# At what stage are you?



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 2, 2012)

Give Yourself an Honest Portfolio Review


This was an interesting take on a photographers progress.
Asking at what stage you are, is rhetorical and you don't need to answer. 
Instead just use it as a guide and give yourself a good hard look!


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 2, 2012)

I wouldn't agree about the HDR part. It's all a part of the skill and knowledge that one acquires and definitely doesn't mean that using a particular tool makes you less than the others.

Personally I don't care for there "grading" system. I myself hate the concept of academic examinations ( spent 10 years doing that). It really doesn't mean anything, just a way for the lost souls to find some comfort knowing that they still relate to something somehow.


----------



## MSnowy (Jul 2, 2012)

Thanks for the link. After 2 plus years at this I would consider myself a solid 2


----------



## paigew (Jul 2, 2012)

interesting thanks for sharing


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 2, 2012)

Interesting read. On that kind of a scale, I think i'm a low 5....


----------



## Dominantly (Jul 2, 2012)

Meh, seems about right to me.

I feel a 4 is about right.


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2012)

Somewhere between 3 and 4 - however the stages don't really purely connect with talent and seem to also focus around the concept of taste as well. Which leads them to be very odd when they give examples as if a certain kind of "taste" to what the photographer wants to produce is what each level will use (granted there is truth in the maturity of taste, however I'm not sure I agree with this grading system - eh he's clearly not seen any Mish flower photos )


----------



## Dominantly (Jul 2, 2012)

When I look through my 365 photo blog, I see various parts of what he talked about (even starting off with a weird HDR). I also noticed that one of the first places I started trying to take advantage of good natural light was with flowers. I feel as though they are probably one of the easiest things to photograph with better than average lighting, consistently.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 2, 2012)

I'd say I'm at a 3.  I mostly agreed with the page, even though I went into it sort of thinking "oh man, this is going to be complete garbage."  Sure there were some minor nits I would pick, but as broad generalizations, which it sort of has to be, I thought it was actually very good.  It sort of zeroed in on things I know I need to work on, but in a way that it really hit me "man, I need to get my sh** together on this".  

Really surprised at how good of an article that was.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 2, 2012)

Dominantly said:


> When I look through my 365 photo blog, I see various parts of what he talked about (even starting off with a weird HDR). I also noticed that one of the first places I started trying to take advantage of good natural light was with flowers. I feel as though they are probably one of the easiest things to photograph with better than average lighting, consistently.



Yeah, I've never gone through a flower, selective color or HDR phase (I mean I've done them here and there, but it's never been anything more than a 'i guess I need to try this technique out at least once' sort of thing).  So it was a little off for me personally in that regard.  But it totally nailed me with:

Their photos almost always incorporate good lighting, but they occasionally leave one in there with bad lighting because they really liked the subject, or because they have some sort of &#8220;war story&#8221; from the shoot that makes them especially fond of the photo.

and

A few of the photos in the portfolio look quite good, but most of them are just &#8220;nice.&#8221;

and

They have entered the world of Photoshop and post-processing and can do some really neat tricks, but a professional would look at the photos and clearly see the image quality being ruined by untrained hands.  When I look through portfolios, I&#8217;m amazed how many pictures are WAY over-sharpened, grainy, or where the colors are all messed up.  This makes it easy to spot a stage three photographer.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jul 2, 2012)

Neat read and perspective. 
I don't know where to put myself since I really haven't used/learned photoshop or lightroom yet. 
I'm thinking 3ish with 4 tendencies lol


----------



## RanD (Jul 2, 2012)

Maybe a high 3. I don't do silly photoshop stuff.


----------



## photo_joe (Jul 2, 2012)

Great read for sure thanks for sharing.


----------



## pgriz (Jul 2, 2012)

Nice link, David.  If I had to guess, I'm somewhere between a 3 and a 4.  Don't have the post-processing tools to really make the photos "zing", so I have to rely on getting it mostly in-camera.  While I know the theory, internalizing it to become second nature is still a hill that I'm climbing.  But that's OK.  I'm not trying to impress anyone.  Well, that's not quite true.  I'd love to impress my wife who's an accomplished artist.  And she's been urging to get some of my shots printed to show alongside her work.  So there's hope.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 2, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I wouldn't agree about the HDR part. It's all a part of the skill and knowledge that one acquires and definitely doesn't mean that using a particular tool makes you less than the others.


