What makes someone a good photographer?

Question

What makes someone a good photographer?

1. Skill with the camera?

2. Artistic eye?

3. Theoretical knowledge?

4. A lot of practice?

The reason I am asking is that my photographs don't look nearly as good as I wish it to be. When I see photos on deviantArt and then when I look at my photos - there is just no comparison.

I am frustrated because I can't achieve the photo results I want and I am not sure what's wrong - is it just me, or my lack of skill with the camera, or perhaps both.

Answer

Patience and persistence.

"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." - attributed to Henri Cartier-Bresson

I'm amazed how much you learn simply by taking more pictures. I started a photo a day project last October, and I can tell a huge difference in the quality of my photos now compared to when I started.

Also, take an evening and spend a few hours observing one scene, perhaps a park or something. Especially during the "golden hour" before sunset, you can see huge changes in the scene, and each moment gives a different mood to the scene.

Technical skill is important, but you don't really need to focus to much on it, because you will improve your skill as you take pictures that aren't quite right. The ones that turn out pretty well except one little flaw are the ones you can learn the most from, because that one flaw will drive you nuts and force you to figure out how to fix it the next time you encounter a similar situation.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there high-class photographers that never use editing software?

Question

Are there any ‘high-class photographers’ that can produce good results for every single shot, so that the shots don’t require post processing?

If not, then is it possible to become a top photographer without knowing how to edit?

Answer

It is at least partly true of some of the busiest photographers. It has nothing to do with the photographs not being edited, and simply means the photographer isn't the one doing the editing. Just for example, during the Olympics, the guys doing shooting just shoot. They have at least a couple of cameras, and an assistant who's responsible (among other things) for ensuring that that they always have a camera with memory space available.

When one's full, they trade cameras with the assistant. The assistant usually won't handle the editing either -- his job is primarily swapping cards and (if necessary) lenses. The cards he just gets (via whatever means) to other people who download the pictures, bring the cards back to the assistant, etc. Somebody eventually edits the shots, but there are probably going to be three or four layers of other people in between the photographer and the person who does the editing (and, just to keep things interesting, a fair number of those people probably have something like "editor" in their job title).

That, of course, is a fairly extreme case, but the same general idea remains in a lot of other cases as well. The photographer handles shooting, and leaves the editing to people who specialize in editing.

If what you intended to imply was shots so good they didn't need editing at all, then it's mostly nonsense. To even stand a chance of being true at all, you have to start by defining "editing" pretty narrowly. Just converting a raw file to a "picture" at all requires a fair amount of "editing". Except for the very most simplistic conversion (that nobody would willingly use) there are quite a few "editing" types of input into the process of converting a raw file into a picture (e.g., sharpening, adjusting brightness, contrast, white balance, etc.) In this case, there is no really "unedited" version of things -- at most, there's the "default" version, which basically just means leaving the "editing" to the people who wrote the software (and since they obviously can't see the picture in question, their decision(s) are rarely optimal for any given photograph).

If you mean there are no localized edits, and all that's done is "global" editing (the aforementioned adjustments to overall brightness, contrast, WB, etc.) then it starts to have at least some possibility of being true at least part of the time -- but only if you make it a tautology, by defining "high class photographers" as photographers who don't do any of that sort of editing. Otherwise, it's still pretty much nonsense.

Edit: in response to edited question: By you added definition of "high class photographers", I'd say there simply is no such thing. I've known a fair number of excellent professional photographers. I doubt that any of them would consider publishing or displaying even 10% of the pictures they took. For most, the number is probably closer to 1%. Part of that is from experimenting and such, taking pictures they don't expect to be worth much. Part, however, is simply having high enough standards that even slight imperfections are enough that a picture won't be used (at least as-is). The reality, however, is that if even half your pictures come out "good", you either have very low standards, or you're not challenging yourself much (if at all).

Check more discussion of this question.

Are equipment reviews from websites like kenrockwell.com and bythom.com reliable?

Question

I know that nothing helps more when buying a lens to actually test it out yourself, but in my case anyway I feel it's good to know many people's experiences. Kenrockwell is a website that I run into a lot when trying to get info on a lens. When I google a model it's usually one of the first results. The problem is, any time I or anyone else brings up KenRockwell at freenode's #photogeeks (among other places) they lambast it simply because it is from KenRockwell.

