in class topped with the fastest and sharpest glass available along with years of worn and torn experience, placed along side an aspiring amateur however, we may even be astounded by the professionalism and quality of photos taken with by a much less experienced and geared amateur.

I believe that in the field of art it really doesn't matter how expensive your gear is or what camera you shoot but it really boils down to your mind and creativity. I've come to realize lately that what sets aside many great photographers here on clubsnap and gear heads are one, their level of interest in creating art and really being courageous enough to step across the bold line defining a photo and visual masterpiece striving for that very excellence and noting less. And two, the ability to free their mind, allowing creativity to flow seeking a deeper level of creativity and imagination. Only by allowing that level of creativity to surface will one be able to feel empowerment and motivation to strive for that very excellence in creating visually aesthetic masterpieces.

I believe that everyone is made equal, its just how much we really strive and persevere to reach our goals in life. Be it Joe Macnally, Chase Jarvis or even any one of you guys here on clubsnap even with a lomo, youve got everything inside of you that youll ever need in a lifetime. Your mind, your soul, your eyes, your hands and a many even a perfectly capable body to visualize and create marvels.

A Camera is merely a tool to help you build that very image you have in your head.

 

[eyes]

Like a tool to a handy man, a good photo depends on its context.

 

[night86mare]

Actually I think I remember what my real issue was. I got it expecting to find lots of Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite and David Ward. Given those are the names on the cover and in the blurb, I think that's a reasonable expectation! Only to find of course most of it by other photographers that aren't as famous ^^

ah..... yeah, i get what you mean.

i think most of the pictures were by the 3 though? :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

Can't agree more to that!

Anyway, I'm not sure if any of you guys have seen these, but I find her shots beautiful. They're so tranquil and sweet and pleasant to look at....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mayu_/

ah, not my kind of thing, i prefer looking at landscapes more and daydreaming that i am at the sea hearing the roar of waves..........

but yeah, there's some nice stuff there.

 

[night86mare]

night86mare is notorious

yeah, i know. :bsmilie:

Old enough to be your father then, tsk ;p

:bsmilie::thumbsup:

 

[night86mare]

Anyway, back to the topic about good photography, are good photographers able to make boring subjects stand out? Are they able to capture it in a completely different way? If given the same conditions, how can a boring candid shot turn out great?

e.g. I was sitting downstairs with my bag and got bored so I started playing around with the camera. Given an unassuming subject, in this case, my tote bag, how am I supposed to make it a little more interesting? Sadly, I only managed to get 4 shots before having to go off and I'm very disappointed with what I got....

well, let's put it this way, this is where people are different.

sometimes i am quite curious about the mentality that "give this guy a camera, and throw him anywhere, he will take good photographs". i think that's a very weird mentality - take for example the case where you've happened to have throw him into a pitch black room. even if he has a nikon d3 and all the holy nikon lenses in the world, never mind that he would find it hard to change lenses when the need arises, i doubt he can see anything, let alone take a picture.

maybe that is a far too extreme example. how about a perfectly clean and empty room with white tiled walls and the same thing? not everyone is great at taking self portraits - maybe he'd churn out an image or two that is vaguely useful in the sense of stock photography... but i don't think he's going to be able to produce a photograph that makes people go wow any time soon.

everyone has preferences, everyone is better at certain things. if you throw a photographer with little or no interest into one of those notorious cs model shoots and force him to just squeeze out something, he won't get very far either.

there *are* photographers who specialise in seeing that mundanity. most of the more renowned living uk street photographers tend to specialise in that sort of humour - angles, positions that end up making a scene so mundane you could cry end up being hilarious in its own way.

similarly, there are also photographers that just bathe in beautiful scenes, like adam burton.

i think the mentality mentioned above, that good photographers will somehow whip out good pictures everywhere, with every click of the shutter button, that is perhaps taking it too far. perhaps it stems from the singaporean mentality that to be really good, you have to be great at everything, from street to portraits to landscapes to macro. that's certainly not true!

