# What Makes a Photographer



## FotoPony (Jun 10, 2012)

(I'm new to the forums but amazingly horrible at introductions. So, my first post will be a question!)

I love taking photos of animals in my spare time and have recently become the main photo-taker for a local horse club I'm in. It's subtle dream of mine to be an equine photographer, or to go around the world taking photos of wildlife and be able to have them published in magazines. Maybe even make a little income off of something I love to do. But like I said, that's a dream.

I am a very novice/beginner photographer. Some of my shots I am personally fond of, but mostly I stay in the lovely "Auto" or "Program" mode. I get the basics of shutter speed, aperture size, etc but am having difficulties getting good results when I play with these settings myself. And my camera is in no way special; It's a Canon PowerShot SX20. 

So to my question: What is it that makes a photographer successful? Is it the equipment they use, their knowledge of what to do to get the special shot, the tricks they know, or the outcome?


----------



## xjoewhitex (Jun 10, 2012)

I would say all of the above, but a little less on the equiptment they use and more leaning towards their knowlege of how to get that shot, and that final product. But another thing to consider you may be the greatest photographer in the world but unless you know how to market yourself you wont ever get anywhere. There are millions of people, just like you that have the very same dream of being a successful professional photographer. So it takes a little knowhow of business tactics to be in front of those people to get noticed. I'm decent at what I do, but ive yet to find a way to get ahead of these people.. I do sell my work, but there are so many more places which I would love to sell my work.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 10, 2012)

My personal definition of a true photographer is a person who is able to use their equipment, ability, and experience to get a proper shot anywhere, any time, under any conditions, with no excuses.  Anybody else, myself included, is just a "Picture Taker".


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2012)

There is no one component that leads to success. It is a combination of a various collection of factors, each of which being important in its own right and no one single item being the leading roll overall (though for specific photos one factor might be the major draw). 


In general there are always levels you have to clamber up and at the start almost everything needs improving in some manner. My general view is that improving the technical controls over the tools is the best place to focus on at first. Controlling and using the tools that you have is key for all the rest to fit into place (such as composition and being in the right place and anticipating the shot before it happens). 

That view is also viewing a photographer as only a photographer. If you want to go pro you've also got to be a business person first and foremost. Good photographer yes, but if you can't balance your books, advertise your work and pay your taxes your business will fail no matter how good you are with the camera. Note also that not everyone has to run their own company, many can be quite happy working for an existing firm. 



All that is generalist advice, for more specific advice you'll have to show some examples, let us see what you've made and also hear how you set the settings and took the shots. Once we know what you produce and how you produce it and the tools you use - then advice can be more specific in guiding you toward a more desirable outcome (having an idea and expressing your views on what you consider a desirable outcome also helps)


Also if you want some inspiration : Flickr: Raphael Macek - Horse Photography's Photostream


----------



## FotoPony (Jun 10, 2012)

Thanks for your input guys!

Overread, I just posted to the General Gallery: 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...2-few-horse-photos-critiques-appreciated.html

They aren't the best, but I don't know where to go from where I'm at now. I would love to take some photography class for begginers but my time is so limited these days.


----------



## bhop (Jun 10, 2012)

IMO, it's the ability to *consistently* make well composed, and/or interesting photographs.  It doesn't matter what gear is used.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 10, 2012)

Knowledge and control of gear and techniques, from my POV.  The more the person has, the more I consider them accomplished as a photographer.

I see "photographer" pretty much the way I see other professions or endeavors; There are the novice/noobs, apprentices, journeymen, experts, masters.  They're all technically photographers, but some are snapshot photographers and may never be much more than that, while others are the true Masters, with a capital "M".


----------



## Chris R (Jun 10, 2012)

FotoPony said:


> So to my question: What is it that makes a photographer successful? Is it the equipment they use, their knowledge of what to do to get the special shot, the tricks they know, or the outcome?



I'm assuming when you use the word "successful" you mean people that can make a living off their photography... It's like 80% marketing 20% actual talent. The fact is most people can't tell a decent photograph from an excellent one and most don't even really care. Most successful photographers are just good at selling themselves and creating the illusion that they are great.