 Reading comprehension fail.



> Personally I don't care for there "grading" system. I myself hate the concept of academic examinations ( spent 10 years doing that). It really doesn't mean anything, just a way for the lost souls to find some comfort knowing that they still relate to something somehow.



Good to see you are above a little self critique. 

I feel sorry for all the lost souls that responded to this thread taking comfort in relating to something, somehow.
Look how little they are, connecting to generalized notions of personal photographic growth!






:roll:


----------



## tirediron (Jul 2, 2012)

Anywhere from a 1 to a 5, depending on time of day, day of the week, and what I had for breakfast!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2012)

I'm not really motivated by "Stage 5" criteria, I'm not interested in "jaw dropping". But i'm not going to lie and say that I don't seek out the approval of others (stage 6), but still, even though little I do is well received I continue the tangent I'm on. I don't feel what I do is "random" and I seldom do anything "beautiful" for the sake of beauty, if I do it's not meant to be taken seriously.

I don't think I'm stage 3, though sometimes I get a little carried away with the sharpening. I definitely don't think I'm stage 4. Technically I'm not at Stage 6, aesthetically I don't want to be.

I have no idea.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 3, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't agree about the HDR part. It's all a part of the skill and knowledge that one acquires and definitely doesn't mean that using a particular tool makes you less than the others.
> ...



I can understand this argument, but it depends on the context. For the context of 99% of this forums activity, I think it's absolutely valid. 

Truthfully, I wish I was a sophisticated enough individual and made such compelling, thought provoking work to be above a general 6-point grading system, but realistically i'm not. And neither is 99% of the users in this amateur-hour forum.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

I think overall, George Barr's self-grading system is more comprehensive and less specific to scenarios, style and techniques.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml


With this criteria, I think I fit technical level 4D. As with the OP, a lot of Barr's definitions of aesthetics though don't mesh well with me.


----------



## Bend The Light (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm a 1-2-3-4. No higher than 4, and not consistently 4. I have the odd flash of 4. More 3 than 4, really. More than 1 or 2. 

I am the square root of the sum of the first 4 stages. Yes, 3.1622.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm at the stage where it still makes my mouth water to hold a camera to my eye, and the days between when I drop a film off at the lab and getting the photos back continue to be amongst the longest.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 3, 2012)

Whow !

This link was a *lot *more entertaining than I expected.

Cant say which stage I'm on. For example, I'm still convinced photoshop is nothing I ever want to use. 

Also, flower pictures -> extreme boredom (most of the time, anyway).

Well, I guess something low, but I dont know which.

I guess I can rule out stage 1 because I DO spot pictures in bad focus. I might keep them anyway, but I wouldnt put them into a portfolio if I would ever bother making one.


----------



## Hobbytog (Jul 3, 2012)

For me intermediate. Photography technology seems to be evolving on a daily basis. I'm never going to keep up with it all and I know I'll never fully understand Photoshop.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2012)

(http://youarenotaphotographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/b2feF.png)


----------



## Overread (Jul 5, 2012)

Somewhere between Technique and one exposure per motive - this I'm well into the "Darn it I suck" section


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2012)

I think I'm just starting to get beyond "darnnit I suck".


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 5, 2012)

I think it's generally accurate, but I think it kind of pigeonholes the type of photographer it's profiling. 

I think a professional photo can be a piece of art, but a piece of art doesn't have to look professional.

Basically what I think is that a level 3 photog can be a great artist, while someone at level 5 might be a lousy one. 

Some professionals can take amazing photos but they might be amazing in a generic way...

Some photographs I feel don'tt follow his criteria of a great photograph, but they just seem...intuitively good.


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm a 3, 4, 5. But sometimes creep back to a #1


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Give Yourself an Honest Portfolio Review
> 
> 
> This was an interesting take on a photographers progress.
> ...



Yea, same thing with a pix that is not that good in color. But printed low key BW makes it A+. Same with freaked out HDR, jsut another technique. And even a reg BW that needs high or low key to make it fly. It wont stand on its own without technique.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm a bored stage 6.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 5, 2012)

No stages here to report.  Instead, I'll admit that I'm still in diapers and don't mind spreading the mess around.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 5, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> I'm a bored stage 6.



I can totally empathize.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm somewhere between taking pictures and creating them. 

