What is the essential difference?

[sreed2006]

I am getting it.

Thanks to all of you for responding with such insight and understanding.

 

[Carriage]

Nice rule of thumb, Scrambler

 

[uhoh7]

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

a combination of experience, study, and reflection. Experience alone won't cut it.

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

Technique (and the learning behind it)

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?

No. Which is not to say it's not easier for some than others.

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.)

It certainly can wear out. However this is not inevitable.

I don't pretend to be anything more than an occasionally good photographer. However I think these answers are self evident if you spend much time at it.

 

[Calzone]

Boy, do you ask a lot of questions!

Bill,

This is childish behavior that I strongly encourage. This is part of the wondering that children do. It seems that adults loose that sense of wonder that they had as a child.

Anyways curiousity is part of the creative process. If you are lucky this leads to lifelong learning, a rich life, and a situation where one becomes both the student and the teacher. If you are doubly lucky the questioning is not restricted or limited to any one area.

Cal

 

[Hsg]

Bill,

This is childish behavior that I strongly encourage. This is part of the wondering that children do. It seems that adults loose that sense of wonder that they had as a child.

Anyways curiousity is part of the creative process. If you are lucky this leads to lifelong learning, a rich life, and a situation where one becomes both the student and the teacher. If you are doubly lucky the questioning is not restricted or limited to any one area.

Cal

With all do respect, photography is not a children's activity.

If Children were truly 'creative', we would have many of them in the pantheon of arts and sciences etc..


The reason children ask so many questions is because they lack the intellectual capability for reflection, which is fine since they lack experience and knowledge.

 

[Calzone]

With all do respect, photography is not a children's activity.

If Children were truly 'creative', we would have many of them in the pantheon of arts and sciences etc..


The reason children ask so many questions is because they lack the intellectual capability for reflection, which is fine since they lack experience and knowledge.

H,

Children do not distinguish between work and play. My spin/approach is to be more like a child and play rather than put it into the adult context as work.

I work with many people with terminal degrees like PhD and MD, and my girlfriend is an academic with a PhD. My experience with dealing with such people that are highly educated with advanced intellectual capacity and advanced degrees is that generally they over think about things, are particularly rigid and limited in their ability to think, and sometimes are rather machine like in that sometimes I don't consider them human.

None of the plastic, adaptable flexibility seems evident that is so easy to see in children. My approach to photography and in life in general is to emulate a child. Also a big mistake adults perform is underestimate the ability in children. We can learn a lot from children.

I understand that children have limited experience and a base of knowledge, but what is the excuse for adults that have advanced intellectual capacity, experience, and advanced degrees?

Cal

 

[Hsg]

H,

Children do not distinguish between work and play. My spin/approach is to be more like a child and play rather than put it into the adult context as work.

I work with many people with terminal degrees like PhD and MD, and my girlfriend is an academic with a PhD. My experience with dealing with such people that are highly educated with advanced intellectual capacity and advanced degrees is that generally they over think about things, are particularly rigid and limited in their ability to think, and sometimes are rather machine like in that sometimes I don't consider them human.

None of the plastic, adaptable flexibility seems evident that is so easy to see in children. My approach to photography and in life in general is to emulate a child. Also a big mistake adults perform is underestimate the ability in children. We can learn a lot from children.

I understand that children have limited experience and a base of knowledge, but what is the excuse for adults that have advanced intellectual capacity, experience, and advanced degrees?

Cal

If the child-mind was the ideal mind, then in evolutionary terms, that's where the development of the mind would have stopped and people would have never grown up to be adults.

 

[sreed2006]

If the child-mind was the ideal mind, then in evolutionary terms, that's where the development of the mind would have stopped and people would have never grown up to be adults.

Hsg,

Please don't start, or continue, this line of response on this thread.

The intent of my questions on this thread was to find out what permits some people to easily create great photographs consistently, while others, like me, do not have that seemingly innate ability, and what can be done about it. The responses have been very helpful in that regard.

Your using this thread as a forum for you to argue with others is just not what I had hoped for. So, I ask politely, that you not respond any further on this thread with argumentative posts. There are lots of other people who are wrong on the internet, so there is no shortage of other places to post.

Thanks,
Sid

 

[Hsg]

Hsg,

Please don't start, or continue, this line of response on this thread.

The intent of my questions on this thread was to find out what permits some people to easily create great photographs consistently, while others, like me, do not have that seemingly innate ability, and what can be done about it. The responses have been very helpful in that regard.

Your using this thread as a forum for you to argue with others is just not what I had hoped for. So, I ask politely, that you not respond any further on this thread with argumentative posts. There are lots of other people who are wrong on the internet, so there is no shortage of other places to post.

Thanks,
Sid

As a grown up, I agree with your sentiment.

Good luck with your questions.

 

[lynnb]

Fortunately for me, every once in awhile I get a really nice picture. That's enough to keep me going. I just want to be more consistent.
__________________
Sid

Sid, there was a very good point made earlier about photography being part of the visual arts and the value of studying art and the history of art.

To more consistently make good pictures, you need to have an idea of what makes a good picture. Three benefits to studying art and art history that come to mind are:

1. You get to look carefully at, and appreciate, a large number of great works of art;

2. You learn the specialised language of description and critique, so that you can then use that language to describe what it is about great works that makes them great (and by doing so, learn how to better critique your own work and that of others); and

3. You gain an appreciation of the ongoing cultural conversation that is art, which includes what art reflects about each civilisation and time, and the role art plays in shaping cultural perceptions.

It helps to have a good visual memory. When you look at hundreds and hundreds of wonderful paintings (preferably in a gallery, but books or the internet are better than nothing), your visual memory will start to form associations of what works well, what creates mood, what stimulates emotion or imagination.. and these visual memories become part of the mental toolbox you use to help interpret your view of the world through your viewfinder.

I'm not saying you should slavishly copy old master paintings in your photographs - I'm saying you will have in mind concepts of design, use of colour, texture and light etc. to help you create photographs that are more consistent.

Of course all that's no guarantee - as others have mentioned, persistence and constant practice are your best friends. Personally I'm rarely happy with my photos, but that's for the better - I'm always looking to make the next picture better than the last, and to find better ways of seeing. It would get quickly boring if everything was "great", whatever that means.

Cheers,

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi Sid,

Just read your question.

For me, it was the desire I had as an entrepreneur that I expressed with photography. My mentor was a salesman with a camera in his hand. Of course I need to make photographs people desire. I learned this from my mentor. However, there are a lot of folks who can make a photograph, maybe even garnering an award here and there but need a day job to support themselves.

As I mentioned before, for me, finding a person who will take you down a path of photography you find interesting, can make a difference. My advice would be to stick with that person. Otherwise what will happen is that you'll receive many ideas from many people which will make you confused wondering what path to take.

 

[lynnb]

You asked for references so you might find it useful to browse parts of Michael Johnston's The Online Photographer site; there are a few articles there that might interest you, e.g.
Photographic aesthetics

Also see if you can find a copy of Szarkowski's Looking at Photographs, and Stephen Shore's The Nature of Photographs - both books will give you concepts on how to describe and critique your photographs.

Most "great" photographers are very good editors - you don't get to see the rejects!

 

[sreed2006]

As a grown up, I agree with your sentiment.

Good luck with your questions.

Thank you, sir.

I am indeed having great luck with getting answers to my questions. This has been enlightening.

There may not be greatness in my future, but there is a very good chance I can get a whole lot better with study of the arts, reflection, practice, and fixing what is wrong. Maybe I should have known that already, but the reminders are much appreciated.

 

[Calzone]

I found using a role model helpful. For me, although unrealistic, I would like to be like W.Eugene Smith because he was not only a great photographer that created "iconic" images, he was also a great printer.

I saw a show at Lincoln Center that featured work from the "Jazz Loft" when Gene Smith live in squalor having abandoned his family. I found the show deeply disturbing, and I wondered why such a celebrated and prolific photographer/printer whould kinda throw away his life, his fame and his success.

I found two possibilities that might be true: one came from my friend the urban legend Louis Mendez who told me that during the time of the Jazz Loft era that he was friends with Gene and hung out at the Jazz Loft. Louis suggested that he was upset that he lost control over his work, and felt that editors exerted too much control.

The second was some history about the body of work about Pittsburg. It seemed that W. Eugene Smith got blacklisted by all his editors because he wanted to exert editorial control. It was mentioned that Gene thought that his body of work that comprised Pittsburg he considered his best, and he insisted on having full editorial control.

Anyways an interesting story between control and dedication to one's work, although tragic.

Cal

 

[sreed2006]

You asked for references so you might find it useful to browse parts of Michael Johnston's The Online Photographer site; there are a few articles there that might interest you, e.g.
Photographic aesthetics

Also see if you can find a copy of Szarkowski's Looking at Photographs, and Stephen Shore's The Nature of Photographs - both books will give you concepts on how to describe and critique your photographs.

Most "great" photographers are very good editors - you don't get to see the rejects!

lynnb,

Thank you for these references.

 

[Capt. E]

Absolute dedication required

Absolute dedication required

I think of Ansel Adams and how he came to the realization in his later 20's that he had to choose between being a concert pianist or a professional photographer and chose the latter after much thought. He then set about doing everything he could to learn more about his chosen craft and experiencing more about his subjects of interest. His great landscapes were made possible by the simple fact that he spent days and days and days upon end out among the mountains etc photographing, simply being ready to photograph. He was blessed to have a wife and friends who helped make his "business" work. And it was a business. He did the usual amount of commercial work to pay the bills. He never made a great deal on sale of his photographs as fine art. That money was made by the art dealers. I will say this though, you can see in the photos he made at Yosemite upon his first visit as a teenager that he had a natural eye for composition etc. So, natural ability does play a part. Talent does require development through hard work.

