After having spilt water on my trusty digital compact camera a couple of days ago - meaning that it now no longer even switches on - I felt compelled to buy a new one. The fact that a holiday is drawing near meant that this decision was more hastily made than I might have liked, but still, I now have a working compact camera, which is a hell of a lot easier to cart about than a DSLR.
Photography is an art that often has me wondering - is it due to the skill of the operator, the luck of the composition or the quality of the equipment? Some days, some situations, some moments, I think - well, you'd have to be completely incompetent to not take a passable photo given the perfect shot in front of you. Is photography a talent to be marvelled at, or just a chance opportunity? Are there good photographers, or only good photographs? Well, I'm sure if you manage enough of the latter, you can be considered to be the former. But what makes a good photo - the technical specifications, or the specific moment caught? Can photography even be considered an art at all? Surely anyone can take a photo, especially if equipped with decent lights, camera and a suitable scene of action.
Just as anything, it's not black and white - a good photographer would combine expert knowledge with creative insight to work out what works for an amazing picture. Sometimes, I feel like photography is an innate ability more than a learned skill. It's part of the reason why I find it so hard to judge, to understand how to measure a talent in something that seems to have no set rules for success. Sure, I know, you can teach someone how to take better photos, and some places you can't fail to take a decent shot but I think part of the skill of a good photograph is the instinctive sense of what makes a good photo - even if you don't know why it is that it works well. I'm not sure if what I'm trying to put across actually makes sense, but whether you speak as a person who is into photography or not, I'd like to know what you think on the matter...
On the jukebox: Irene Cara ~ What A Feeling
Photography is an art that often has me wondering - is it due to the skill of the operator, the luck of the composition or the quality of the equipment? Some days, some situations, some moments, I think - well, you'd have to be completely incompetent to not take a passable photo given the perfect shot in front of you. Is photography a talent to be marvelled at, or just a chance opportunity? Are there good photographers, or only good photographs? Well, I'm sure if you manage enough of the latter, you can be considered to be the former. But what makes a good photo - the technical specifications, or the specific moment caught? Can photography even be considered an art at all? Surely anyone can take a photo, especially if equipped with decent lights, camera and a suitable scene of action.
Just as anything, it's not black and white - a good photographer would combine expert knowledge with creative insight to work out what works for an amazing picture. Sometimes, I feel like photography is an innate ability more than a learned skill. It's part of the reason why I find it so hard to judge, to understand how to measure a talent in something that seems to have no set rules for success. Sure, I know, you can teach someone how to take better photos, and some places you can't fail to take a decent shot but I think part of the skill of a good photograph is the instinctive sense of what makes a good photo - even if you don't know why it is that it works well. I'm not sure if what I'm trying to put across actually makes sense, but whether you speak as a person who is into photography or not, I'd like to know what you think on the matter...
On the jukebox: Irene Cara ~ What A Feeling
It's a combination of all those things. There are basic rules for composition (which I have yet to be taught); there is having a decent camera; there is knowing how to use a decent camera to its best effect; there is practice-makes-perfect.
ReplyDeleteBut ultimately, there's innate ability which distinguishes good photographers from amazing photographers. Anyone can get lucky, but you can't learn to get lucky every time!
Do show us some pretty pictures from wherever you're going :-)
I remember someone once said Photographable subject, decent camera = sorted. Everyone's a photographer these days. ;o)
ReplyDeleteNope.
Photographers who are good, have an 'eye' for things. They just know a good composition when they find it. Sure a good camera will help but a truly fantastic photographer can take a great picture with a not so great camera.
I wonder can it be learnt. I suppose you can train your eye to pick out good pictures, good light, good shade - a good photograph.
But ultimately, there's innate ability which distinguishes good photographers from amazing photographers. Anyone can get lucky, but you can't learn to get lucky every time! I really like how Lucy phrased this - I agree 100%
I'm going to get a decent camera one day :oP
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh god, this is a ridiculously massive subject for me and one which makes me quite uncomfortable. Suffice to say, I want photography to be my career and life and yet I have little to no confidence in my own photographs...ask Callan! I even have big problems referring to myself as a photographer.
ReplyDeleteGood photographers have an eye for pattern and colour and light and composition; the drive to keep moving a tiny bit more to the left or 6 feet further towards the gunman or whatever to get the perfect shot; and the personality and passion to engage with their subject, be it human, animal, mineral, or whatever else.
Photographers don't get lucky every time. They generally take a lot of photos, and hope one or two good ones turn up somewhere. The skill is in spotting the good ones.
ReplyDeleteI've got more to say on this, and was considering writing about it a while back. I think I probably will do later :)
I'd say that there is an element of 'take a lot of photos, some will be good' but I'd also state that a good photographer will take a higher proportion of good photos per x-number-of-photos than a poorer one. Take enough shots and chance dictates you'll eventually get a good one, but it does take an eye to get more than that random chancing.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that with a decent camera, better photos can be taken if you know how to use it - I know my DSLR has capabilities far beyond my compact despite my compacts insane level of macro detail (it sees things I can hardly pick out like the pixels in printed leaflets or timy scratches on metal etc). The image quality of a photo is still just that though - the composition is something the camera has little impact on.
It's a big subject. I'll stop babbling now.
@hannah: I like to play devil's advocate ;) I do believe in part it can be taught, and the photographer learns from their mistakes, just as anyone, if they care enough about improvement
ReplyDelete@claire: you aspire to a career in photography? wow, there's something I didn't know - do you have much experience in the area? It's difficult, I think, to see one's own talent, as mentioned in this entry - because there's no set tick boxes for what makes one photo better than the other, it's not easy to say "yes, that's the best" also just like any sort of creative matter, there's a degree of subjectivity.
@dickie: that's quite true, and as lucy said, practice helps. If you know what works, and have seen what people best respond to, it's easier to get it right the next time. A lot of it is catering to the right audience, also.
This subject, vast though it is, is one I find particulary interesting. It's hard to take compliments from photographs, because there's a part of me that does feel - well, surely anyone could have done the same, and I know of many who could do it better. Right timing, right place, finger on the button, click enuogh times = perfect shot. There's not much else to it. (Though an adept hand at photoshop helps :P)
Then again, the odd glance over facebook is often enough to dent my faith in the joe bloggs of photographers.
Good God, photos on Facebook! Upload only average shots, yes, but don't feel the need to show that one where you put your finger over the lens! Or the same shot subtly repeated eight times! Or the one where everyone looks really, really hideous...
ReplyDeleteFlix...well, I suppose it depends on what you term 'much experience'...I've worked as an assistant to a freelance photographer on numerous occasions (more than I can remember to count now), all of which were property (of the manor house type, rather than a semi-detached two up two down) and weddings. I've also shot two weddings single-handedly. I like wedding photography though it is the epitome of nervewracking.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I also did some publicity shots for two DJs.
So, I have some experience, I guess. But how to go about setting up seriously, I have no idea. I'm not sure I could handle being freelance and working for myself, organising myself etc...which is pretty much the only way photographers do work!
And don't even get me started on whether I'm any good or not...
I like how you didn't know that about me. My 'real-life' friends are bored of hearing me talk about how much I love photography, lol.
Claire, you've shot two weddings singly handedly?! I enjoy doing weddings, but I couldn't imagine being wholly responsible for one - nerve wracking indeed!
ReplyDeleteI guess that's what I'm getting at with the photography thing - how can you tell if you're any good or not? I guess I'd go on the fact that you've obviously been asked to take photos for these things, presumably as more than just favours, so they must appreciate that you are good at what you do!
I like good photos, a lot. Do I know what makes a good photo? Nope but I know when I like a photo, and I suppose that's a start...