# Are you a specialist or generalist?



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

would more than 80% of your photos fall into a specific category? or do you prefer to test around different kinds of photography?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 23, 2017)

By choice or because that's how it plays out?  I would say that the vast majority of my paid work is headshots & sales-related.  Not necessarily what I have chosen, but that's how it's worked out.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

You don't have the third choice which is both.  I can shoot just about anything, but I have two or three ares that I choose to shoot these days.  When I started in photography you were expected, at least if you wanted to survive in the business world, to be just that, a photographer.  You learned how to shoot everything.  Once you were well enough established you could limit what you shot and still make a living.  

Now it seems like everyone wants to specialize.  They want to be an "Environmental, natural light, pet photographer specializing in puppies with dark coats and medium long hair who like kittens and meditation" or they want to be a "Short focal length, in your face, senior photographer who only shoots in full sunlight in the park on even numbered days."  It's getting easier to define the drinks at Starbucks than it is to find an all purpose photographer.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Designer (Jun 23, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.


Seriously Dude?  Give me a giant break.  Perhaps you need to have a look around. 

IMO, standards for everything in the past were higher, and many outstanding photographers specialized.

Contrast that with today's "talent".  

There is absolutely no legitimate comparison that would indicate today's top photographers are anywhere close in real artistic accomplishment to the big names of yesteryear. 

You've got it exactly backward.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 23, 2017)

I guess I'm a specialist - 99.9% of what I shoot are things that interest me.



Designer said:


> IMO, standards for everything in the past were higher, and many outstanding photographers specialized.
> 
> Contrast that with today's "talent".


You mean back when there was no green box auto nor scene settings?


----------



## weepete (Jun 23, 2017)

Specialist. Landscapes are where my real interest lies and that tends to be what I make an effort to shoot. Everything else is just a bit of practice and passing time.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2017)

I guess I am a generalist.... no, wait...I am a special...no, wait...general....wai...no,lemme reconsider...wait,wait,wait...okay, what was the question again?


----------



## Peeb (Jun 23, 2017)

If the choices are either special or general then my answer is most certainly yes.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2017)

I really suck at landscapes because that involves being outdoors and waiting for the moment and whatever.... you lost me at being far from the comfort of my indoors.


----------



## will_f (Jun 23, 2017)

I'm a special hobbyist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## weepete (Jun 23, 2017)

"The Almight says, "Don't change the subject, just answer the ******' question."" - Stephen, Braveheart.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 24, 2017)

Designer said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.
> ...



The past is rose-colored indeed. That's like saying music used to be better. It only seems that way because all the shitty stuff sank to the bottom and was forgotten lolol

For every Annie Leibovitz there were ten more people smearing Vaseline on a lens filter...and charging for it. Higher overhead just meant that the barrier to entry for both would-be pros and wanna-be pros was higher.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2017)

snowbear said:


> I guess I'm a specialist - 99.9% of what I shoot are things that interest me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think I ever used those settings on my last two DSLRs. The dial hardly moves from M.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm an artist trapped in a gelatin emulsion and silver halide crystals.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2017)

I hate my own work which I guess means I'm an artist?

I don't quite understand specialist or generalist. Does generalist mean that you take pictures of a number of things and a specialist means you focus on one subject only?

I never really understood these. 

I just take pictures of what I like and sometimes I get bored of that and find something else to photography. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Overread (Jun 24, 2017)

Generalist would mean that you've just got not specific areas that you focus upon or where your results are significantly better than everything else. 

Specialist would, to my mind, mean that either you only take the camera out for very specific photo situations or you have a limited number of situations/genres where your results are significantly better than everything else that you take photos of.

I would also argue that this question is talking about cameras and photography so the general point-shoot-selfie-happysnaps we all take would not really come into it all that much unless that is all we shoot.

I'd also say its something that isn't static and I'd expect the more experienced to be more generalist; simply by virtue of age and having more years behind the camera will present more situations; more variables and also more chances that your interests will shift and change. Younger or newer photographers are more likely to be specialist since most come (at least on forums) with specific interests or ideas to start with.. 


I'm very much a specialist; which is to say that I've got specific interests where I do take the camera out, but its not round my neck all the time. Furthermore within those genres I tend to get consistently better results than outside of them. This makes sense; situations where I'm not taking as many if any photos in general mean that they are new situations - I might be able to make good exposures in them but the result might be failing on some grounds or might not live up to expectations because they are not areas where I've practised and found what I like and how best to work in those situations. 