In my daydreams at least....


----------



## IByte (Jul 5, 2012)

Number 1 with a splish splash of two, but I can honestly say I have never did any bad selective coloring.  Thanks for the link Bitter.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 5, 2012)

From the article: "They have entered the world of Photoshop and post-processing and can do  some really neat tricks, but a professional would look at the photos and  clearly see the image quality being ruined by untrained hands.  When I  look through portfolios, I&#8217;m amazed how many pictures are WAY  over-sharpened, grainy, or where the colors are all messed up.  This  makes it easy to spot a stage three photographer."  
Ouch!! I resemble that remark! 

Based on THEIR criteria, I'd say I fall between a 3 and 4. Probably toward the 3 side, according to THEM. 

But, if I were just asked, based on a scale of 1-6, with 1 being an absolute beginner (results-wise) and 6 being highly-skilled, where would you put your photography portfolio? I'd say I might be a 2, on a really good day.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 5, 2012)

Overread said:


> Somewhere between Technique and one exposure per motive - this I'm well into the "Darn it I suck" section



In the 30+ years since I first picked up a camera, there have been approximately 6.5 days when I was NOT of the "Darn it I suck" opinion. One of those days was when I got three ribbons in the state fair contest (using my little Canon Powershot!). On at least three of the other days, I was probably running a very high fever and delusional.


----------



## nmoody (Jul 5, 2012)

I think I am a stage 0, maybe a 1 if I am lucky. 

In all seriousness I am a very low stage 1. Having only started in Nov I am fine with this. I am feeling comfortable with the basics of the exposure triangle, getting correct exposures almost all the time. The composition side of it is what I need to work on most. Then after I can at least stand in relation to composition I will work on post processing.

After that I guess it goes round and round in circles going from technique, composition, processing getting better at each.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 5, 2012)

nmoody said:


> I think I am a stage 0, maybe a 1 if I am lucky.
> 
> In all seriousness I am a very low stage 1. Having only started in Nov I am fine with this. I am feeling comfortable with the basics of the exposure triangle, getting correct exposures almost all the time. The composition side of it is what I need to work on most. Then after I can at least stand in relation to composition I will work on post processing.
> 
> After that I guess it goes round and round in circles going from technique, composition, processing getting better at each.




You can only go up, and for a lot of reasons it's more fun to be at this stage than trying to stay at a stage 5-6.


----------



## Forkie (Jul 6, 2012)

Stage 4 feels right to me, except for the first bullet point.  I rarely tilt my horizons and have never attempted an HDR!


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 6, 2012)

I hate labels. I'm just a human being. Well, mostly.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2012)

Solid 4, heading into 5 territory.


----------



## KenC (Jul 6, 2012)

As others have noted, classification is difficult because in some respects you can be in one stage and in other respects in a different one, and also some of the criteria are very subjective - "jaw dropping" according to whom?  With any technically OK image some will love it, others hate it, even among educated viewers.  However, it's worth reading this once in a while for a reality check as to whether we are falling into one of the traps and whether we are rising to the challenges.  As for me, I'm completely past the first two, probably completely past three, I doubt very much I ever rise to the highest level (although it's pretty subjective), and I see some respects in which I fall into each of the others.


----------



## Skyclad (Jul 8, 2012)

I'm probably a stage 2 trying to work my way up to a stage 3. Just taking my time with it to have fun while I learn without beating myself up about trying to strive too hard for the next stage and the stage after that.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

I need to look at this again when I get out of bed and can reference the stages while responding from a computer, but as of right now, upon first reading, I'd say I'm somewhere between a 3 and a 4.

I don't agree with some of the specific things the author states - (I've only ever done selective coloring ONCE... Because the girl I was shooting wanted it.  But it also served a purpose... She wanted her and her fiancé to be painting each other.... And I've never been into flowers, but I immediately thought of Mish and while she IS into flowers, I don't think that means she's a lower grade... And I've never even TRIED HDR...

HOWEVER... I get the overall sentiment of each level, I think.

And this put myself between a 3 and a 4.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2012)

stop being modest, rose. You're much closer to 5, imo. At least with your studio work.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 8, 2012)

Between 5 or 6 but I'm also an image retoucher so I do a LOT of photoshop. I see myself more as an image creator...though I sometimes take pictures for fun too


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> stop being modest, rose. You're much closer to 5, imo. At least with your studio work.



