how do you know if you're any good?

I think it depends on how well you please your intended audience, and I am my own audience - although I'm happy to show my photos to others and I'm pleased when people like them, I really only shoot for myself. And so far, I'd rate myself as good enough to please myself with a sufficient proportion of my shots to make it enjoyable for me to continue.

But I also compare my stuff with other people's, and there are many people out there whose work pleases me more than mine does, so by my measure they're better than I am (and likewise there are people whose work pleases me less than my own does), and that gives me inspiration to try to get better.
 
migtex said:
ok! now you make me worried! Seriously!:bang:

I didn't need that today!:(

But that is nor your fault... is mine!:mad:
Click to expand...

sorry, my friend!
i did not want anyone to fret, my goal was to see how other amateurs determine if they are any good and how they do that.

i have sold photos. i have worked as a wedding photographer. i had a small studio where i did family portraits and nudes. i have a (very small) following locally that like my street stuff.
yet, i still wonder...
 
back alley said:
sorry, my friend!
i did not want anyone to fret, my goal was to see how other amateurs determine if they are any good and how they do that.

i have sold photos. i have worked as a wedding photographer. i had a small studio where i did family portraits and nudes. i have a (very small) following locally that like my street stuff.
yet, i still wonder...
Click to expand...

No harm done my friend!:)
It is a very deep question and I like you did it.

Born in a family of professional photographers (both parents) I learn that unless you are good enough for the market (not the critics ok) you don't get food on the table.
I have work professionally for almost two decades, so I'm used to critics. I may have some worth then.. that does mean I'm good or that I have any value today... I don't and I keep trying but I'm not in the market either, fortunately!

Is just the size of the blanks that gives the reality! :confused: got to live with it and... keep on trying not to get worst ! :)
 
I compare myself to the masters. I may never be as good as that or find my own voice as persuasive, but what else should one strive for?
 
oscroft said:
I think it depends on how well you please your intended audience, and I am my own audience - although I'm happy to show my photos to others and I'm pleased when people like them, I really only shoot for myself. And so far, I'd rate myself as good enough to please myself with a sufficient proportion of my shots to make it enjoyable for me to continue.

But I also compare my stuff with other people's, and there are many people out there whose work pleases me more than mine does, so by my measure they're better than I am (and likewise there are people whose work pleases me less than my own does), and that gives me inspiration to try to get better.
Click to expand...

Ditto... only shoot for myself, but of course it's nice when others admire/appreciate the photos.
btw ... I don't think I'm good enough... (not being self deprecating here). What keeps me shooting though are those rare times when you just "get it". Few and far between, but the one or two photos where I feel I "got it" makes the experience well worth it...
 
Helmut Newton was a very good commercial / professional photographer who specialized in product.. most people figure only his erotic stuff was "good"

It all depends on what you like or don't. I've seen people like Newton who were in demand because they were good, yet that wasn't what their own interests were. Fortunately Newton was talented in both endeavours.

Michael Jordan was in love with baseball.. he was mediocre as a baseball player but was one of history's best basketball players.

Can't always please everyone so take some time to please yourself even if you are not good at what pleases you.
 
The blanks are worrisome! I think "not good" = boring. Photos are boring when they trigger no response, say nothing to the viewer, or say something trite or trivial. Subjective and variable of course. I think you're "good" when you can use the visual language effectively to communicate something to the viewer; evoke some personal insight, even if the "message" is different for different viewers.

Joe, good question; I struggle and wonder... Sometimes looking at photos I think I see something of value, but often I'm not sure. Boring is easier to spot, but even then I may wonder if I'm just missing the message.
 
The founder of a company I used to work for, when asked the secret of his success, said:

Employ good people
Put them in front of the customer
Ask for the money

I would like to adapt this to the purpose of the thread.

Take good photos
Display them to people
Ask for the money

Regards,

Bill
 
Agreed, a good question and a lot of interesting replies. I often wonder about that and how I can get better.

I have learned a lot since joining RFF because when I see a photo in the gallery that I wish I had taken it forces me to think about what it is I like about it. Similarly I post photos I like and when I get comments I look at the gallery and web site of the person commenting to get a sense of what I like about their work, it puts things in perspective.

At the moment getting better is taking the form of playing and experimenting with the photographic tools, formats and genres.
 
You know you're good when people start imitating your published work.
You know you're really good when they don't credit you as an inspiration anymore.
You know you're fantastic when you finally start copying others' good work.
You know you're a genius when you finally start copying others' very good work and don't credit them as an inspiration anymore.
 
back alley said:
how do you know if you're any good?
Click to expand...
´
Good question. Interesting answers and thoughts so far.

My very own thought as someone who takes pictures for just for fun: I am good if I am content with the picture and others do like it as well. The problem is I´m not content that easy. That forces me to go on, try it again, get a better result. Others maybe pleased or just polite - that´s difficult to say.

As semrich pointed out the gallery and flickr are great inspirations. I´ve learned a lot the last 2 years of regulary visiting rff. Thanks to all of you. You showed me the path I´m learning to go - or as Keith put it: learning daily.

Thomas
 
back alley said:
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
Click to expand...

I, personally, don't know.

I also do not know if I am good at breathing, pumping blood, walking, tying my shoes, shaving, or a whole raft of things that I don't measure, I just do. Photography is something I do.

I will admit that I have fretted on occasion when a photograph I am particularly pleased with attracts no notice, while one I hardly felt worth the effort to make public garners praise; but I don't bother with that anymore. Certainly, I am happy if someone likes my photographs, and I do want them to be seen, or I would not put them online. But there is nothing anyone can say about them that imparts any measure of goodness on them - or me.