----------



## Joshonator (Jun 10, 2012)

The dictionary says it's anyone who takes photographs.

In my opinion, a photographer is someone who enjoys taking pictures, regardless of the outcome.

On the other hand, a good photographer is someone who enjoys taking pictures, and is capable of taking pictures that other people enjoy viewing. A good photographer is also a person who is always trying to improve their shots.

Usually what makes a photographer successful in the end is talent, hard work, confidence, knowledge, experience and self discipline. Equipment is used to improve the percentage of usable shots.


----------



## KmH (Jun 10, 2012)

IMO, success would stay out of reach until one developes a good, solid fundamental understanding of - the visual arts (form, line, balance, visual weight, proportion, composition, etc), how a camera, digital camera subsystems, and lens work, how a digital photograph works, how to do pre and post production, how to promote and market oneself, how to run a business, and how to network.

With the explosion in digital camera sales over the last 10 years, the number of photographers competing for a slice of the pie has never been greater.

However, there is no doubt that it often boils down to being in the right place at the right time (ie, lucky). Many that are successful though, are also skilled at making their own luck, which very often hinges on effective networking.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jun 11, 2012)

Patience. Perseverance. Practice.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 11, 2012)

10% sweat 20% learning 30% creativity 50% passion

All in all, you have to give 110%!!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

I don't think passion is part of the equation.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 11, 2012)

Why not? I don't think someone would be a photographer if they didn't want to. Would put so much time into it and not like?


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 11, 2012)

Patriot said:
			
		

> Why not? I don't think someone would be a photographer if they didn't want to. Would put so much time into it and not like?



I had the same gut reaction to Bitter's comment. But the question is "what makes a photographer" not "what makes a great photographer". Someone can become a photographer without a passion for it, they just have to like it.
Now to be great, I think you need passion.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

Because you can be super ubër dooper passionate about something, and still suck.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Because you can be super ubër dooper passionate about something, and still suck.



Good point, I've seen that in many of my interests. Curious, do you think passion is an integral part of the equation to stand out as special in the crowd of photographers out there today?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Because you can be super ubër dooper passionate about something, and still suck.


Exactly so.  I've played guitar and sang for over 40 years.  For most of those years, and especially the first 20 or so, I was seriously "passionate" about it, practicing and playing every day, playing out at bars and parties and clubs, solo and in bands, thinking all I needed was a "break".  I never got anywhere because - in truth - I sucked.  I was far better than people who didn't know spit, but far, FAR worse than those with natural talent as musicians and, in the end, I just couldn't come close to measuring up to that standard.

And then, there's the opposite side of the coin: You can be naturally talented and produce insanely great work, and not really care much about it.  I've known musicians and photographers and other artisans and craftspeople and "professionals" in that camp a-plenty as well.

I agree with Bitter: "Passion" is largely irrelevant.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Integral part? No.

Passion is a feeling and not always a driving force.
IMO.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Integral part? No.
> 
> Passion is a feeling and not always a driving force.
> IMO.



Thanks, good food for thought.
So what do you think it takes for an individual's body of work to stand out from the crowd (from a peer's standpoint, not marketing to the masses).


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

Skill, creative thinking, thorough understanding of the craft (including understanding the theories of visual communication and elements of design and composition), vision, perspective...

I do believe one can be naturally "gifted", in that it takes much less work and effort to achieve greatness, while someone else may take 10 times as long to achieve that same level of greatness.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm really trying to get there with you  Wouldn't you have to have some description of passion/obsession/love for what you are doing to put in the time and work required to reach what you described talented or not? I just think there has to be another element that drives the person to reach that pinnacle of greatness.


----------



## Overread (Jun 11, 2012)

I think if you try to classify what counts as impressive to ones peers you hit a wall. That wall is, like I said before, that not every photo impresses for the same reasons and not every photographer who is "great" will be great for the same reasons. Yes there will be similar vibes and there will be base standards - but in the end many great works are great not because they are wholly perfect, but because they get a few of the needed parts near perfect (with a few exceptional works getting many more). 

So when you ask what makes something great its hard to impossible to give a firm answer because there isn't one.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> I'm really trying to get there with you  Wouldn't you have to have some description of passion/obsession/love for what you are doing to put in the time and work required to reach what you described talented or not? I just think there has to be another element that drives the person to reach that pinnacle of greatness.