In other news, I'm thinking of getting a cheap mild telephoto prime (outside of my zoom lens budget (c;) so I've been researching the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 D fairly extensively. After having handled it myself, I am fairly certain it's the one I'm going to buy. Let's see what Ken Rockwell says about it:

He gives some remarks on OOF elements in the performance section. (I won't paste it here as I think he says he doesn't want his stuff copied anywhere)

Given, bokeh is not as good in the 85mm 1.8 as it is in the 1.4 but from what little I've used the lens (and seen from photos taken with it on like flickr and stuff), I wouldn't call it 'fairly poor'. He gives a pretty specific criticism on halos for not having used the lens much, but I think that is kind of a nitpick on my part.

One of the big things #photogeeks complains about is the little blurb in the About section that says that he adds satire and fiction to the site.

I notice many websites of this sort (Kenrockwell, ByThom [although Mr. Hogan doesn't review lenses that he doesn't claim to have used]) don't have too many sample pictures and the ones they do have are usually heavily scaled. Kenrockwell's gallery's pictures aren't even 640x480.

Are there good reasons to trust massive single-user for-profit photography websites like KenRockwell.com?

If you have not noticed yet, this rant is pretty biased. I apologize. This is what the people at #photogeeks have shown me. I'm more than open for someone to show me otherwise.

Edit: Perhaps I should not have dragged Mr. Hogan into this question as his writings do indicate that he has much more experience with the equipment than Mr. Rockwell. I am no photography expert but his reviews on the lenses I own fit the bill exactly. As many of you have mentioned, (and as is evident in reading their sites) Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Hogan have totally different review methods.

The reason I thought to include Mr. Hogan is because both he and Mr. Rockwell are big photography reviewers who make a lot of money from their websites. That doesn't make them bad reviewers. I just feel that even on something as petty as product reviews you can fall into a trap of getting biased towards a particular reviewer's opinions. I know it happened to me when I was first looking to buy. I though Mr. Rockwell was the bomb dot com because of the heaps of praise he threw on the really cheap lenses within my budget while I looked with disdain at more analytic reviewers' opinions (read: ByThom) on the same lenses. I guess that is because the more real reviews revealed the lens's real shortcomings. People will see what they want to see.

It is evident to me now that Mr. Hogans reviews carry more weight in the real world but I can see how bias can go both ways. I guess there really is nothing better than trying the lens out for yourself. As I have mentioned I have done above, just never with big $1000+ investment lenses.

That brings me back to my question: On an absolute scale how much can you trust these review sites?

P.S. Thank you for reading my rant! If you have gotten this far you are the winner (c:

Answer

I find that when it comes to stuff like reviews (including, but not limited to photography equipment), you probably don't want to put all your eggs in one basket for anything important.

If you look at two or three (or more) reviews, however, you should start to see some common themes emerging -- ie, the lens is soft wide-open, or it focuses slowly, or it's got great bokeh -- whatever. To the extent you start to see these attributes come up time and again for a given piece of equipment, you can start to be pretty sure there's something real there. If you do this a few times, you'll also start to have a good frame of reference for how reliable any given source of information is; so in the future, you'll have a pretty good feel for whether you want to start with Ken Rockwell, or whether you'd be better off starting with someone like DPReview.

The idea here is that any given review on even the most trusted site could be off, so don't rely on a single source of information unless it's a purchase you're comfortable taking a gamble on.

Check more discussion of this question.

Which photographer do you find inspirational?

Question

As a change from the technical flavour of our questions I would like to turn to photography as an art, so I am afraid this is inevitably subjective.

Which photographer, in your mind, is especially inspirational, why and if possible give an example of his/her work.

This is a continuation of a similar question asked last year by CodeToGlory (What is your favourite photograph?)

To get the ball rolling I will post an answer below.