Imagine the most successful photographer in the world - he or she will always have their critics, those who dislike their work, who think they 'made it' through happenstance or by being outlandish or by 'knowing someone' and what does that mean? Does it make their photos any more or less good?

Outsider art and rustic art are often prized when discovered, but are they up to any technical standard of excellence, are they good?

I will leave the value judgments of my work to others - after all, it is only the viewer who can have an opinion about the goodness or badness of a particular photograph, and their opinion cannot be wrong; it is their opinion.

I have often stated that 99% of all photographs are crap, and mine among them. I mean that - in my opinion as a viewer. That does not make the photographer good or bad, or his or her photographs good or bad. It is simply a value judgment that applies only to my opinion - which exists between my ears only. I don't think that highly of Ansel Adams' work. Technically of a very high quality, his photographs of various mountains seem to me to be boring and sterile, joyless. That's *my* opinion - the rest of the world thinks he is nifty keen.

So I don't reject the concept of 'good', I just don't know that it applies to me or my photographs. I yam what I yam (says Popeye the Sailor man) and I make photographs because that is what I do. Good? Bad? Relative to what?
 
I'm different and I don't
care who knows it
Somethin' about me
It's not the same, yeah
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play no goddamn game

Got a different way a walkin'
I got a different kind of smile
I got a different way a talkin'
Drives the women kind of wild
(Kind of wild)

(He's different)
And I don't care who knows it
(Somethin' about him)
It's not the same
(He's different)
And that's how it goes
(And he's not gonna play
your gosh darn game)

I ain't sayin' I'm better than you are
But maybe I am
I only know that when I look in the mirror
I like the man
(We like the man)

I'm different and I don't
care who knows it
Somethin' about me
Not the same
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play your goddamn game

When I walk down the street in the mornin'
Blue birds are singin' in
the tall oak tree
They sing a little song for the people
And they sing a little song for me

(He's different and he
don't care who knows it
Somethin' about him
Not the same
He's different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play your gosh darn game)

I'm different and I don't
care who knows it
Somethin' about me
Not the same
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play no boss man's game

RANDY NEWMAN
 
leicasniper said:
If there is no objective criteria of good or bad photography, then it follows that some people will love it, come will think it is crap, and others could care less. All you have to do is search out those who love the crap you shoot and avoid those who could care less, and you can be another Gary Winogrand. :)
Click to expand...

This sums it up nicely! Find people who might like your stuff and tell them you are good.

Think of Eggleston's one man show at MoMA; Ansel Adams personally called the curator to ask what the hell they were thinking! Eggleston is the bees knees to some and not others. Same with Adams. The list is endless- even with people who are in museums.

You will never be good to everyone, but who cares about everyone?
 
I know this one, it's a easy one, man!
You are good when no one screams loud and runs away in front of your pictures.
:)
R.
 
back alley said:
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
Click to expand...


This is somehow two questions packed in one. The first is "When do you think you are good?", the second "Are you good if others think that you are?".

The reference for the first is whatever goals you (generic 'you') set for yourself. If photographic goodness consists (for you) in sitting on piles of money made from your photography then you are good if you are sitting on piles of money made from your photography. If it's to have your photos in galleries and the art establishment praising you then you are good if you have your photos in galleries and the art establishment praising you. If it's all of the above plus women throwing themselves at your feet then you are good when that happens. And so on.

The problem with the above is that it's a little too subjective. You can claim goodness even if your stuff is crap for others by setting impossibly low standards. (Conversely, an amusing alternative is to justify your photography, no matter how bad it is, by claiming that you have impossibly high standards, and that failure to meet them is only natural after all).

The second question is more complex because 'the others' are not a unified, single entity with a uniform opinion. In fact, whatever you do, some people will like it (e.g. your mam) and some will be bored stiff. The ratio could be important though. Lets pretend though that the group that matters is that of your peers, other photographers of similar photographic persuasion. Well, then you 're good when there's consensus in their rapturous response, admiration, enthusiasm, or even jealousy-induced-hate. The greater the number of admirers the better. If they are voluntarily expressing their admiration again all the better (so the best time to get a sincere response is after you are dead, because then you are not useful to anyone. Unfortunately it is also a bit late to be of any use to you too).

The problem with this is that it is far too detached from how you think about your work - others may hate what you do all the while you are perfectly happy with it. And who's to say the others are right and you are not?

So, there are two outcomes from four combinations:

(1) You think you stink, and others think you stink too -> you stink

(2)You think you 're good, but others think you stink -> result depends on what you place more importance to

(3) You think you stink, but others think you are good -> as above, but it will feel better if you let others persuade you

(4)You think you 're good, and others think so too -> You made it. You are good (there's none left to disagree with it).

:D
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
Click to expand...

Maybe you just have to believe in your own stuff. Use your own council.

Many times Ive seen others work; photos, paintings, writing etc. and have been completely put off, only to find the work has either been critically acclaimed or sells like crazy.

The big thing I think is to be pleased with your own work and be prepared (and this is the hard one) to have it adored by someone else. Sometimes we prepare so hard for the time someone really dumps on our creation that we are completely unprepared when someone really likes it.
 
When you receive too many cheezy comments, you know it's a sign your pics are bad.
When no one comments, you know they are extra bad.

How to know if you're good? I have no idea. Usually it's obvious... IMO.
 
I you like your picture, you are good.
I visited long time ago the "Art brut Museum" in Lausanne, Switzerland. This is all about mentally disabled people that basically had no teachings on art and probably no perception of what others thought about their work. Some were amazing, while most were weird and not to my taste. But none were done to be displayed in the first place and for me to judge it they were good or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom