Photography less about skill

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UmarPk

Banned
Photography these days is less about skill, these days it's more about whoever can find the most eye-catching or visually beautiful or appealing thing to take a photo of. A skillful photographer should be able to take a photo of a dumpster and make it a photographically sound photo, but these days it's just whoever can go to this x,y,z location and take photos of a,b,c.

Besides, with more advance cameras you just need to learn how to use them but the cameras themselves will carry out the advance automated functions themselves (of course there is manual mode but even that is just adjusting a few settings). Not to mention you have computer software which can completely enhance the photo, hence less skill required to take a great photo.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Rather than break down your syntax I'll just say that I agree with the point I think that you're trying to make, which is that with today's equipment it makes it a hell of a lot easier for a blind squirrel to find a nut.

But I'll disagree with you until the cows come regarding the skill issue. It's easier to take a good picture. But a good photo does not a photographer make, and it never will.
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Yes anyone can take a photo and anyone can go to specific locations, but what makes a photographer stand out are the images that are one in a million. Lets say we all go out and take a photo of a waterfall, some will be ok, some will be good, other will know all about composition/shutter speed/tone and even have the ability to look beyond the obvious. Their photo would be alot better than the average Joes and would stand out like anything. Also look at most professional wildlife photographers they do a lot of research and spend a lot of time out in the field with a specific purpose, to capture the perfect image. Many would spend months out in the wilderness studying and getting to know their subject. Not everyone can do this, so even though I agree loosely with what you are saying with the average person with a camera, there is still a lot of skill required to get those amazing photos that most can only dream about.
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
I'm not really sure I agree with you. Certainly getting a technically perfect exposure is more the job of the camera rather than the photographer but that's about where the lack of skill ends. Take for instance the recent 2013 World Press photo contest that was just announced a few days ago. Despite the obvious PP enhancements, the underlying composition shows a great deal of skillfulness and forethought.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your premises, do you have examples of a bad but lauded photo vs. an excellent yet unacknowledged photo? Or are you making a different point and I'm not even close?
 
Last edited:
S

SwampSniper

New member
That is why I haven't posted a photo yet. I'm going to get familiar with this camera and learn
how the menu items relate to one another. At least until I am comfortable with the images I wind
up with. I prefer the as taken image without the processing. But I must admit that some of the
processed photos are quite beautiful.

With all of that said, this is a great place to learn and have your photos critiqued. And you have
got to start somewhere. And I think it usually goes from not so good to better to best.

Me, right now, I'm learning.


SS
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
I think a good exercise for all of us would be to take that photograph of a dumpster and see how good/interesting/photographically sound photo we can shoot. Post processing allowed and encouraged.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:
I think a good exercise for all of us would be to take that photograph of a dumpster and see how good/interesting/photographically sound photo we can shoot. Post processing allowed and encouraged.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think the OP should lead that charge, since he posted the challenge.

I'd rather take a bad photo of a once in a lifetime scene than a great shot of a dumpster any day.


".......these days it's more about whoever can find the most eye-catching or visually beautiful or appealing thing to take a photo of."

Duh? Really? I wonder why we never see any Ansel Adams birthday party photos? Or why Robert Capa didn't stay home from the war to take pictures of his kids playing in the bath? Maybe the National Geographic should have a "My Summer Camp Photos" section.



 
Last edited:
RockyNH_RIP

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
I am gonna not get too emotional here (as I tend to disagree mostly0... but want to share a couple thoughts...

The cameras are better... and they make "some" things easier... You can get decent photos in auto... I can give you that. BUT the skills required to make good to great photo's has not changed that much from the days of film!!! The dslr just gives you more opportunities to catch it (taking more shots to sift through than you could with film)

1. You still need to master the camera.. (to get the best base photos possible) I consider my mastery average, others here have much more and when we enter a shoot, they will perform on average better/faster than me, as I should if compared to a raw beginner

2. Understanding the shot you are after and having the skill to pull it off.. An example is Marilynne and I shoot birds in flight with the same gear... On the whole, hers will be better because of more experience and she has studied the skills and protocols neccesary.

3. Composition - This is part of the art/skill to be able to compose in a pleaseing manner... Look at marcel and dave's work.. They understand (we can learn the skill but they are already there)

4. Vision - this skill is being able to look around and see a photo in your head... Look at some of the shots some people here do that are "different" The skilled people see things I never would (though I am learning from them..)

5. Post Processing - The skills have not changed, the tools have but if you do not have the tools, the knowledge of the tools and the skills to visualize what you want to do.. you will not ride with the big dogs...

What is skill, nothing more than knowledge, understanding and the practice to perfect it.. Look at Rick's street photos, he has perfected that skill ... I have shot some, do not have his skills... Could I improve my skills with practice, yes... Today, while I may like some of mine, they do not belong in the same thread as his!!

Sorry... give me the best gear, I wont do any better than I do today until I "improve my skills!" (and I am working hard on that thanks to Nikonites)

Pat in NH
 
U

UmarPk

Banned
Dave_W said:
I'm not really sure I agree with you. Certainly getting a technically perfect exposure is more the job of the camera rather than the photographer but that's about where the lack of skill ends. Take for instance the recent 2013 World Press photo contest that was just announced a few days ago. Despite the obvious PP enhancements, the underlying composition shows a great deal of skillfulness and forethought.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your premises, do you have examples of a bad but lauded photo vs. an excellent yet unacknowledged photo? Or are you making a different point and I'm not even close?
Click to expand...


Yes, I have an example, take a look at this photo, the photo receives high awards and recognition on Flickr; mostly because of what the photo was taken of, a rare Red Panda. Not necessarily due to the photographic qualities of the photo. It just doesn't matter if the photographic skill is there; all that matters is it's a rare Red Panda as the subject. That's what matters and pleases the eye for most people. They could careless about the composition, exposure, lighting, emotions captured, or other factors great photographers can capture with skill and experience.




Kleine rode panda by ~~Nelly~~, on Flickr


Can someone really tell me had this been a photo of a house Cat, would it have received the same attention as it did this being a rare Red Panda? That too probably in captivity.


Then again perhaps the subject itself is more important than a photographic skill and the aforementioned elements and factors, it really is the subject that defines the photo.
 
Last edited:
U

UmarPk

Banned
Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:
I think a good exercise for all of us would be to take that photograph of a dumpster and see how good/interesting/photographically sound photo we can shoot. Post processing allowed and encouraged.
Click to expand...


The "dumpster" comment was not meant to be taken literally, it was just a figure of speech. The meaning was to take a photo of something not spectacular and still make the photo eye catching and a good photo.
 
Last edited:
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Ok so that was given high comments in Flickr??? Its Flickr...

Here is another Red Panda, which would you say is the better? No one has commented on this! Why? Because it is not Flickr...

Screen Shot 2013-02-24 at 6.19.02 AM.jpg
 
RockyNH_RIP

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
UmarPk said:
Yes, I have an example, take a look at this photo, the photo receives high awards and recognition on Flickr; mostly because of what the photo was taken of, a rare Red Panda. Not necessarily due to the photographic qualities of the photo. It just doesn't matter if the photographic skill is there; all that matters is it's a rare Red Panda as the subject. That's what matters and pleases the eye for most people. They could careless about the composition, exposure, lighting, emotions captured, or other factors great photographers can capture with skill and experience.

Can someone really tell me had this been a photo of a house Cat, would it have received the same attention as it did this being a rare Red Panda? That too probably in captivity.


Then again perhaps the subject itself is more important than a photographic sound photo, it really is the subject that defines the photo.
Click to expand...

Flickr (not dissing it) is composed by many people of all walsk and skills... To me recognition for this on Flickr sounds more like a popularity contest. If the average person does not care about the traits that make a great photo, that does not not reduce the skills to produce one..

No different than me and music.. I could not carry a tune in a bucket (excuse the plagery) If I judged a someones composition, it would have nothing to do with merits and skills, just what sounds good to me.. Want to judge it, send it to skilled musicians... same as photography, send them to skilled pro's to judge

I could/would agree more with your original premise if you had said that todays cameras make it easier to get good snapshots that are pleasing to family and friends...

Sorry... just my opinion... If it did NOT require skill (granted everyone can get lucky once) to regularly produce quality photgraphs I would not be studying and practicing so hard...

Pat in NH
 
R

Rexer John

Senior Member
Photography has evolved and I have a few great pics from digital, more by chance than skill but I'm learning (I'm 50 this year and been using cameras since I was a teenager). Composition is my biggest failure, I can see other peoples errors but cant seem to see mine until it's too late, even with digital.
The benefit of digital shooting is clearly the ability to take more shots than you would with film, and the fact you can check exposures, focus etc whilst still at the shoot.
Even the old pro's on here say they are still learning after 40 or more years.

Skill can be learned so much quicker these days and photoshop is a good photographers aid.
Don't forget, professionals used to manipulate images in the film days.

My mum had a photo of her father in the war that was black and white but coloured professionally, some kind of colour wash.
It was her favourite photo.

Photoshop and digital are evolution of photography, it can make a bad photographer better and an expert can get that extra punch.
It can't make a novice into an expert.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
I have a very good comprehension of what this entire thread is about. It is a pissing match started by someone wanting to be right and start a fight. My comment was an effort to put a little levity in there to calm things down only to be personally attacked. I do not appreciate anyone who does that.

Was to pissed to hit the reply with quote and was on my phone...This comment was directed at UmarPk.
 
Last edited:
U

UmarPk

Banned
RockyNH said:
I am gonna not get too emotional here (as I tend to disagree mostly0... but want to share a couple thoughts...

The cameras are better... and they make "some" things easier... You can get decent photos in auto... I can give you that. BUT the skills required to make good to great photo's has not changed that much from the days of film!!! The dslr just gives you more opportunities to catch it (taking more shots to sift through than you could with film)

1. You still need to master the camera.. (to get the best base photos possible) I consider my mastery average, others here have much more and when we enter a shoot, they will perform on average better/faster than me, as I should if compared to a raw beginner

2. Understanding the shot you are after and having the skill to pull it off.. An example is Marilynne and I shoot birds in flight with the same gear... On the whole, hers will be better because of more experience and she has studied the skills and protocols neccesary.

3. Composition - This is part of the art/skill to be able to compose in a pleaseing manner... Look at marcel and dave's work.. They understand (we can learn the skill but they are already there)

4. Vision - this skill is being able to look around and see a photo in your head... Look at some of the shots some people here do that are "different" The skilled people see things I never would (though I am learning from them..)

5. Post Processing - The skills have not changed, the tools have but if you do not have the tools, the knowledge of the tools and the skills to visualize what you want to do.. you will not ride with the big dogs...

What is skill, nothing more than knowledge, understanding and the practice to perfect it.. Look at Rick's street photos, he has perfected that skill ... I have shot some, do not have his skills... Could I improve my skills with practice, yes... Today, while I may like some of mine, they do not belong in the same thread as his!!

Sorry... give me the best gear, I wont do any better than I do today until I "improve my skills!" (and I am working hard on that thanks to Nikonites)

Pat in NH
Click to expand...



What matters more is the subject, the subject defines the photo and overwhelms all the photographic factors and elements you mentioned. This is what people look at most and first. Also about your point that you need to "learn" the camera, well I already mentioned that you need to "learn" the camera, that's it you just need to learn it and adjust to the camera, the cameras have many automated features built right into them that even on manual mode you just need to adjust a few settings, that's about it and you can capture a photo of a spectacular scene and completely negate most of the photographic elements and you will still have a great photo by most people's perspective.

It's more about subject than photographic quality. Photographic quality is second.
 
U

UmarPk

Banned
muzza22au said:
And here is a common house cat with just as many comments on Flickr...

Lady Lula's Bright Eyed Stare | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Click to expand...

That is not a common house cat, that is a very uncommon and exotic Bengal cat, highly prized and very expensive to own. Thanks for proving my point.

See how most of the comments are saying "Beautiful cat' because people focus on the aesthetic quality of the subject more than hey great composition or great show of emotions, great coloration and exposure, etc.

It's more about the cat not the photo, again thanks for proving my point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top