Also don't forget, in the film-era, most photographs were seen by very few people. Hobby level might, at best, get shown around their local club; but otherwise friends and family only. Likewise even professional photographs would be limited to friends and family of those who bought them. Print media and newspaper would be the key areas where you'd get more exposure to the masses and galleries might also net you more views. But in general it was viewed less so all those rubbish film photographers went without as much notice.
Today the digital and internet age has exploded exposure so all the great stuff is seen and all the dross too. Furthermore there's more of a platform to rant about bad photographers. So again you get an increased bias in showing more "poorer" grade things. And yes the fact that the entry level barrier has lowered means that there are more bad photographers; there's also way more good ones too than there once were.

I'd say digital has increased the standards at the top end but that you've now got a huge amount of "noise" in the scene in that there's a vast population showing their photos.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2017)

So being a generalist ruins photography? I'm so confused hehe.

I guess I never thought about it, I simply just take photos of whatever interests me.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm a specialist in taking snapshots on the spur of the moment. I'm way too eclectic and disorganised to be a generalist.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Please ... just because there are many more people claiming to be photographers does not equate to better photography.  There are more photogs/people with cameras now than in the film-only days because photography has become easier.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 24, 2017)

rexbobcat said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Becoming good/a pro with film was much tougher than becoming good/a pro with digital.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2017)

Learning how to photograph is much faster, easier, and less-costly than it was with film, developing, and on-paper printing out to be able to, literally, see one's photographic efforts as actual, finalized pictures. It often took hours to weeks between shooting a picture, and actually seeing the finished picture. With Kodachrome slides, the turnaround time was between five days and two weeks, depending on the era the Kodachrome was shot in.  E-6 process slide films allowed tansparencies to be developed and seen in as little as four hours by the late 1970's, as lots of small labs cropped up offering 4-hour E-6 processing.

I dunno...photography used to require a fair amount of a technical learning curve to have been accomplished for a shooter to be able to do even moderately sophisticated tasks; today, with instant feedback, AMAZING AF cameras and lenses, automated computer-aided light metering and exposure setting, and low-cost snapping, it's NEVER been easier to learn photographic techniques, to get the right exposure, or to get a well-focused picture. Digital imaging also caries with it infinite image adjusting and perfecting/refining, pixel-pushing, compositing, masking, and so on. And the software that does the aforementioned tasks is better and easier toi use than it was just a decade ago!

Personally? I think there are MORE very capable shooters now than there were during the film era. Annnnd there are also plenty of average shooters. I would agree with GaryA when he said that, "Becoming good/a pro with film was much tougher than becoming good/a pro with digital". Pretty sure that is true!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Back then Standards were lower so you could afford to be a generalist. Now you gotta be the best in your field.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2017)

the most successful pro photographers I've seen out there are extremely niche.
attempting to be good at various genres means you're spreading your skill and marketing thin.
I've seen photographers who are very successful shooting something as nice as glass jars and food tins.

I've seen the very best niche photographers travel the world (being paid by clients) to shoot a very specific item. 

Trying to be everything to everyone is how a lot of department stores are failing.


----------



## paigew (Jun 24, 2017)

I always heard it's best to specialize, but I didn't [emoji16]. I do weddings, newborn, family portraits, and seniors. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 24, 2017)

Standards seem to have bottomed out.

I don't know which I am, but it's a passion. Having been a sideline, not something I depended on for income, I've always shot whatever I want. Maybe that's specializing, if I spent hours and hours at hockey rinks taking pictures because I love it and just try dragging me away from the glass! lol Not that it's only been that, I shoot at places around and about and I don't know what you call that.

I've also spent hours in the darkroom because, same thing, try dragging me outta there. Could be in there two hours and feel like it's been 20 minutes. And maybe I inhaled too much in there so am now nuts.


----------



## Overread (Jun 24, 2017)

Paige I would say you have specialised to a degree. To my eye you're doing people. 
Newborn - family portraits - seniors - weddings - all of those involve people. In different situations and with different pressures, but all are people focused and I suspect that they all put similar demands on you and your kit in terms of performance - even if each one will have its own nuances and trials. Indeed I'd say weddings is the most varied if only because of the four its the only one that you've not got total control over (esp if you do reception, dance and party photos).

