What is the essential difference?

[sreed2006]

There are some extremely talented and great photographers on RFF, as well as others who know a great deal about great photographers, and so I feel safe in asking these questions here.

In a Flickr discussion thread, there was an entry by a young lady who wrote something like this, "Oh, I really want to be a great photographer!"

It was heart-rending in a way, because I knew exactly how she felt.

Is there an essential difference between someone who can consistently produce great photographs and someone who is stuck at wanna-be?

Is there something (or somethings) that can be learned to get over the hump, with consistency?

Is being great just a gift that if you have you have, and if you don't you don't, and not something that can be learned?

Finally, does the ability wear out? (I ask because it seems to me that many artists who are great in their youth, and even their middle age, quit producing in their later years, a situation into which I am most definitely headed.)

If there are references that answer these questions, I would like to know of them.

Thanks.

 

[toyfel]

There person who knows the answer to your question doesn't exist, I am afraid. Honestly, focusing on how to become a "great photographer" will only distract you from making the images you really want to make.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Anyone can master photography if they have the desire and are willing to learn. Someone on this forum has a signature that reads something like "Your first 10,000 pictures are your worst. My second 10,000 pictures aren't much better." But that does sum up the issue.

If you want to be a great photographer, go out and take pictures. And then repeat. And then repeat. And then repeat.

You have to love making photographic images. And if it's the thing you love doing most of all, in ten to twenty years of consistently making images, you will begin to master it.

 

[Hsg]

If one becomes a 'great' photographer, what to do next? Become 'greater' than one's current greatness?

In other words, when you reach the peak of your talent and skill, greatness in exceptional cases, after that there is only going downward.

A vast majority of photographer peak very quickly, like a boy band, they have a few hits and with that comes some attention, but that is it, after that its either trying painfully to better themselves or they slowly lose interest in photography itself.


Don't be in a rush to peak, take your time and enjoy the journey, because there are no destinations.

 

[mfogiel]

The basic point is, if you want to be a GREAT ..... (fill out your favourite role in life), you need to live this thing 24/7 without thinking if it will ever pay off. Talent helps, but talent can be developed. As to great photographers - many of them have actually been or still are very prolific and on top of their game till the very end or till late in life. Think HCB, Avedon, Penn, Newton, Sieff, Kertesz, Mary Ellen Mark, Friedlander ( still going strong), etc...
On a side note, photography is in a quick transformation, and if I wanted to be a photographer starting today, I'd surely get involved with visual arts as a whole, beginning with history of art, graphic design and so on. The documentary role of photography has been largely taken over by Iphones and drones.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You could become great, just find where your public is. Sometimes it is within your family.

Wearing of ability with age is often very noticeable.

Photography could be an art or trade.

As in any art, nothing to learn if you are giftless. But you could still learn photography as trade.

Consistency is great for food, product photography. Lightbox is handy tool for it.
Painters were painting for decades, how many paintings from any big name do we know?
Same with art of photography. If person has one hundred of recognizable photographs it is great photographer to me. One hundred of pictures after decades of work...

If person producing something what public massively and constantly eats, it is good trades skills. Including Pirelli Calendar and Flickr. 🙂

 

[sreed2006]

There person who knows the answer to your question doesn't exist, I am afraid. Honestly, focusing on how to become a "great photographer" will only distract you from making the images you really want to make.

Am I mistaken in believing a great photographer gets the image that they want? This is exactly where I fall down, and don't know exactly why.

Somehow, most times, what comes out of the camera is not at all what I saw and wanted to capture. This happens often, although once in awhile I do get what I wanted (and sometimes even better than I had hoped). Why it works sometimes and not others is still a mystery to me. I am trying to get past that mystery.

 

[sreed2006]

Anyone can master photography if they have the desire and are willing to learn. Someone on this forum has a signature that reads something like "Your first 10,000 pictures are your worst. My second 10,000 pictures aren't much better." But that does sum up the issue.

If you want to be a great photographer, go out and take pictures. And then repeat. And then repeat. And then repeat.

You have to love making photographic images. And if it's the thing you love doing most of all, in ten to twenty years of consistently making images, you will begin to master it.

I love that signature, too.

For some photographers, something 'clicks' after awhile, and they go on to consistently create wonderful images. This is the part that I don't know: what 'clicks'? I'd hate to think my next 10,000 photos aren't ever going to be much better.

 

[Calzone]

Finally, does the ability wear out? (I ask because it seems to me that many artists who are great in their youth, and even their middle age, quit producing in their later years, a situation into which I am most definitely headed.)

Sid,

There is a culling of neurons that happens in humans at the age of ten, where brain lateralization changes drastically. It seems the pure creativity of a child gives way to specialization, and something gets lost in this pruning on the road to adolesence and adulthood.

In some people it seems that this pruning is less severe and creativity gets prolonged into adulthood, where I further suspect without use and exercise creativity further atrophies, but this does not have to be the case.

In my case I think I somehow have maintained my creativity, and I am now 58. I think being creative is somewhat innate, but it requires nuturing and constant non stop stimulation to develope fully. Unfortunately not everyone is creative and most people are or have the tendency for rigid thinking. I will say that in college you can be taught to think, but becoming a critical thinker or to be creative really can't be taught because I think it is innate. Understand that in children there is no distiction between work and play.

Even if one has talent, the talent goes wasted if discipline and the life of struggle that goes with cultivating that talent isn't performed. In reguard to how prolific artists get stale with age, perhaps it is success and the lack of struggle that makes them rusty with age. Basically success causes their failure because there is no new constant learning and struggle. I see this a lot where an artist advances at a rapid pace, matures, and then gets stale.

Also commercially I was told by an art dealer that I had too many ideas, and that to be a commercial success many times work gets commodified by art dealers and the art world. I know first hand how hard it is to be an artist and not be exploited by the commercial art world.

Also know there is a very high correllation with learning disabilities and left handedness that often accompany creativity. Like I said to some extent creativity is innate.

Unfortunately many of my friends are now dead. Their art consumed them into paths that were not sustainable.

Cal

 

[sreed2006]

Sid,

There is a culling of neurons that happens in humans at the age of ten, where brain lateralization changes drastically. It seems the pure creativity of a child gives way to specialization, and something gets lost in this pruning on the road to adolesence and adulthood.

In some people it seems that this pruning is less severe and creativity gets prolonged into adulthood, where I further suspect without use and exercise creativity further atrophies, but this does not have to be the case.

In my case I think I somehow have maintained my creativity, and I am now 58. I think being creative is somewhat innate, but it requires nuturing and constant non stop stimulation to develope fully. Unfortunately not everyone is creative and most people are or have the tendency for rigid thinking. I will say that in college you can be taught to think, but becoming a critical thinker or to be creative really can't be taught because I think it is innate. Understand that in children there is no distiction between work and play.

Even if one has talent, the talent goes wasted if discipline and the life of struggle that goes with cultivating that talent isn't performed. In reguard to how prolific artists get stale with age, perhaps it is success and the lack of struggle that makes them rusty with age. Basically success causes their failure because there is no new constant learning and struggle. I see this a lot where an artist advances at a rapid pace, matures, and then gets stale.

Also commercially I was told by an art dealer that I had too many ideas, and that to be a commercial success many times work gets commodified by art dealers and the art world. I know first hand how hard it is to be an artist and not be exploited by the commercial art world.

Also know there is a very high correllation with learning disabilities and left handedness that often accompany creativity. Like I said to some extent creativity is innate.

Unfortunately many of my friends are now dead. Their art consumed them into paths that were not sustainable.

Cal

Cal,

Thank you for your reply.

For the first bolded statement, you have stated what I have learned all through life, which is another way of saying, "You either have it or you don't." If that is really true, then I will have to be satisfied with only "having it" once in awhile, and not knowing when until after the fact.

For the second bolded statement, this is quite sobering. Their art consumed them? That's definitely not a path I would choose.

Sid

 

[jschrader]

I think I read HCB has taken some 14.000 films in his 40 or so years of active photography. We know some 100 of the half million pictures..