---

Since this is now community wiki, I (@lindes) will add: one photographer per answer (and please look for that photographer in existing answers before adding your own), but you may submit multiple answers if you find multiple people inspiring. (I think that's what makes the most sense for this type of question. If others disagree, please edit this paragraph. :)

Answer

Gregory Crewdson (more) For the surreal mood and feeling he can craft in a photograph with his controlled lighting mixed with 'in situ' lighting. That and the storytelling nature of the photographs that cause you to linger on the image, wondering what the subjects are doing... or have done.

Check more discussion of this question.

What photographer took this mid 20th-century color photograph?

Question

Can anyone please identify who is the photographer of this picture and what is the name of the picture?

It appears taken in middle of 20th century (1950s?) in a rural place. It looks like summer. A young blonde girl is lying naked on a chair, in front of a window. Outside the window there is a yellow field and in the back, after the field, there is a man standing next to a blue car. The style is painting-like, and it's hard to tell if it's even really a photograph in the low-quality jpeg image I've found.

This is the photograph, which may not be "workplace safe", as it contains some nudity: http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5558/pic025v.jpg

Answer

Just do an image search with google on that url

http://www.google.com/imghp

and it will offer to search by image.

Which results in:

Best guess for this image: Saul Leiter

and, following some of the results, the title "Lanesville, 1958".

Check more discussion of this question.

In Canada, who owns the copyright to a photograph that has been taken by a hired photographer?

Question

According to The Canadian Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)

Section 10.2.a states:

(2) The person who

(a) was the owner of the initial negative or other plate at the time when that negative or other plate was made

is deemed to be the author of the photograph... [irrelevant information removed for clarity]

Section 13.2 states:

(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.

[Italics added]

A few follow up questions:

1a. Would this mean that without an agreement to the contrary, the customer would be deemed the author & owner? (Owner per 13.2, owner is the author per 10.2.a

1b. Does 13.2 provide the photographer with a legal way to retain ownership of copyright?

Answer

The "agreement to the contrary" needs to be very explicit and carefully worded.

The default assumption in fields deemed to be graphic arts (traditionally, things like engraving and lithography, but under which photography also falls by law) is that the contribution of the graphic artist is of a purely technical nature. In other words, one is normally deemed to be nothing more than a "camera operator", someone who merely records what is -- like an engraver or lithographer who copies an illustration for use in print, it is assumed that you are merely a walking set of technical skills with a tool kit.

The reason it needs to be carefully worded is because it is very difficult, under Canadian law, for a person to relinquish their natural copyright in a work. It is impossible, for instance, to release any work into the public domain voluntarily -- the best you can do is to grant license to everyone for every purpose, gratis, and without requirement for attribution, but that license is revocable at will. Similarly, assignment of all rights in a work (which the customer holds naturally under commission) is difficult to make in an irrevocable manner, so the language around the agreement needs to be clear regarding both the intent as to who will hold copyright and as to who has creative control in the production of the image.

If it's not clear that you, as the photographer, are acting in the capacity of a creative artist, then even an explicit agreement that you will hold copyright in the resulting work may not, in fact, be legally binding. The intent of the law surrounding the alienation of natural copyright is good; the fact that photography is deemed in the Act to be little more than a technical process in the reproductive arts is not so good.

Check more discussion of this question.

What should one be aware of when taking pictures at work, but not as one's primary role?

Question

I took a few pictures around work and they were used on our website (more here). I've just been asked to do some shots of the executives, and it looks like there may be more requests like this. Any advice?

• Money came up. What's a fair price? Pay per shoot, or increase salary?
• Rights agreement — any gotchas I should look out for?
• Other stuff I should think about?

Answer

This greatly depends on your intentions, if you intend to become a full time photographer then drawing up an agreement would be a very worthwhile endeavour. I'm not a lawyer but in that case you'd probably want to ask to retain the rights to use photos for promotional purposes for use on your website etc.

If you don't then I'd suggest specifying a nominal fee of say 150CDN (you don't say how many photos we're taken) on the understanding any more sets of photos will incur a further fee. If you take this route you're being rewarded monetarily for your time and investment in equipment but also by being seen as performing an act of good will to the company because you're cheaper than getting in a professional photographer. I'd be wary of asking for an increase of salary because that implies that you would become 'official company photographer' and as great as this sounds that might affect your career by taking your time from your main position.

Check more discussion of this question.