Why Were the Best Photographers So Good?

[I Love Film]

I don't know about the "hard wired thing" - that's a little out of my league. But I can say from years watching friends in the photo business - the ones who can see can usually learn the technical stuff or get help on productions.

The ones who can't see can be masters of the hardware and unless they are doing Scientific photo work or some kind of non art oriented industrial photography, they don't do well. Today with PS and all the post work, these people are more in demand. Many are working for the creative folks who can't deal with the lighting ratios etc.

These non technical people may not be able to set up the hardware or set the output switching on the studio flash gear, but they know what they want in lighting and can tell the Tech. folks when it's right. So, it's the eye. Some are lucky and have a good eye and little trouble with the camera gear. But then there are business practices to learn and if proper decisions aren't made the eye won't help.

A good general doesn't fight the war himself. He needs a well-trained army.

Nothing wrong with using a good technical staff.

 

[jsrockit]

There of course have been amazing talents, and I'm not commenting on Shakespeare at all. I'm a fan of Ansel Adams, but I don't believe it's "great art" in the way Michelangelo or da Vinci created it. For me, there is a big difference between art created in a fraction of a second by pointing a camera at something, and something which has taken enormous skill and dedication.

That's just me though, some people would consider certain buildings works of art, some ugly eyesores. Some people consider HCB's photos great works of art, but I'm not one of them. Good photos, yes, "great" art, for me, no.

Obviously that opinion is controversial round here, but that's all it is, one person's opinion.

I think you are confusing art with craftsmanship.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would say the Internet as a whole would do well to have a gigantic uber-editor.

There are also good editors and bad editors. A bad editor, obviously, would not have the natural born "eye" of a good editor, just the same as photographers and writers.

Take for example the wonderful photo blog that is called "The Big Picture" at Boston.com

I used to follow it every week, it was superb. It inexplicably became terrible a few months ago, then I read that the editor had left and went to here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/world-war-ii/

Take a look, it is superb again. The editor made all the difference.

No question. But my point was simply that good editors (while rare) do not invariably share the same vision. Far from it, thank God. If there were one good editorial 'eye' that enabled editors to spot photographers with a good 'eye', there'd be even less variety than is already the case.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

... usually a 'good' editor is one who agrees with you

 

[Roger Hicks]

... usually a 'good' editor is one who agrees with you

There is no other sort. By definition, really. If they don't agree with you, they generally don't edit your work. At least, not more than once.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ChipMcD]

Lee Friedlander is one of my favorites, and I fully agree that he seems to capture "more than is there" in many of his photographs. He undoubtedly has a natural eye; however, the essay on him by Peter Galassi in the MOMA exhibition book from a few years ago brings out that he (a) was an avid student of almost all well known photographers who had gone before and sought out their work to study, (b) had great advice from the likes of Walker Evans as well as interaction with contemporaries like Robert Frank and Gary Winogrand, and (c) had a solid 10 or more years as a professional magazine photographer behind him before he was fully mature as a photographer. So like all who master their craft, there was a lot of hard work that went into the mix as well.

 

[Coldkennels]

... usually a 'good' editor is one who agrees with you

I think that, by extension, a good editor is also one that is barely noticeable; one who makes the required changes, and nothing more. Some of the worst editors are failed writers (or photographers, or whatever). Moreover, he/she should be communicative; nothing worse than an editor that makes changes without explaining why. That's probably more frustrating than anything.

 

[paulfish4570]

a good editor directs, and in an authoritative way, not in an authoritarian way ...

 

[d_ross]

Lee Friedlander is one of my favorites, and I fully agree that he seems to capture "more than is there" in many of his photographs. He undoubtedly has a natural eye; however, the essay on him by Peter Galassi in the MOMA exhibition book from a few years ago brings out that he (a) was an avid student of almost all well known photographers who had gone before and sought out their work to study, (b) had great advice from the likes of Walker Evans as well as interaction with contemporaries like Robert Frank and Gary Winogrand, and (c) had a solid 10 or more years as a professional magazine photographer behind him before he was fully mature as a photographer. So like all who master their craft, there was a lot of hard work that went into the mix as well.

I agree, it's a combination of dedication and hard work in conjunction with a natural perceptive ability, nothing good comes without hard work! you put in the effort and then you might get the results, and then you might need an editor, but do you really think Lee Freidlander doesn't edit his own work! seriously have you ever looked at a print of one of your favorite photographers pictures and thought wow he-she must have a good editor or dealer or publicist? that is just ridiculous!

 

[tomalophicon]

I agree, it's a combination of dedication and hard work in conjunction with a natural perceptive ability, nothing good comes without hard work! you put in the effort and then you might get the results, and then you might need an editor, but do you really think Lee Freidlander doesn't edit his own work! seriously have you ever looked at a print of one of your favorite photographers pictures and thought wow he-she must have a good editor or dealer or publicist? that is just ridiculous!

Well, considering most of my favourite photographers worked to produce pictures for magazines, etc..., I have to assume that some of the pictures I see have been influenced by someone else in one way or another.

 

[d_ross]

Well, considering most of my favourite photographers worked to produce pictures for magazines, etc..., I have to assume that some of the pictures I see have been influenced by someone else in one way or another.

Perhaps in that context yes, but even then photographers wont give magazines work they wouldn't want published, therefore the first and most important edit is always made by them! But aren't we talking about what makes artists the likes of Lee Freidlander great?

One has to make good pictures before an editor can select them.

 

[tomalophicon]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about 'one of my favourite photographers'.

Sure they have to be good, they can't be any Joe Bloggs off the street. Well, in the old days that was true, anyway.