I think the term passion, is a high level descriptor.

For example, Enjoy<Like<Love<Passion.

I think there is a bit of romance associated with throwing that word around.
I think 7 out of 10 beginner welcome threads use that word to describe themselves here, yet it speaks nothing of quality, understanding, skill, etc.

It's just "The Passions". 


Is it necessary to have the passions to be good? Or is it necessary to have skill and understanding to be good?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

Mind you, these are the thoughts and opinions I have come to after all my years it the art world. Merely my conclusions derived from my experiences and interactions.

I do not claim any of this as fact.


----------



## Compaq (Jun 11, 2012)

I believe we're all born with a set of innate qualities - or talents. I believe most people can learn anything - if they sacrifice something else in their life. Those who are talented will learn faster, but at some point practice and understanding must take over in order to become extraordinary. Those not talented will spend much longer reaching the same level.

Innate talents, I believe in that.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think the term passion, is a high level descriptor.
> 
> For example, Enjoy<Like<Love<Passion.
> 
> ...



Ok I can agree that perhaps the specific word passion doesn't necessarily fit well, I might have even been one of those newcomers that used it in their intro post way back in November lol (didn't check but sounds like it might be something I would say).

I just think that there has to be "something" else that drives someone to consistently create a body of work that stands out and makes us stop for a moment.  Take TPF for example, there are many good photos posted and a few great. Just grabbing off the top of my head certain people stand out consistently to me though, Mischelle, Corinna, Yourself, TonyS, EricD, both Orion's in macro to name just a few.  Something has to drive you guys to reach that next level beyond technical ability.
Perhaps it is individual?  Some are driven by the "love" of what they do, some might be driven by the quest for perfection (in their eyes), some may be driven by the accolades their images receive? 

I don't think that you need passion to be "good" there are a lot of "good" photographers out there.  They can capture a technically sound photograph but they are a dime a dozen.  But there is something extra that some have that shows in their work.



Bitter Jeweler said:


> Mind you, these are the thoughts and opinions I have come to after all my years it the art world. Merely my conclusions derived from my experiences and interactions.
> 
> I do not claim any of this as fact.


All good, thoughts and opinions make a good conversation about something this intangible.


----------



## Compaq (Jun 11, 2012)

I won't venture to claim to know whether passion is the reason for EricD's lovely eagle shots. He has good gear, he knows how to use it and he knows what looks good. Is that passion? I dunno.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

I had mentioned in another thread about not being passionate about photography and people disagreed with that, although I also understand that everyones idea or concept of what is passion and what is not is different. I know I have skills as a photographer, I have spent decades working as a photographer, in different fields, mostly photojournalism and sports.  I know that I am a photographer, it is all that I have ever done.  I've never had another job outside of being a photographer, it was my first job and still is after close to 40 years.  I have been trying to remember when I was really passionate about it, and can't. There were different times when it meant more to me than perhaps it does now.  I know my excitement for it came back when I got my first digital camera, Canon 1D, up to that point I was getting close to hanging the gear up, burned out a bit. So I suppose I was more passionate about it then.

What makes a photographer, I think is simple, anyone that produces an image using light.  I remember playing with a pinhole camera, pictures looked like crap, but still produced an image.

What makes a photographer  average, good, great, whatever, that makes a difference.  I know amazing photographers that aren't very successful in the material world, and I know some very average photographers that are doing well using it as a sideline, while working in a camera store.  I don't think  there really is one answer to the question.  It's not the standard amateur/professional thing, that as we all know, is completely different.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 11, 2012)

Overread said:


> I think if you try to classify what counts as impressive to ones peers you hit a wall. That wall is, like I said before, that not every photo impresses for the same reasons and not every photographer who is "great" will be great for the same reasons. Yes there will be similar vibes and there will be base standards - but in the end many great works are great not because they are wholly perfect, but because they get a few of the needed parts near perfect (with a few exceptional works getting many more).
> 
> So when you ask what makes something great its hard to impossible to give a firm answer because there isn't one.


I think literally anyone can stumble into creating a single great image, kinda like the 10,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters.  Sometimes things just line up FOR you not because of any effort put forth by the person behind the lens beyond actuating the shutter.  

Also what I find amazing you may not just on personal taste alone. 

Appreciation of an individual image is one thing, but I think appreciation for a person's body of work is another.  I suppose I'm trying to say that those bodies of work that stand out have something extra most of the time, something they individually add to the photograph that makes us react in a visceral way.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Because you can be super ubër dooper passionate about something, and still suck.


 
Then you'll just be a sucky photographer with a passion for photography. As rabbit said the question asked "What makes a Photographer" and not "What makes a good Photographer" You kinda just proved my point.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 11, 2012)

Patriot said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Because you can be super ubër dooper passionate about something, and still suck.
> ...



I wasn't answering the OP's question. I was responding to the person above me, and you actually proved my point when you substituted the word LIKE for PASSION.

As for the OP's question...Who cares about JUST being a photographer. It's meaningless, just being something. It becomes something when you want to discuss being a photographer in a qualitative way.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> As for the OP's question...Who cares about JUST being a photographer. It's meaningless, just being something. It becomes something when you want to discuss being a photographer in a qualitative way.


Agreed.

Just because we can teach a monkey how to press a shutter doesn't make it a photographer, anymore than teaching a cat how to flush a toilet makes it a plumber.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 11, 2012)

FotoPony said:


> What is it that makes a photographer successful?



Pigheadedness, arrogance and conformity.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

Imagination, consistancy, ego


----------



## unpopular (Jun 11, 2012)

95% of professionals rely on cliches, standard poses, and formula. Look at the images that recieve the most attention. 2/3 of them are Ansel Adams knock offs, and the rest are knock offs of one another.

Imagination has nothing to do with it, at least if that is the measure of success.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 12, 2012)

Ok,
My definition of great is different to yours. Would you consider a prodigy of photography who was a complete snob and had no passion"great"? I say that great photographers are the ones that show emotion in their pictures. So they can showcase their passion. But tell me this, everyone here on this site is passionate!!! If you weren't passionate would you go on this site! Would you bother to make an account! Would you bother to answer and ask questions! 
And would you bother to even buy a camera!?!? Or learn about photography!? Would you spend your time just to click a shutter? Instead of enjoying the moment! No!!! You would take a picture of the moment and share it with others...
The reason I said You need passion for photography is because...PHOTOGRAPHY IS A PASSION.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 12, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> Ok,
> My definition of great is different to yours. Would you consider a prodigy of photography who was a complete snob and had no passion"great"? I say that great photographers are the ones that show emotion in their pictures. So they can showcase their passion. But tell me this, everyone here on this site is passionate!!! If you weren't passionate would you go on this site! Would you bother to make an account! Would you bother to answer and ask questions!
> And would you bother to even buy a camera!?!? Or learn about photography!? Would you spend your time just to click a shutter? Instead of enjoying the moment! No!!! You would take a picture of the moment and share it with others...
> The reason I said You need passion for photography is because...PHOTOGRAPHY IS A PASSION.


Everything is a passion when you're 13.  Get back to me when you're 53 and have had a bit longer look at things.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 12, 2012)

So why are you still interested in photography, you started when you were 10


----------



## Buckster (Jun 12, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> So why are you still interested in photography, you started when you were 10


I guess for the same reason I'm still interested in breathing, eating, walking, having a roof over my head, having money in my pocket, going out to restaurants occasionally for a good filet mignon, wearing pants, and 100,000 other things that make me who I am.  I don't need to be "passionate" about any of them to still want to do them - even for an entire lifetime.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 12, 2012)

And I have am who I am, and I have the right of speech, and im allowed to say things that are on my mind without being judged by 20 people!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 12, 2012)

It's not judging, it's discussion.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 12, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> And I have am who I am,


Agreed.



JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> and I have the right of speech,


Agreed.



JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> and im allowed to say things that are on my mind


Agreed.



JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> without being judged by 20 people!


No, sorry, you're don't have that right.  20 people or everybody on the planet can judge you for what you say if they want to, and you have no rights at all in that regard.

And what does any of that matter anyway?  None of that addressed the actual point about whether "passion" is necessary to be a photographer, and certainly doesn't counter what I've said about it in any way.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 12, 2012)

Buckster said:
			
		

> I guess for the same reason I'm still interested in breathing, eating, walking, having a roof over my head, having money in my pocket, going out to restaurants occasionally for a good filet mignon, wearing pants, and 100,000 other things that make me who I am.  I don't need to be "passionate" about any of them to still want to do them - even for an entire lifetime.



So it is a part of you now, that is awesome  , can you think of a time that you were passionate about it?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 12, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I was 13 I was passionate about everything!  :thumbup:

There have been many times when I have had strong interest and enthusiasm for shooting, so sure, if you want to call those periods of "passion", be my guest, though I honestly don't see them that way.

In any case, it's not an ongoing thing with me, and I didn't always produce my best work during those times, while at other times when I was just trying to keep from being bored and picked up a camera for something to do, I produced some stuff that I think is some of my best.

Again, equating "passion" as a necessary ingredient or component just doesn't ring true to me personally, that's all.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks Buckster 

I understand using the word "passion" doesn't ring true for you, there are so many words that can be plugged into it's place, enthusiastic fits in nicely  

I'm sure when you do something for so many years you go through many stages with it, love, hate and everything in between.  I'd say at this point you are somewhere in between lol

You and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum with photography, you have been doing it for an incredibly long time and I started in November... I guess that makes me you at 13


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

I very much do not measure a successful photographer by whether or not they are professionals. That's kind of my point here.

Unfortunately, if you read a lot of what goes on in internet forums, it's all about what "the pros" do. This idolization is further fueled by consumer photography magazines which, page after page, glitz up professional photographers and their less than remarkable, yet technically outstanding, images.

Truly, we can learn a lot from 'the pros' business and technical sense; but what makes a 'successful' photographer is not neccesarily what makes a successful artist.


----------



## Overread (Jun 12, 2012)

I suspect its because we measure success as payment for services in much of society. Saying "Its great art" is nice and all, but nothing says that you like something more than actually trading (eg money) to own that work of artistry. At least that is the method that the marketing and economic machine we run today builds toward. 

Also the word "amateur" can somewhat get mixed up with the view that the work is lesser than professional. Probably because people assume that anyone with "any real skill" would be making money at it.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

Oh. And ImageMaker - I don't really care about your emotions. Great art does that and more. Great art goes beyond simply stirring up emotions. Any highschool artist in black fingernail polish can do that.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Oh. And ImageMaker - I don't really care about your emotions. Great art does that and more. Great art goes beyond simply stirring up emotions. Any highschool artist in black fingernail polish can do that.



What are you going on about?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> I say that great photographers are the ones that show emotion in their pictures.



Just seems kind of derpy.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 12, 2012)

How so?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

Oh wait. That's even not you! LOL

---

It's a very limited, Romantic idea of what artistic expession is and ignores the last 180 years of development. I'm not really in the mood to paraphrase two centuries of art history, though.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> JoshuaSimPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I say that great photographers are the ones that show emotion in their pictures.
> ...



It doesn't take a great photographer to show emotion in their photos, the emotions comes from the people that view them, so that could be a photo shot by anyone.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > JoshuaSimPhotography said:
> ...



Exactly. We can't use the artist's intentions to analyze his or her works' success. A photograph is successful in it's own right, regardless of what the photographer had in mind.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 12, 2012)

Agreed, some of the best photographs in history were  shot without anything other than shooting a photo.  The photographers state of mind doesn't usually enter into the photos.  I think when I shoot photos, but I don't think "this one is going to make people cry, laugh" etc.  I have shot photos that are filled with emotion, not mine, but the subjects, it is up to the photographer to try and capture that, but again, it is still just a photo.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jun 12, 2012)

FotoPony said:


> (I'm new to the forums but amazingly horrible at introductions. So, my first post will be a question!)
> 
> I love taking photos of animals in my spare time and have recently become the main photo-taker for a local horse club I'm in. It's subtle dream of mine to be an equine photographer, or to go around the world taking photos of wildlife and be able to have them published in magazines. Maybe even make a little income off of something I love to do. But like I said, that's a dream.
> 
> ...



Success = $$$$


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Agreed, some of the best photographs in history were  shot without anything other than shooting a photo.  The photographers state of mind doesn't usually enter into the photos.  I think when I shoot photos, but I don't think "this one is going to make people cry, laugh" etc.  I have shot photos that are filled with emotion, not mine, but the subjects, it is up to the photographer to try and capture that, but again, it is still just a photo.



BuT i would add that it doesn't need to be about emotions, either, but also about ideas which make people think. We choose subjects which are interesting to us, adn I think the only time a photograph is outright unsuccessful is when it's purpose is not to add anything new to our human experience, but is rather intended to replicate another's work.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 12, 2012)

I agree.  Shooting pictures of cute kids will make people smile but isn't adding anything other than making someone smile, which is not a bad thing, but having a picture of a starving kid makes people think, and in some ways may help bring change to other people's problems.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 12, 2012)

Lol, this is one of tpf's best discussions


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> Success = $$$$



You are quickly becomming my least favorite person.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> FotoPony said:
> 
> 
> > What is it that makes a photographer successful?
> ...


 


unpopular said:


> 95% of professionals rely on cliches, standard poses, and formula. Look at the images that recieve the most attention. 2/3 of them are Ansel Adams knock offs, and the rest are knock offs of one another.
> 
> Imagination has nothing to do with it, at least if that is the measure of success.


 


unpopular said:


> I very much do not measure a successful photographer by whether or not they are professionals. That's kind of my point here.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you read a lot of what goes on in internet forums, it's all about what "the pros" do. This idolization is further fueled by consumer photography magazines which, page after page, glitz up professional photographers and their less than remarkable, yet technically outstanding, images.
> 
> Truly, we can learn a lot from 'the pros' business and technical sense; *but what makes a 'successful' photographer is not neccesarily what makes a successful artist.*



You realize that your posts are purely opinions, and not necessarily based in any certain reality, right? 

You speak as if what you are saying is absolute truth, which it clearly isn't. I understand you enjoy the more abstract, or minimal side of photography, which you yourself seem to enjoy your work more than any given objective viewer. Not trying to say that isn't all fine and dandy that you like your own work, but most people strive for some form of positive response when taking photographs... Rather than shooting solely for the enjoyment of their own work, and disregarding any negative things that others have provided as feedback. 

This thread isn't about being a successful artist, art is subjective. Success as a photographer has less of a gray area IMO.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm not about to say "in my opinion" after everything I say, regardless of tone I don't find it difficult to sort out people's opinions verses facts, and if you cannot then I'd say that has more to do with one's own self esteem than anything I say.

But a photographer is not exclusively a profession, either, and I'd say that what makes a successful photographer and what makes a successful businessperson are different as well. A professional photographer is a businessperson who in order to be successful must also be an artist. We can't measure success merely by professional success, otherwise this would be in the business section.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 13, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> Imagination, consistancy, ego



Damn right lol. Anybody who says that they don't use photography to stroke their ego even just a little bit is so full of **** haha 

That's why so many people get butthurt when their photos get ripped to shreds. 

 I've never met a photographer who is honestly humble. They talk the humble talk so they don't sound like a jerk, but I know...

They think that they're the best thing since...something really good. 

It's the worst in art galleries. The pretentiousness is palpable. It leaves a bad taste.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2012)

pfft. you're wrong. There are humble photographers. Look at me!

now stfu. I'm right on this one.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm also quite humble, but in a great photographer sort of way.


----------



## slackercruster (Jun 13, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, but passion alone wont do it. You must have skill and talent as well.

 A great tog can pick up a pinhole cam and do something worthwhile with it. We see togs here all the time with high $ equipment producing boring snapshots. So vision, talent and skill is the main component when it comes to _greatness_.

To the OP, get some Nat'l Geo dvd's on their togs. The library has them for free. Showcases the working life of togs shooting around the world.


----------



## slackercruster (Jun 13, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Togs like to show their work. Pix are made to be viewed or what is the point?

Sure, some togs have bigger egos than others.


----------



## slackercruster (Jun 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I very much do not measure a successful photographer by whether or not they are professionals. That's kind of my point here.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you read a lot of what goes on in internet forums, it's all about what "the pros" do. This idolization is further fueled by consumer photography magazines which, page after page, glitz up professional photographers and their less than remarkable, yet technically outstanding, images.
> 
> Truly, we can learn a lot from 'the pros' business and technical sense; but what makes a 'successful' photographer is not neccesarily what makes a successful artist.



Some pros do great work all around. And some pros just do work. Same with non pro togs.


----------



## slackercruster (Jun 13, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



I think something great can be produced without passion. A tog can dislike their work and still go through the motions to crank out a great shot. But pasion helps keep the tog going when times are tough. 

The Nat'l Geo dvd's I mentioned showcases togs with lots of passion. So if you want to see passion in action, get the dvd's from the library.


----------



## slackercruster (Jun 13, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Skill, creative thinking, thorough understanding of the craft (including understanding the theories of visual communication and elements of design and composition), vision, perspective...
> 
> I do believe one can be naturally "gifted", in that it takes much less work and effort to achieve greatness, while someone else may take 10 times as long to achieve that same level of greatness.



Yes, creative brain is a natural to some and can only be improved upon by others. No matter how hard the un-gifted tog tries, they will never match or come close to the naturally gifted.

But so what, if one likes photography, just blast away. There is no rule that only the genius togs can pick up a cam.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 13, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> But so what, if one likes photography, just blast away. There is no rule that only the genius togs can pick up a cam.



Never said there was.
But if someone wonders why they never get any positive comments on their images, they might find a clue as to why. If they can accept that answer and continue, super! If that answer makes them put their camera down, well, that's on them.

That quote is from a discussion...



PixelRabbit said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 13, 2012)

This may be diversion but this point has always niggled at me.
In previous discussions on this topic, there has been a continuing statement that a _*real*_ photographer can shoot anything.  Give him/her the right equipment and he'll get the shot.
Expecting a general level of competence seems to look at photography as a trade where performance rather than artistic insight is prized.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 13, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Skill, creative thinking, thorough understanding of the craft (including understanding the theories of visual communication and elements of design and composition), vision, perspective...
> ...



I have to say that in all the years that I have been shooting I have never heard anyone throw around the word "tog" before.  Never been refered to as a "tog" either.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 13, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> This may be diversion but this point has always niggled at me.
> In previous discussions on this topic, there has been a continuing statement that a _*real*_ photographer can shoot anything.  Give him/her the right equipment and he'll get the shot.
> Expecting a general level of competence seems to look at photography as a trade where performance rather than artistic insight is prized.



I have always said that a great photographer can shoot anything, it doesn't mean that they can shoot everything as well as someone that specalizes in a certain field.  I shoot sports pretty well, and I have shot a few weddings, but the wedding images, while they were cookie cutter types, were still technically good, and composed correctly, I wouldn't rank them as good as some that shoot weddings on this forum.  But on the other side, it wasn't as much of a challenge as someone that shoots just weddings would find going out and having to shoot good sports.  Different fields, different ways of looking at things.


----------



## alice22 (Jun 14, 2012)

Essentially it is a person's inner eye. The ability to see the picture that you are going to take. The tools are just  tools.


----------



## micky21 (Jun 18, 2012)

A person who is more passionate about taking photos can only be a good photographer. He only can bring out the beauty in his photographs.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 18, 2012)

micky21 said:


> A person who is more passionate about taking photos can only be a good photographer. He only can bring out the beauty in his photographs.


Lies.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 18, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> micky21 said:
> 
> 
> > A person who is more passionate about taking photos can only be a good photographer. He only can bring out the beauty in his photographs.
> ...



I agree that he is wrong but not that it is a lie, which is a knowing falsehood.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 18, 2012)

What's your point?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 18, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> What's your point?



My point is that that is his opinion and so cannot be a lie.

He may be wrong, misguided, or whatever but saying he is a liar is inaccurate.

That's my point.


----------



## NE-KID (Jun 18, 2012)

What makes a photographer is the person who takes the photograph! It takes time, paitence to make the photographer. To me only to me there is no such thing is a photographer no one is better than the other person as a photographer we all the same person no matter who you are and what photographs you have taken.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 18, 2012)

*Eh, strictly speaking, Micky21 stated his "opinion" as fact, and not as opinion, so I don't really see any issue with Bitter responding in kind.  I think most here have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand that not everything which is stated as fact is intended to be taken that way, and that an understanding that it is actually opinion should be assumed.*


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2012)

How does one state an opinion as fact; a disclaimer that something is in his or her own opinion?

