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

[jszokoli]

I’ve taken photos that make me think I’m a good photographer, but;

When I set out to make an image, at times I just can’t create what I’d want, so maybe not…

Joe

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

On the evidence of the roll I've just scanned from an Xa3 I have no claims to anything. Humiliating not to hold it steady enough...

 

[jawarden]

Am I a good photographer? Yes.

Am I great? Yes.

The best current living photographer anywhere? Yes, of course.

How about since the dawn of photography? Yep, all me. I win!

Sure but what about the other planets and sea of galaxies in the observable universe? All photographic spacetime is mine!!!

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Am I a good photographer? Yes.

Am I great? Yes.

The best current living photographer anywhere? Yes, of course.

How about since the dawn of photography? Yep, all me. I win!

Sure but what about the other planets and sea of galaxies in the observable universe? All photographic spacetime is mine!!!

As good as all the other answers. Maybe better.

 

[PRJ]

I am the greatest photographer that ever sat in the chair I am sitting in. You probably are as well sitting in the chair your in. On the other hand, I've sat in chairs that have been occupied by some great photographers previously to my warming them, so there's that. Lol.

There really is no way to answer the question. I think someone earlier invoked the Dunning-Kreuger effect. That pretty much says it all. Until MoMA buys a photograph (not holding my breath), I'll refrain from answering. Lol.

Besides, these days with technology every single person that holds a camera regardless of their talent is pretty much at least mediocre. If you asked the same question to a group of painting enthusiasts or piano players, almost all of them would say no...

I think a better question would be if anyone thinks they are a talented photographer.

 

[farlymac]

I'm not consistent enough to be a good photographer, no matter how good the photos come out.


PF

 

[RObert Budding]

Does it matter, as long as I'm enjoying myself?

 

[jsrockit]

Does it matter, as long as I'm enjoying myself?

Not really... that should be the main goal... unless you do it for a job or have a specific agenda.

 

[goamules]

I get an average of 1 out of 10 large format and 3 out of a roll of small that I think are good. So I'm good with that.

 

[Mksurfer]

I think that I am a well rounded photographer. Learned with film and making prints in a darkroom. Still shoot film for personal fun, and work with digital as well. Not great but solid.

 

[valdas]

I am not a photographer to begin with... I have a daytime job, I am doing alright (to paraphrase Mark Knopfler). From time to time I make some decent shots. Barely.

 

[helen.HH]

Helen Hill and LC Smith too I put right up there, of course.

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?

WOW, just saw my name mentioned... and am Grateful to be thought of
Thanks ever so much Richard, lovely and kind !

LCT, Thank You, ever so Gracious and sweet
I guess I do not realize my value in photography...I just shoot

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Yes yes yes, but but - are we as good as the phone shooters??

It may well be that those photographers who make all those superb images on their smartphones, far better than we do with our fancy GAS-gear, are the best photographers of all.

They are sending us a message, an important one, without really ramming it down our throats - or maybe they are shoving it into us after all if only by showing us they can do so much better with much less.

When the writing is on the wall, one should learn to read quickly-smartly.

Respectfully suggested...

 

[Archiver]

I'm not consistent enough to be a good photographer, no matter how good the photos come out.

PF

I agree that consistency is the key for judging if you're a 'good' photographer.

And it depends on how you judge consistency. For example, a professional portrait photographer is expected to produce images of a certain quality in each session. If you're doing seniors/college portraiture, that's a snap (pun intended) once you've got the formula down. The same goes for still life, product photography, anything where you get to control the variables and have narrow parameters for quality

For scenes with more variables like street photography, event photography and the like, a keeper rate of 10% is considered good. Can you make one satisfactory image out of ten taken?

The more you control the variables or understand the scene, the easier it is to develop a formula or best practice, and so your keeper rate goes up.

As for me, I'm good at some types of photography and not so good at others. I don't really do staged pictures and find myself foundering when called upon to do so. But I can get some decent keepers when I'm able to freewheel and shoot at events and in action scenarios like sports like boxing.

I'm decent at landscapes, streetscapes and travel photography, and I enjoy casual/candid family and friends photography. I could be way better and more educated about the use of lights and reflectors for portrait and product photography, not to mention how to pose people, etc.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Success vs. avoidance of failure: Babe Ruth consistently led Major League Baseball in being struck out the most times. His record of being struck out stood for decades until it was broken by Mickey Mantle.

Who sees the photographic equivalent?

 

[helen.HH]

Success vs. avoidance of failure: Babe Ruth consistently led Major League Baseball in being struck out the most times. His record of being struck out stood for decades until it was broken by Mickey Mantle.
Who sees the photographic equivalent?

For sure Bob, I can easily relate
More strike outs then Keepers , ratio wise on a roll of 36 exp

 

[LCSmith]

Success vs. avoidance of failure: Babe Ruth consistently led Major League Baseball in being struck out the most times. His record of being struck out stood for decades until it was broken by Mickey Mantle.

Who sees the photographic equivalent?

From all accounts the Babe was an inveterate optimist, full of energy, positive! Yes, what made him good and even great was (in addition to loads of talent) "swinging for the fences" as they say. More often than not it didn't work; but it worked for him more often than for anyone else of his era, and that's all that mattered. There used to be a saying. What do you call someone who only hits 3 for 10? A hall of famer (because hitting .300 in the majors is exceptional).

The photographic (or any endeavor's) equivalent obviously is that success requires and entails a series of failures. What is important and even essential is belief in oneself. This is why I encourage everyone to think of themselves as "good" photographers.

I have something of a pet theory about the New York street photographers of the 50s and 60s. Most if not all of them grew up playing some form of baseball. The hand eye coordination required for quick snaps at set distances is not unlike that which is required for the very difficult skill of hitting a baseball. Timing is everything.

 

[raid]

I am working mostly on my university courses and research. Photography has always interested me since I was a teenager. I do it for the enjoyment. As for being a good photographer, I keep reminding my colleagues that in faculty evaluations, a "GOOD" ranking is not sufficient for tenure or for promotion to a higher rank position at a university. The expectation is "EXCELLENT" and/or "DISTINGUISHED".

Why is GOOD good enough for photography? 🙂

 

[retinax]

I am working mostly on my university courses and research. Photography has always interested me since I was a teenager. I do it for the enjoyment. As for being a good photographer, I keep reminding my colleagues that in faculty evaluations, a "GOOD" ranking is not sufficient for tenure or for promotion to a higher rank position at a university. The expectation is "EXCELLENT" and/or "DISTINGUISHED".

Why is GOOD good enough for photography? 🙂

Really? Because tenure is very rare. Everyone can do photography, very few can have tenure.
Now, if we're talking about who can be a famous photographer, then maybe very similar considerations apply.

 

[raid]

Getting tenured can be straightforward and it can be very difficult. It depends a lot on the type of university where tenure is applied for. Similarly in photography, it depends what how you define "good photographer".