This is not to suggest that his success is based on luck. It is simply also a lot of work. He has been walking around, years and years, keeping his eyes open.

I do not think anyone can be "great" and cover any topic. One can be professional and produce "something" on any topic, if one is well-trained.

But nobody can produce "great" photography of everything.

 

[Hsg]

There is always someone who's going to be 'better' than you, in whatever field you're in... Some people can live with that and others find the thought painful.

In photography, even if you become a full member of Magnum photos, which on the surface means you're on the same league as HCB or Eugene Smith, that is a complete delusion because you're going to be judged by your photos and even among the magnum members there is an invisible hierarchy.

So, if you're into photography in order to reach certain milestones: getting published, selling prints, solo exhibitions, museums and even magnum membership then you're going to be a very unhappy photographer... Ambition is great when it comes getting a degree and finding a job, but in arts and crafts, the process is mysterious.

For instance, movies are slightly younger than still photography and yet the number of stars and famous movie makers and actors are substantial compared to still photography where there are not more than ten really great photographers that everyone can agree about.



If you're not happy with your photos, change things around until you're happy. If you use one camera and one lens and shoot only at sunrise and sunset or only in color or only in b&w or whatever restrictions you impose on yourself, then you're going to be unhappy.

 

[Calzone]

Sid,

For some of my friends it was self destructive behavior (drugs, alcohol, AIDS). For others it was risky behavior and living for the day and not tomorrow. My one friends death from a drug overdose I consider suicide. Anyways I never thought I would live to become an old man. For my friends their lives didn't have any meaning without art.

I think I am alive only because I have always been able to channel my creativity. I worked for an aerospace company that was a Fortune 500 company and the 4th largest military contractor in the U.S. My innate creativity was used to organize complexity and problem solve where I did a lot of research, built physics labs, and even got a U.S. Patent and was named "Inventor of the Year" for a "Three Dimentional Optical Correlator." Understand that I have no science degree or engineering degree, and on top of that I worked at two National Labs.

Basically good artists spot trends, are good organizers, and are good problem solvers. I used these skills and did very well.

My life has not been easy. It took me a decade to get my 4-year degree, 11 if you count the year I had to work to buy a car so I could go to college. At the end of the Cold War I was laid off twice and basically used my 401K to get a graduate degree in a year and a half. In all my classes I was the oldest person in the room.

Then most recently in 2005 I got my MFA. (All my degrees are in the arts). Anyways I'm still living close to the edge, gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC, and somehow falling through the cracks while the banks and real estate developers make all the money in a great Ponzi scheme.

Anyways I can't help but life life this way. Life is kinda edgey and not sustainable. Know that I was a painter, I was a performer (off Broadway), and my MFA is in creative writing. Like I said being creative is innate.

Cal

 

[Santtu Määttänen]

There's nothing "difficult" about photographing. It's about having a vision, seeing the circumstances and having the will to get those things into being. In almost every great photograph I've ever seen, the photography part was easy. (Not absolutely always the case, there are sub-genres where technical side can be difficult as well)

So training ones vision and ability to see is more important then learning the camera (that can always be thought rather easily in relatively short period of time). I would recommend drawing, painting, writing poetry as a starting point. It doesn't matter what the art background is, it will train ones abilities in seeing the world around us and telling our visions to others. Of course one can learn all this by and with the camera as well. But I feel that for most it's easier to "see" and envision a piece of art when you're not initially limited by the medium as strictly as photography. You can see as you want (and make the image you can imagine) with camera and by photographic means, but in the learning phase it's hard to get over the tangible when photographing. With practice all the doors open up and then taking the camera as your medium is a step, not a cliff.

Be willing to fail is also a great lesson to learn. With out that willingness and even eagerness to fail when trying something new, it's difficult to find your own voice in the choir.

 

[sreed2006]

I think I read HCB has taken some 14.000 films in his 40 or so years of active photography. We know some 100 of the half million pictures..

This is not to suggest that his success is based on luck. It is simply also a lot of work. He has been walking around, years and years, keeping his eyes open.

I do not think anyone can be "great" and cover any topic. One can be professional and produce "something" on any topic, if one is well-trained.