Then again take any genre to a high level and I'm sure you feel that there's far greater difference between those four than those on the outside might think. Much like small mammal and bird photography are both very similar and yet totally different at the same time.


----------



## paigew (Jun 24, 2017)

Overread said:


> Paige I would say you have specialised to a degree. To my eye you're doing people.
> Newborn - family portraits - seniors - weddings - all of those involve people. In different situations and with different pressures, but all are people focused and I suspect that they all put similar demands on you and your kit in terms of performance - even if each one will have its own nuances and trials. Indeed I'd say weddings is the most varied if only because of the four its the only one that you've not got total control over (esp if you do reception, dance and party photos).
> 
> Then again take any genre to a high level and I'm sure you feel that there's far greater difference between those four than those on the outside might think. Much like small mammal and bird photography are both very similar and yet totally different at the same time.



Absolutely! And I also shoot everything similarly, in a more documentary way. I'm a sucker for human connection and emotions. [emoji16]

I do occasionally shoot macro and landscapes, though definitely not as much, and not so much "professionally"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 24, 2017)

I specialize in mediocrity


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2017)

paigew said:


> I always heard it's best to specialize, but I didn't [emoji16]. I do weddings, newborn, family portraits, and seniors.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That's considered specialised actually. Compared to the dabblers...I do a bit of landscape, a bit of macro, abit of portraits..come to me..i'll shoot everything sorta photographer


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm a specialist.  I only do a particular type of photography in a particular style.  It doesn't mean that I can't shoot other type of photography or style, but it's just my preference.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 24, 2017)

Definitely specialized, and quite content to be so. 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Designer (Jun 24, 2017)

paigew said:


> I always heard it's best to specialize, but I didn't [emoji16]. I do weddings, newborn, family portraits, and seniors.


Ah... so it's all portraiture, then.  

Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> Definitely specialized, and quite content to be so.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


I'm trained in food, macro, abstract when I was in school. As much as I like food, my food photography was my weakest as I really sucked at plating. 
I did landscape too...and that sucked cuz I hated being outdoors for more than 30 minutes at a time.
I do like travel photography but only with my mirrorless, point and shoot or my cellphone (cuz I'm essentially lazy).


----------



## paigew (Jun 24, 2017)

Designer said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > I always heard it's best to specialize, but I didn't [emoji16]. I do weddings, newborn, family portraits, and seniors.
> ...


I suppose so! For some reason when I first read and responded to this thread I thought it was a "do you specialize professionally" question. I think I read one of the replies vs the op when I saw it pop up on the app. My bad!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 24, 2017)

I specialize in generalness.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 24, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> I specialize in mediocrity


And you have excelled in that endeavor.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 24, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I specialize in mediocrity
> ...


Thanks


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 24, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > jcdeboever said:
> ...


----------



## tirediron (Jun 25, 2017)

chuasam said:


> the most successful pro photographers I've seen out there are extremely niche.
> attempting to be good at various genres means you're spreading your skill and marketing thin.
> I've seen photographers who are very successful shooting something as nice as glass jars and food tins.
> 
> ...


Location has a GREAT deal to do with this.  In a town of 22,000 people, if a client wants family photos, I shoot family photos.  If they want real estate, I shoot real estate.  Specializing is great, but it's not always practical.  Shooting left hand weddings on slide film with an 8x10 view camera isn't going to put a lot of food on my table.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 25, 2017)

Specialist for sure. I don't really have an interest in any other sector of photography beside portraits.


----------



## petrochemist (Jun 26, 2017)

Photography wise around a third of what I shoot is Infra Red, but I'll shoot just about anything under the sun & occasionally a few other things too! (stars & the sun itself) so I guess I'm a generalist still.

At work I'm in a highly specialized role so I can still be a specialist


----------



## susinead (Jul 3, 2017)

Peeb said:


> If the choices are either special or general then my answer is most certainly yes.



I couldn't agree more!!! 
General for the purpose of learning and improving skills, but certain types of photography interest me more.


----------



## benhasajeep (Jul 3, 2017)

I am a specialized generalist!  Basically a Jack of all Cameras.  Well used to be.  I don't do MF any more (don't even have the equipment).  And been a decade since any LF work (still have the equipment).


----------

