who here thinks that they are a good photographer...

I think that I'm pretty good at my specific style of photography. When I push far outside that I realize that I need a lot more practice in those styles to be even competent. It's humbling.

That said, I'm no pro, and my goals are based around creating images that I like. To that goal, I'm pretty good.

Put me in a studio or a posed portrait and I'll look like a fool, or perhaps a fraud, perhaps both!
 
I'm an awful wedding/event photographer. I suck at most sports photography. I'm terrible at portrait photography. Even my snapshots are worse than my wife's. My wildlife photography is never in focus and my nature photos look like hell. My street photography is really pathetic.

But I'm really good at seeing interesting light and looking at commonplace subjects from a unique perspective. So, yeah, I'm pretty good.
 
I'm terrible for portraits. Just can't deliver posed ones.
I also was nominated in international contest, volunteered for local events, get published, was asked for prints, interviewed and so on. With non-portraiture photography.

Every one knows Ansel Adams as landscaper. Nobody knows him as portrait photographer.
But it doesn't mean he was not taking portraits. I have seen his assigned to photograph arrested Japaneese. Portraits were on pair with mine.
 
Ha, ha, I'm better now then I was 20 years ago. That's for sure! Back then if I took a good picture it was because I tripped, stumbled and fell into it, almost ttotally by accident, but now I try to seem more in terms of light, then composition, and I like pushing optics to their limits. Doesn't mean I'll get a good picture, but it increases the odds.
 
I get lucky every once in a while. :)

I know good photographers, and what separates me from them, is they can be presented with any situation or scenario, no matter how exciting, dramatic or boring that situation may be, and yet bring back great images.
 
Out to Lunch said:
The ultimate shaming post...I am surprised anyone replied.
Click to expand...

LCSmith said:
What do you mean.
Click to expand...

not sure what 'out to lunch' means BUT
possibly He thinks this thread is posted as a Trick question
to those who fall prey to self vanity, conceit or wishful thinking

I look at it as in GOOD FUN !
Lighten up, Life is too short to be taken so seriously ...
__________________
 
helenhill said:
not sure what 'out to lunch' means BUT
possibly a thread posted as a Trick question
to those who fall prey to self vanity, conceit or wishful thinking

I look at it as in GOOD FUN !
Lighten up, Life is too short to be taken so seriously ...
__________________
Click to expand...

Thank you for your hermeneutical assistance, Helen. I never know what is meant seriously or in jest. Speaking about myself has never been a forte of mine anyway, so I will pass on this question. But I am a damned good photographer. :D But doesn't everyone think that? You have to think it. The psychology is similar to "dressing for the job you want". Much of good art is made in a spirit of nearly super-human self-confidence, like the "aristeia" of the hero. Sports psychology is similar. So there is the self-image of "goodness" that, in my opinion, is healthy and even necessary.
 
Richard G said:
Forgot to mention Lynnb largely confined to the Gallery. Wonderful stuff.
Click to expand...
Thank you Richard that's very kind of you.

Joe possibly, probably? was provoking the question of what a good photographer is when he asked why at the start of this thread. Words and expressions like consistent and "well resolved" and "clarity of vision" and "interesting (visual) voice" come to mind. That's a high bar. Not so sure I meet it. Maybe sometimes I have good days :)

If we only take photographs for ourselves - and I think most people on this forum are in that boat, myself included - then perhaps we think we are good when we are happy with our photographs. I'm happy with some and not so happy with others, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It's a journey, and fun. We hopefully learn to see better as we practice our art and craft. Looking back through old work can be an entertaining exercise in ego deflation. Good is a moving target. That's why I'm reluctant to consider myself as good, because I occasionally look back, and laugh.

On the occasions when I took photographs for others, they were mostly very happy with what I gave them. But I only felt I was a good photographer when I also was happy with the pictures, regardless of how they felt. Sometimes I would schedule an additional shoot if I wasn't entirely happy with the first session, even if they were.

Which brings me back to consistency. I think I'm getting more consistent, so perhaps I'd say I'm "getting gooder", and hopefully not "getting badder".
 
Richard G said:
Helen Hill and LC Smith too I put right up there, of course.
Click to expand...

Extremely kind, Richard, but I am not even in the same LEAGUE as Helen Hill. I do aspire to be, though.

I think Lynn makes good points about the self-reflective process when dealing with one's work. Was it HCB who said that the first myriad photos you make are merde?

Vanity can be a danger, to be sure; but among "creatives" including photographers the greater disease is usually self-doubt.

I would encourage everyone to think they are a good photographer, whether they "actually" are or not (since the "actually" question is entirely different and will be answered in different ways by different people.)

One thing is certain. If you do not think you are good, you never will be! The human brain has a way of actualizing our most spirited intellection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom