How to become a better photographer

[splitimageview]

I don't necessarily think that simply taking *more* photographs will necessarily make one a better photographer. However, if one takes the systematic approach as outlined in the article, it can.

There are plenty of people out there who take huge numbers of (especially digital) photos and their last photos are no better than their first, because they don't take the time to evaluate and learn.

 

[bmattock]

I think there are too many navel-gazers who worry altogether too much about how they might improve their abilities as a photographer.

 

[vdonovan]

I agree with Projectbluebird above. The basic advice of getting out and shooting a lot with limited equipment is good, but getting regular feedback on top of that will put your results up another notch. Join a photo group (or start one) or invite other photographers to look at your work. You don't have to follow their advice, but hearing their reactions to your pictures will tell you a lot about if you are achieving what you want to achieve.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Actually, forget about other photographers looking at your work. You want non-photographers to look at your work. They won't be distracted by bokeh, dof, grain (or lack thereof), cropping (or lack thereof) and won't ask you what camera, lens, shutter speed or aperture you used. They'll just say they like it or it sucks!

 

[FallisPhoto]

This is how to do it according to Mike Johnston:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

Would you agree?

I do.

Utter crap. If you want to be a better photographer, work at it.

 

[sevo]

This is how to do it according to Mike Johnston:

Would you agree?

I do.

Oh dear, no. Reducing your kit does help in cutting back on the time wasted on being a gear whore. But "one Leica, one lens" is about as much "reducing your kit" as switching from a box of cigarettes to five Cuban coronas a day is to stop smoking. And if your problem isn't being a gear whore, but somewhere else, that therapy won't help in any case.

Sevo

 

[benlees]

I was having a little fun. History in regard to art is relatively clear. But underneath that is a valid point. Everyone is hobbyist until someone says otherwise, right? Being a recognized artist is not the beginning of the tale.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

A hobbyist, by definition, if someone who does something for its own sake. Which is what art is all about.

I like that essay! Obviously it's extreme but I do think that if you do pretty much exactly as he says, you are almost certain to develop a better eye and a better understanding of light and exposure.

I'll be even more specific and say that the camera should be an M2 with a 50 on it. This way there's enough space around the framelines to give a good sense of the context of the scene, and a sense of your framing options.

He's a good writer--that was very enterntaining.

 

[splitimageview]

Indeed. When I do the Livestrong rides, there are many people with $6k Treks and Postal Service jerseys. (Well, now that the Postal team is gone, there are Discovery jerseys, and now Discovery is gone.) Many of them have rather large bellies and their bikes aren't properly fitted. The fast guys on the other hand usually have nondescript bikes and generic jerseys.

What's the difference between say an M8 setup and a $30K DSLR setup, when a $450 D40 is more than enough for 95% of the world?

 

[SuitePhoto]

As a relative youngster in this group, there is some truth there from my perspective. I started shooting with a DSLR and a few books on the technical and artistic aspects of photography. And looking back, I probably would have never kept with it without the instant feedback and the ability to shoot an endless number of frames.

Now that I've gone 'backward' to film and RFs, I see using a 100% manual camera and film as a finishing art. The Leica requires total proficiency with the technical aspects of photography (exposure, focus, etc.), before you can concentrate on subjects and composition - which is the most important part IMO. The use of film forces me to think about every frame - which usally leads to a picture that would have never happened with a DSLR.

While I do agree with posters above - the make of camera doesn't matter (I started with a Bessa R and now have an M6); using an all manual RF (over a DSLR) will definitely make you a better photographer.

 

[David R Munson]

Utter crap. If you want to be a better photographer, work at it.

Not sure about the "utter crap" part, but otherwise this is the truest thing said in the thread so far.

Getting better is work, and the more you put into it the more you get back out of it. Pay attention to what seems to work and what doesn't work. Lean into what does, move away from what doesn't. Find the tools that work for you. If one camera and one lens is what works for you in learning to be a better photographer, do it. If not, then find what does work for you. If you're not into rangefinders (not the case around here, obviously, but still relevant), try something else.

Learning to be a better photographer is a process that must remain very plastic. It must be adaptable. What works for you might be the worst possible way for me or the next guy, or it might be great. The only way to know is to try. And, as you try and as you explore various means and ideas, do make sure to get feedback along the way. Too many people toil alone in the dark and never get an outside opinion. Feedback is good.

Another oft-missed point in becoming a better photographer or better whatever in any creative area is to feed your mind. Look at lots and lots of photography. Look at work you really like and try to understand why you like it. Look at work you don't like and try to understand why you don't like it. Listen to excellent music. Watch excellent films. Go to museums, read literature, etc. Feed your subconscious well and your exercises in improving your work will be more fruitful.

 

[robert blu]

100 % agree to David when he says :Another oft-missed point in becoming a better photographer or better whatever in any creative area is to feed your mind...
it is essencial to be open minded, to try visual alternatives, to play with photography.
and than editing, editing and editing again will be the key ...
robert

 

[maddoc]

Utter crap. If you want to be a better photographer, work at it.

Well, that's what the original (linked article) is about.

 

[mw_uio]

Excuses are not valid in Photography!

Excuses are not valid in Photography!

My favorite quote:

"You have to do what you have….
It is very easy to complain about if I would have that…..or this picture or I had it ….but it didn’t….
Excuses are not valid in photography, you have it or you don’t…… you know…….you can always have it, if you force yourself to have it."
Pep Bonet


Mark
Quito, EC

 

[David R Munson]

Why can't a hobby also be something one is passionate about and that one does for something beyond mere entertainment value?

 

[David R Munson]

Interesting. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Sounds like an academic argument to me. How many in this thread shoot a roll of film a week? five rolls? Most folks are shooting for fun without regard for becoming "good" or making "art."

 

[benlees]

More rambles.
Well if we can agree that art has intention as one its defining features then art can't simply be ''art for art's sake''. Intention means communication and that means other people have to see it. Art is not just about filling our time however pleasurable it may be. So I guess if other people see it and understand it (or work to understand it) then maybe it is art. You can still be a hobbyist and do this. If you enjoy the process of this and would like to do this and not much else, then the success of your work (for it is now work) is determined and measured by the standards of others- most likely the specialists. Hard work is only part of it. Talent is only part of it. Originality is only part of it. Who you know is only part of it. Do you really want to be an artist?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Sounds like an academic argument to me. How many in this thread shoot a roll of film a week? five rolls? Most folks are shooting for fun without regard for becoming "good" or making "art."

Well...I think of myself as a photo hobbyist, but I do really want to be good, and make art. I shoot a couple of rolls a week, plus digital stuff. Trying to be good at it is part of what makes it fun for me.

 

[Jason808]

I think there are too many navel-gazers who worry altogether too much about how they might improve their abilities as a photographer.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.




For fear of getting hung in another APUG lynch mob I really disagree with Mike.

Yes, we do spend too much time obsessing about the gear. But digital made me a better photographer because I got to shoot and look and shoot and shoot and shoot. But I did it with purpose. I got the chance to get to work from the minute I opened the files and try many of the old printing techniques then if they didn't work...CTRL+Z and poof! Try again. If (perfect) practice makes perfect then why deny the practice? There's no way I'm going to blow money on film for the sake of practicing, much less construct a darkroom. If that's your cup of tea, have at it and have fun! To me though, the darkroom is what chased me out of photography in the first place.

I tire of the continual idea that the only way to limit yourself is by handicapping yourself. Would running on one leg make you a better sprinter? No. The beauty of these new fangled cameras is that you can exercise all the self-control you want. I'd like to think my human brain is developed enough to keep the camera on M, switch off AF when I need to, etc. without the technological equivalent of being chained to a post in the front yard.