how do you know if you're any good?

[M. Valdemar]

The photos you recently posted of your trip were technically competent as documentary travel photographs that would be taken by a typical tourist.

They were interesting because of the location and context. As far as visual perspective and images that provided unique insight, they were not there.

They were tourist/snaps done by a hobbyist, albeit ones that a typical traveler might not have access to due to not being able to "blend in".

They were meaningful to you, and if you presented all your photos to a editor interested in an illustrative story about the region, he may have picked one or two, such as the restaurant shot.

You get most of your pleasure from using interesting old lenses and cameras and participating in forums. If you did not have this interest (which is fine by me, I don't knock it), you could get the same results with a point and shoot camera.

I feel that I am can take good photos. Does this make me a "good photographer?"

 

[FrankS]

Thanks for taking the time to respond M.V. Still want to see some of yours that you like.

As far as commercial success, that isn't done with groundbreaking or original work that would advance the consciousness of the collective mind, only galleries would be looking for that (and only if they could make a buck off it). Can you imagine presenting wedding or family photos created by pressing 2 wet negatives together, emulsion to emulsion so that the 2 images are blended into each other creating an interesting but non-representational composite image?

 

[FrankS]

Commercial success aside (and I have some), the different aspects of photography amuse and satisfy me. If no one liked what I do, I'd still do it, and wouldn't change a thing.

But why do you post here with what seems to me, anger and derision? Why the condescending attitude? We're just a bunch of folks doing what we do and use this forum to talk about it. Again, I wonder what your issue is?

 

[M. Valdemar]

I'm not posting with derision at all. Seriously.

I'm giving an opinion only when asked. I don't wildly criticize when not asked.

In the long run, I think it's kinder to tell someone the truth when they have aspirations that their talent doesn't merit. There's nothing wrong with hobbyists enjoying discussion and using equipment that they like.

I've also helped, published and encouraged those who do have talent, and I have been right on the money. I recognized talent in teenagers and people in their 20's who are in their 50's now and world famous.

What does annoy me is people who are not realistic about their abilities or lack of it. That doesn't make them un-talented. There are people, for example, who have websites which provide interesting and informative analysis of the technical aspects of Leica cameras and lenses, but who take the most godawful photos on earth. They can make even the most gorgeous Nordic women look uniformly hideous, for example.

This annoys me.

 

[FrankS]

Ah, I've visited that site, once, long ago, briefly.

"In the long run, I think it's kinder to tell someone the truth when they have aspirations that their talent doesn't merit. "

Or is it, more accurartely, your opinion?

 

[Silva Lining]

Some of my photos I think are 'good' leave little impression on others, whereas often the converse is found, i.e. technically flawed photos to my eye are classed as good or great by those who are looking at the picture not the photograph.

I'm not a poor photographer, I take pictures that please myself and often others, however, I am never fully satisfied and even if others were to class me as good, i know I can get a lot better.....and that I am not yet good enough...

 

[M. Valdemar]

OK, let's change the definition of "good".

Your ten best photos are pleasant and competent. I guess you would call them "good".

When I say "good", I mean "great", as in something that stops you in your tracks, redefines the visual language of the art, or sears a photo into the memory.

I'm very critical about what is "great" or not. I don't see too much "great" ever.

I see "good" hobbyist or "good" derivative photos taken by those enamored of gear quite bit. I also see a lot of "poor" photographs that the "photographer" is proud of and feels they are "great".

 

[raid]

Mr. M. Valdemar,

Only God is Great.

We are just humans. Maybe you are super human? Maybe not.

 

[M. Valdemar]

Well, if you believe in God, then he put me here and he put everyone's photos here, and I'm only doing what God put me here for. If it's God's will I can't help but do what I'm doing, right?

On the other hand, doesn't God reveal himself through greatness in art by humans?


In any case, I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion. We are talking about what constitutes a "great" photograph.

I think there is such a thing as a quantifiable classification of what is a good and bad photograph.

If I am running a dog magazine, I can hire a photographer who will always bring back a good, clear, competent photo of a dog if I send him to photograph one. He may not be artistic or visionary, but I can rely on him to always come back with a usable dog photo. If I am running a celebrity magazine, I hire a photographer who will stalk Britney Spears and come back with a printable photo. He need not be a genius, the photo need not be "great".

If I was the curator of a photography museum, my expectations would be higher, my criteria far more stringent.



The question was asked by the OP and I'm answering it. Unfortunately, I'm going to offend a lot of people because they will be told things they may not want to hear. I would also answer as honestly if I saw a "great" photograph. Editors are hated when they send rejection letters. I've been cursed many times when someone has brought me a portfolio, and I have to politely tell them we cannot use their material. Editors are paid for their judgement. The internet has allowed the masses to publish, sans editors.

There are many people who worship and buy "legendary" cameras and lenses, and therefore by association feel that they too will now be "legendary" photographers with a body of work to match. They can come together via internet into mutual admiration societies, however, this does not alter reality.

.

 

[Ororaro]

Do I understand you compare yourslef to God?

And I'm curious: You talk about people thinking they are or will be legendary photographers because they use Leica. I haven't even remotely seen this. You are disgusted by so many things that don't even exist.

I honestly think you are merely projecting and miroring yourself, here.

Oh, and don't go thinking I am offended. Anyone who, after looking a picture of a baby, replies that his baby is better looking is, to me, very close to being severely mentally ill... which brings back and explains the self-comparison to God.

 

[swoop]

When you get to the point that you stop trying to take "good" pictures, and just take pictures.