But nobody can produce "great" photography of everything.

This relates to what Cal said, in that his photography covers too many subjects for the art buyers to be able to peg him. I can imagine the frustration with that.

What I am learning so far is that it is possible to become very good if enough time and work is put into it, along with study of the arts. That does make sense.

So, then, the essential differences between wanna-be and outstanding are the individual's dedication and desire?

 

[Oscuro]

Study art. Painting, history, economics.
Photography is just the means of expression. Like choosing oil paint versus stone.
This particular means of expression uses visual language to communicate.
Ergo you must be at least peripherally aware of the last 600 years of art history.
If you are not, you are functionally illiterate - whether you are a sculptress, a painter, or a photographer.

Make a list of your favorite photographers. Dig deep enough and you will find that they studied art, or design at some point.

Build an incredible work ethic. Be a good businessperson.
Don't ever give up.
Ignore bull$hit about peaking early. Or tragic ends. These are all excuses to not begin.

 

[Calzone]

So, then, the essential differences between wanna-be and outstanding are the individual's dedication and desire?

Sid,

Eloquently said.

I can't help but be a creative person. It is my identity and who I am. I really can't turn it off, and without somehow using my creativity life would have no meaning.

At this point I know to be humble and not try to impress anyone other than myself. I worked day-jobs so I could keep my art free from other people's influences.

It kinda reinforces the stereotype of the struggling artist, but because I have had a life of struggle, it has been a good life and one that has been interesting.

Cal

 

[Oscuro]

What is the essential difference?

Yours is a question asked every year when I was teaching. There are some answers, but nothing really definitive. But dedication to the work is always part of the mix. I know a number of very successful (artistically and monetarily) artists, and all of them were unwavering. Even the ones who seem flippant to the public. Sadly dedication, is however not a guarantee of success, some who are dedicated just make huge quantities of bad work. The worst is success artistically (beloved by many other artists) and zero financially.

Yes, to all the above except the last.

I
would respectfully suggest, for the artist, that would be the second best position.

et obscuratum est,

Monsieur O.

 

[Calzone]

The worst is success artistically (beloved by many other artists) and zero financially.

Fred,

This is me. LOL. I really hate when people suggest that I should get a gallery to show my work. Actually at this point it is a badge of honor to remain an outsider.

Back in the day (70-80's) Ivan Karp of OK Harris fame on West Broadway would look at any artist's work. I showed him my slides (I was a painter back then), and he told me to come back when I had more. I misunderstood and thought it was just another rejection (although polite), but Mr. Karp must of saw that I misunderstood because he said, "When I said come back when you have more I meant it, make sure you come back." It was then I understood that he was interested in my work.

When I went back, it was Mr Karp who said I had too many ideas and should stick with one thing. I was an arrogant kid at the time, and I took it the wrong way, "How dare someone suggest that I should limit my ideas and commodify my work." That was when I picked the hard path and decidedly made the commitment to a life of no financial reward for my art and worked a day job.

Screw them.

Cal

 

[dtcls100]

I don't know how to become a great photographer, which explains why I clearly am not one myself. However, I do have some thoughts about how one can get a little closer to being a great photographer or great at anything. Three necessary steps come to mind:

First, as others have said, you have to have real passion and put some real effort into improving your skills.

Second, you have to be able to be honest and quite self-critical of your skills and photographs. Look really hard at your work and see how it could be made better. Solicit the advice of knowledgeable folks.

Third, you have to be willing to take risks, experiment, and not settle for falling into the same old patterns and approaches. To this end, for the last year, I have been trying to improve the lighting of alot of my photos, including outdoor ones, by using flash, including fill flash, using multiple off-camera flashes. This certainly has improved many of my photos and I lately have been getting requests for multiple friends and acquaintances to take photographs at various celebrations. My outdoor (particularly photos taken in forests) have likewise substantially improved. I've been thinking about purchasing a Phottix Odin II radio remote flash system to facilitate taking some larger scale NYC photos and have been scouting out some locations near my office and thinking about how I would like to do the lighting.

I probably will never be great, but becoming a bit better than an OK photographer is definitely a possibility!