You think?  I dunno.  I'm my own worst critic.  I'm about to read it again now that I'm not on my iPhone trying to do this and going to assess again.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2012)

Rose - Your poses are fresh and creative, you don't rely on cliche or formula, most people don't have any problem with your technique, and when I see criticism, it's more on the artistic end of things.

Within your genre, I think you're about as good as 75% or more out there.

I don't know what you do outside of your professional work, but really, I think you're one of the better, if not the best, fashion/glamour photographers here. You're daring, creative and you produce relatively novel images which don't fit "level 4", and certainly not "level 3".


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 8, 2012)

I would have to say "none of the above".

Each level contains completely ridiculous comments.
Level 4 fits the closest; however, the &#8220;creatively tilted horizons, over-processed HDR photos&#8221; comment should be in Level 2.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

::Reads Stage One::



> Almost all of the photographers portraits are zoomed way out.
> If the photographer does any post-processing, it is spot color (all black and white except one item in the photo that is color).


I remember when I did the first one 

And I never did selective coloring.  Well... once... like I said in my previous post.  The ONLY selective coloring I ever did was this image:







::Reads Stage Two::



> The photographer might follow the rule of thirds but ignores the fact that sometimes the most interesting composition does not follow any rule per se.
> The photographer takes out the camera for a picture when he sees an interesting PERSON or LANDSCAPE, but not when the photographer sees interesting lighting, shapes, or compositions.




Again, I remember doing the first one...

I STILL do the second one I think.  I'm trying to expand from that, but I'm pretty sure I still do that most of the time.


::Reads Stage Three::



> *By this point, the photographer has started to clue into the fact that lighting is a big deal.*  They stop taking landscapes in the middle of the day and at least find shade to shoot portraits to avoid ugly harsh shadows.   *Most of their pictures look better than an average person could do, and they are beginning to be known by friends and family as a photographer.*



Especially the bolded points... I feel like I've only entered that realm on the more recent end of this past year.



> Their best photos are macro shots of flowers.  At some point they need to realize that photos of flowers are EASY.
> A few of the photos in the portfolio look quite good, but most of them are just nice.
> When the photos are shown to friends or family members, they have said things like, Wow!  You could sell that!
> Stage three photographers are always eyeing the 5D Mark III or D800, and secretly tell themselves that their photos will finally be professional if they just had the right equipment.
> They have entered the world of Photoshop and post-processing and can do some really neat tricks, but a professional would look at the photos and clearly see the image quality being ruined by untrained hands.  When I look through portfolios, Im amazed how many pictures are WAY over-sharpened, grainy, or where the colors are all messed up.  This makes it easy to spot a stage three photographer.




HOWEVER...

The only pictures of flowers I've ever taken were taken WAY back in my "stage 1" days.    Also, I feel like my portfolio is FULL of "just nice" images.  ...and I just bought a 5DmkII about 2 or so months ago.    I'm also fairly certain that any trained professional would scoff at my PS skills.  They're pretty shoddy.  

And I still struggle with lighting from time to time.  I'm thinking of some images from that boudoir shoot I just did... outside... she wanted some with her fiance's car... :shock:  I don't... I don't even know what the f*** I was thinking... but they're awful.  Fo' realz.


::Reads Stage Four::



> Stage Four Photographers are just on the cusp of consistently producing professional work, but they still have some baby habits deeply ingrained in their heads.  These photographers are known by most of their family and friends as a really serious photographer and have at least considered going pro.  They spend a tremendous amount of time or effort working to get their work noticed by others, but have a tough time drawing as many eyeballs to their work as they would like.



I feel like this is 100% accurate.  I'm NOT consistent.  I'm ALMOST consistent but I'm NOT consistent... and I DO have a lot of bad habits I'm trying to break.



> Most of their photos look good only because they include some interesting style or technique, rather than being a photo that can stand on its own.
> Every photo in their portfolio is quite good and any amateur photographer would be envious.
> None of the photos in their portfolio have technical problems.  Everything is sharply focused, properly exposed, and most (but not all) of their poor Photoshop habits have gone by the wayside so their image quality is now quite good.
> They have been asked by people who are NOT family members, friends, or co-workers to shoot an event for them or to buy their photos.
> The photographer rarely notices it, but a trained eye sees many distracting elements in the photos that take away from the overall picture.