 

[gb hill]

I used to fret on this. MOF in so much I one day deleted my whole Uber page. Comparing my photos to other peoples work can get discouraging. Best to enjoy what you are doing and not worry about it. We are all human & we certainly are not going to please everybody. I got a request a couple of months back if a person could use a photo in a N.C. travel guide I said sure. I wasn't real overwhelmed over the photo but apparently they were, because a few days later a SE SE with a release form came in my mailbox for me to sign. I know this is small & it certainly doesn't mean my work is any good but it pleased me & thats most important.

 

[MickH]

There are many people who worship and buy "legendary" cameras and lenses, and therefore by association feel that they too will now be "legendary" photographers with a body of work to match. They can come together via internet into mutual admiration societies, however, this does not alter reality.

That's pretty much what these sites are all about - gear, snaps & mutual respect.

M. V. You have only recently popped up on my "RRF" Radar although you appear to be a fairly prolific poster with over 800 contributions. I don't trawl through that many Threads, that's probably why I've never really picked up on your input before.

Gear for me is a "no-no", a complete turn-off while for others its the main event, or at least a large part of their reason to be here. I personally enjoy the philosophical and image centred strands.

I don't think I am any "good" as a photographer if comparison with "the best" is the yardstick to be used. I haven't sold a photograph for about 30 years - mind you I haven't tried to! I do know that as far as the people I care about are concerned I do take good photographs, which is good enough, and I'm sure you would support this approach as I'm not attempting to rise above my station and have no great ambitions to become the next <insert name here>.

So why do you come to RFF?

 

[Hacker]

For some reason people arent always who they claim to be on the internett.🙂

Are you not a king of a castle? 😀🙄

 

[bottley1]

Someone once asked the great Charles Dickens why he was such a prodigious writer, and he said that he wrote till HE was happy with what he had written, not what he thought others would be happy with. My experience of the amateur photog scene over a 40 year span is that most take pictures with an eye of impressing fellow photogs, judges, friends, etc. Also most photogs seem incapable of critically assessing their own work, and/or being objective/fair/honest about others work.

 

[M. Valdemar]

OK, then since we are in a populist mode here, EVERYBODY who thinks their photographs are good is good. There is no standard. The self or plebeian approval of one's work is sufficient.

EVERYONE's photos are good. Post away.

NO Valdy, the OP asked "how do you know if you're any good?"

Nothing to do with "greatness" or getting into MOMA or the history books.

You're completely out of your tree here.

 

[M. Valdemar]

I'm a 17 year old transsexual boy who supports himself by shoplifting and prostitution. All my posts are made at the public library.

You have discovered my dark secret.

Wouldnt that be like asking a stranger on the street if your photos is good or not?
For all I know you are a 16 y.o boy that works the french fries at McDonalds...😉 For some reason people arent always who they claim to be on the internett.🙂

 

[M. Valdemar]

I like to read about gear, camera collecting, and technical minutiae. I originally found the site while researching cameras that I own.

I think a few years ago this site was filled with extremely knowledgeable posters with esoteric information to discuss. That has dropped off quite a bit.

There are now more dilettantes and hobbyists, as well as "camera as jewelry and self-image booster" types, which is fine for casual hobbyists, but doesn't interest me too much. Questions about "which $400 camera bag should I buy" or "what is your favorite f-stop" don't interest me.

This forum is still far better than those such as POTN and Dpreview, which are basically for ignoramuses born yesterday.

As far as appreciation of images and good photography, this site aspires to that, but so far the inroads have been slight. There are some very good photographers here, but they are a small minority.

There are a great many technically competent but very average image makers here.

That's pretty much what these sites are all about - gear, snaps & mutual respect.

M. V. You have only recently popped up on my "RRF" Radar although you appear to be a fairly prolific poster with over 800 contributions. I don't trawl through that many Threads, that's probably why I've never really picked up on your input before.

Gear for me is a "no-no", a complete turn-off while for others its the main event, or at least a large part of their reason to be here. I personally enjoy the philosophical and image centred strands.

I don't think I am any "good" as a photographer if comparison with "the best" is the yardstick to be used. I haven't sold a photograph for about 30 years - mind you I haven't tried to! I do know that as far as the people I care about are concerned I do take good photographs, which is good enough, and I'm sure you would support this approach as I'm not attempting to rise above my station and have no great ambitions to become the next <insert name here>.

So why do you come to RFF?

 

[hlockwood]

OK, let's change the definition of "good".

Your ten best photos are pleasant and competent. I guess you would call them "good".

When I say "good", I mean "great", as in something that stops you in your tracks, redefines the visual language of the art, or sears a photo into the memory.

I'm very critical about what is "great" or not. I don't see too much "great" ever.

I see "good" hobbyist or "good" derivative photos taken by those enamored of gear quite bit. I also see a lot of "poor" photographs that the "photographer" is proud of and feels they are "great".

Oh, damn! I was going to put the burden on you by suggesting you look at my pbase site to see if there were three "good" shots there. But now you've upped the ante: good means great. Probably not worth your time.

Harry

 

[Russ]

There's no definite answer to that question. What I think is good or great, others may find as crap. If you're shooting for payment, and the clients like your results, they'll think you're good. For my personal work, I shoot what pleases me. If someone else likes it, fine. If not, that's fine too. We've all seen or entered photo competitions, where the winning snaps were horrendous, in our opinion. But obviously the judges found them as good. We've all made images that we find quite uninteresting, yet someone else thinks it the best thing they've ever seen. Go figure. Unless it's for a paying client, shoot for your own pleasure, and don't be attached to the outcome.

Russ

"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"