i'd wager that you could find a photographer that could do something with your bag. but find 10 "good photographers" as deemed by most people, hand them the bag, give them the same conditions, i think you'll end up finding them running off to do their own thing :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

I believe that everyone is made equal, its just how much we really strive and persevere to reach our goals in life. Be it Joe Macnally, Chase Jarvis or even any one of you guys here on clubsnap even with a lomo, youve got everything inside of you that youll ever need in a lifetime. Your mind, your soul, your eyes, your hands and a many even a perfectly capable body to visualize and create marvels.

A Camera is merely a tool to help you build that very image you have in your head.

no, people are not made equal. i have to disagree with that.

are you saying that anyone, if theoretically placed in the same situations as any of the great photography masters - say, ansel adams, HCB to name a few giants...... will end up doing the same thing?

i don't really think so. i think if people work hard enough they will at least have a few images that will inspire awe and that they can be proud of, but no, people are not created equal.

anyways, sometimes hobbyists end up with expensive gear, more expensive than professionals use. :bsmilie: also, we have to remember that "professional" by definition, while certainly not meaning nothing - since there is the prerequiste that you DO have to be able to garner enough income to make photography the mainstay of earning dough - it doesn't mean that professionals are at the apex. i don't know if that was a bit garbled - i think what i'm trying to say is that you probably have to be at a minimum baseline as a professional - which isn't low, but isn't at the top either.

after all, just like in other hobbies, there are hobbyists who are good, but they have other options, other preferences.

 

[Kit]

I've been pondering again and again over this....so in essence, what exactly makes up a good photograph? Is the photographer/the scenery an important point of consideration to be taken into?

Is a good photo one that tells a story? Or is it simply a capture of an already beautiful scene? Is it supposed to show the mood of the photographer or the atmosphere of the scene?

Take for example Steve Mccurry's Afghan girl photo that garnered world wide acclaim; no doubt it is beautifully taken and captures the essence and atmosphere of a war torn country and its people.

However, does the difficulty or probably lack thereof of the photo actually count into making that photograph so good? Some may argue that a good photographer is able to see things in different perspective and also able to capture the moment much better than amateurs. But does that mean most amateur shots are to be discredited?

I personally don't think so. After-all, a camera is simply a medium for us to express our feelings,emotions, etc...and I tend to see photography as a form of art. Painting with light in other words....and I've seen great works from alot of people whom aren't even photographers by profession....

However, many times when viewing amazing photos, this particular thought always comes across my mind...and that is: "Am I able to capture such shots given the right conditions as well? Or is this shot amazing simply because of the scenery?

Aside from the mood, setting, photographer (and of course he's equipment), how often are good photographs excellent because of the photographer's exceptional skills in capturing the moment? And how often are shots amazing simply because of the scenery and all it does for one is to press the button?

Please share your comments folks....

A good photograph wouold be those which I had been produced with sound design intentions/proposition. This has to coupled with approproate use of technical knowledge. You can't expect a story behind every single photograph. You will go mad trying to make sense of everything and that's not really how photography should be viewed as a whole. If the intention of the photographer was to capture a great scene in front of him, then a well captured scene with considerations for lighting, composition, etc will be it. Capturing a scene the way you want is not an easy task or as simple as you think. It imvolves a lot or research, recce, technical knowledge and patience. I have seen so many screwed up so many times on so many beautiful locations simply because they are not prepared or are inexperienced. Great scenes are usually waited upon, seldom chanced upon. Amateurs can also be excellent (if not better) photographers.

If you are just starting out, trying to replicate works of others might just be a good way to start. Studying of works done previous(both good and bad) is very critical in the learning process. As you progress, instead of asking "Am I able to capture such shots given the right conditions as well?", you should be graduate to ask "What's wrong with this? Is there anyway I can make this better?"