People are so touchy feeling about this. If one cannot separate opinion from fact, how is that the opinionated person's problem?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 18, 2012)

unpopular said:


> How does one state an opinion as fact; a disclaimer that something is in his or her own opinion?



*"You must have passion to be a good photographer."  The formation of the sentence presents it as a fact, however the reality is that the sentence should really be: "I believe that you must have passion to be a good photographer."  *



unpopular said:


> People are so touchy feeling about this. If one cannot separate opinion from fact, how is that the opinionated person's problem?


*I'll play your game... how is it?*


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2012)

The problem with the assertion that one must have "passion" to be a "good" photographer as fact is that what is "passion" or a "good" cannot be objectively measured, and therefor cannot be a fact.

This isn't like saying "the world is flat" or "statistically, humans perceive blue at a peak wavelength of 454nm". True or not, these assertions are measurable and confirmable through observations.

Of course, it is arguable that within the world view of the "passionate good photographer" theory proponents, it is fact, but only extending to it's supporters.

I don't think we need to be apologetic for our viewpoints. If we didn't believe what we do as fact, then there is no sense if belief. But this does not excuse pigheadedness, or assertions that other's opinions are invalid for the sake of differing - and this goes for dissenters just as much as it does for advocates of any given position. "That's just your opinion" is a backhanded way of discrediting opposition. That is, in my opinion it is


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 18, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > What's your point?
> ...



Oh, dear god. :roll:


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 18, 2012)

I apologize profusely for my contribution to  the derailment of this thread. 

*grabs the popcorn*


----------



## terri (Jun 18, 2012)

Before this derails any further, let's agree in advance to let others state their own thoughts - even if we privately believe a particular poster may be misguided.    "Lies" does come across as a bit harsh, so perhaps toning down our assessments of another's statement would help keep the thread more civil in tone.     We can state our belief that a person's statement is misguided, and perhaps back up that belief by expanding on our thoughts in a conversational way.    

Okay?        Thanks, all!


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 19, 2012)

alice22 said:


> Essentially it is a person's inner eye. The ability to see the picture that you are going to take. The tools are just &#8230; tools.


 Actually professionals tell me thats the newbies idea of a photographer. The professional knows they have to "work the shot" most of the time - change position again and again and try to improve what they already got until they actually got something. So the condition that you already know what exactly you want to photograph is actually quite rare. Most of the time you have to experiment.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> I agree that he is wrong but not that it is a lie, which is a knowing falsehood.



But if, for all intents and purposes, we can test his theory... If it is wrong then technically he did lie. An opinion is only an opinion until proved otherwise, yes?

I just wanted to get in on this convoluted opinionated action.


----------



## daarksun (Jun 22, 2012)

for me. A photographer is the person that works hard to use their equipment to the best of their ability ( not purchasing the best equipment because they believe it will make them better) - It's a person that goes to bed thinking about photography and wakes up thinking about photography. It's about the effort and desire that's put into it. Most will never do it for a living. Others will love it so much but never be able to understand how to compose an image or learn to use all the different software to "edit" an image. To some being a real photographer is about making money with it. 

That's just my view on it. I see bad photographers making money doing weddings, events and portraits while others shoot fabulous photos and never do anything with it for money.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

It's a historic moment, people. I'm actually going out shooting!


----------



## IByte (Jun 22, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> It's a historic moment, people. I'm actually going out shooting!



...Yay! Lol I'm you're going to do some street themed photography with a title "From behind"


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

AHotPhototaker said:


> What makes a photographer is the person who takes the photograph! It takes time, paitence to make the photographer. To me only to me there is no such thing is a photographer *no one is better than the other person as a photographer *we all the same person no matter who you are and what photographs you have taken.



So you are saying a PRO with 30 years of experience is no better photographer than the new Facebook Pro that walked out of Best Buy three days ago with her new Entry level camera? I am confused!


----------