 

[Oscuro]

For many, it is most decidedly not an enviable position. Finding yourself with a CV and show record that is the envy of many, but caught in the endless studio rent increase spiral, can be very depressing. At any rate -- regarding the original question, it is only a question one asks oneself, if one is still asking it after a "certain" period of time, the question has no answer.

Forgive me, as a non-native English speaker, perhaps I missed your nuance.

Whether one is a success as an artist, in aesthetic terms (truth, beauty), may only be finally determined by the artist. Only the artist knows if they got it right or missed.

Perhaps that is what you meant by the "original question" or are you referencing the deeper concept of "the original question": "how/why am I here?" (To make good pictures? To scratch the surface and see what lies beneath?)

To have financial success without a sense of at least "getting close", artistically, to what one is looking for as an artist, can be a form of purgatory that has claimed more than a few. One my wife, Mme. O., describes it somewhat graphically as "whoring the muse".

The English guitarist Robert Fripp said that the worst thing you can do for your musicianship is to turn professional. His rationale was that one went from spending 90% of one's time practicing and playing to 90% of your time securing work. He makes certain assumptions about dedication that one need not mention.

As a contrast, the American script reader Robert McKee in his book "Story" gives the opinion that "one will eventually have to turn to it (the work) full-time and make a living at it." I paraphrase and please forgive me if I got it not quite right.

So social-economic milieu as an operating context has weight.

Many of us in our little collective, my wife and I included, have been confronted with lucrative commercial work. We learned early that the only way to do those works was if there was some way that they could be thought of as "ours" in the sense that we were able to invest our own sense of truth and beauty in the particular job.

We have also had long stretches where we really knew we were "getting it" with some self-funded projects, and were met with stunning indifference. Silence can be deafening if you are listening to the wrong broadcast. In some cases our resolve paid off and those projects became more well-regarded. Some of them remain dormant, perhaps to be released as books or in (gag!) a retrospective.....

Your remarks about studio rent are very accurate, my friend. Because my wife works primarily in journalism/documentary photography we are able to live outside of busy centers where housing and work space is less expensive. While Mme. O travels much of the year, I cultivate the hard to reach (I'm not) and hermetic (somewhat) artist working in isolation.

But this is wandering far from sreed's original questions.

And, tangentially, there is no need to turn pro. Celine was a physician, Rimsky-Korsakov was a naval officer. They functioned as their own patrons. But in America, keeping body and soul fed and sheltered while one pursues their vision is, from my perspective, a challenge.

For the new practitioner, dedication to vision and then to realization of that vision (with all that entails), will suffice. Edit ruthlessly. Never show anything that you don't love. Even to your friends. (I leave out visual diaries... But even then...)

Should the new practitioner decide to turn pro, then very careful sifting of motives and consequences is required at every turn. 'Beware the "whoring of the muse."' (That from Mme O looking over my shoulder.)

Two more resources for the OP:

Gombrich's The Story of Art;

For iOS products, Art Authority. Simply excellent.

Good luck,

Monsieur O.

 

[johnnyrod]

Sid you've asked a big question as you can see, but also a subjective one, that echoes so many on RFF like, what camera should I use? However I like to try to get to the root of these things so I'll have a stab...

What camera do you have? It needs to be one you enjoy shooting with but if you're still working on then a few automatic functions help, whether an exposure meter or if it's digital, you can view the EXIF later, or repeatedly shoot and review the same thing. Have a go in manual mode but it can be worth taking a few auto ones to catch the scene, whether perfectly or not, and to mine a bit of information. That's as far as your gear will get you though, but if you're learning then you need some access to tools that help you.

"Greatness" is some sort of yardstick, and while you don't have to define exactly what you're after, the "why" questions above need to be used otherwise you won't know what to do to improve. There are some great pieces of advice above. For me, experimentation and iteration are yielding benefits, for how long I don't know, but it's way too early to worry about that.

Gombrich's book is excellent, and I'm going to look up Lynn's link too. I've been following Ming Thein, who is opinionated but has valid points and tries to distil things a bit, viz:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/07/the-four-stages-of-creative-evolution-of-a-photographer/
and
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/09/17/the-four-things/

You can do it. You may never be HCB or whoever, but you can do it anyway.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

HCB went to art school first then discovered the Leica. Luckily he had the time and money to develop his interest in photography and some luck, which few have mentioned. Also there were few Leica photographers then but look at the millions or billions with those little phones nowadays.

Regards, David

 

[FrankS]

This will sound cynical, but IMO, an essential difference between an average photographer and a great one, is marketing.

Not the only difference but one of the differences.