I feel like the first one is very true of my work right now... and according to some of the people in the FB groups I have been avoiding all weekend, number 2 has been confirmed as well... at least about the amateur envy part.  Although, I'm not sure that my poor photoshopping skills have gone by the wayside.  I'm still experimenting with different things... so I think they're about ot get worse before they get better, because I learned some new sh*t that I, personally, feel like takes a **** on the quality of the 100% crop... but looks pretty awesome when viewed at like... 700px or something.    And I HAVE been asked by people not directly related to me to shoot for them.  And I disagree that I don't notice it... cause I *do*... but I do have many distracting elements in my photos still.


So... maybe I'm not so much between a 3 and a 4 as I am... JUST... a 4... but I think that's where I'm at now.


::Reads Stage Five::

Ha!  No.  None of that is me right now.  I WISH it were, but if I'm being HONEST... it's not.


::Reads Stage Six for Sh!ts and Giggles::

See... while I'm NOT at Level Six shooter...

This:



> They find their drive to continue learning photography in challenging themselves with specific techniques and styles.



And this:



> Their work is no longer random with one sports picture, then a wildlife shot, then a landscape, etc.  All of the photos in the portfolio go together and you can spot the photographers style coming through in the work.



I feel are true of me.

I don't really have THAT random of a portfolio.  I shoot individual people - Models (and I use that term loosely), boudoir, and I'd like to apply what I do with models to seniors at some point... but I feel those 3 are all related technically speaking... and I shoot bands.  And my cat.  I takes a ****TON of pictures of my cat... but they don't really make it to my portfolio.    So people, bands, and my cat.  I might shoot landscapes while hiking for fun... but those don't go into my portfolio.  I may shoot sports for fun some time (I haven't... but I may), but those aren't goign to go into my portfolio.  As far my professional goals are concerned... I may still be a little too spread out to be as specialized as Cowart... but I'm not shooting everything under the sun.




So yeah... Unpopular, thanks for the kind compliment, but I'm not a 5... I'm probably, at best, a solid 4. :sillysmi:


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> stop being modest, rose. You're much closer to 5, imo. At least with your studio work.





unpopular said:


> Rose - Your poses are fresh and creative, you don't rely on cliche or formula, most people don't have any problem with your technique, and when I see criticism, it's more on the artistic end of things.
> 
> Within your genre, I think you're about as good as 75% or more out there.
> 
> I don't know what you do outside of your professional work, but really, I think you're one of the better, if not the best, fashion/glamour photographers here. You're daring, creative and you produce relatively novel images which don't fit "level 4", and certainly not "level 3".



Aw, thanks, haha.

Then maybe I' on the upper end of 4... 

I dunno... I just don't think I'm consistent enough to call myself a 5 yet.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2012)

Perhaps. Knowing and seeing inconsistency is a huge step. We all take photos that don't work out, even the best do, the key is knowing what doesn't work and why.

And wow @ the selective color. YUCK!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And wow @ the selective color. YUCK!



HEY man... that was over TWO YEARS ago... and I ONLY did it because she was the "client" and that's what she wanted!  

Never again have I don't that since.  :lmao:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 8, 2012)

I'm glad to see that at least one person was honest about what he thinks of himself. (Imagemaker)

I'm a 6 who skipped stage 5


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I'm glad to see that at least one person was honest about what he thinks of himself. (Imagemaker)



Hey!  Was I not honest?  I needed a little self-reflection first, but I thought I was pretty honest.


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2012)

Wait if I wasn't honest I now need to know what I got wrong 

*waits to be told that he's clearly a stage higher than the thinks he is and be all self proud about the fact*


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

Overread said:


> Wait if I wasn't honest I now need to know what I got wrong
> 
> *waits to be told that he's clearly a stage higher than the thinks he is and be all self proud about the fact*



I wanna know what I got wrong too!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2012)

If I am to be honest of where I think I am, I transcend all grading systems; i am the PHOTO GOD!


----------



## RedStickChick (Jul 8, 2012)

I'd say a high 4 or a low 5.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 8, 2012)

I can honestly say that reading through the responses to this has not been very enlightening.  There are a number of modest people who I expected to grade themselves lower than I feel they deserve, and there are a number of pretentious people who I feel graded themselves higher than they deserve.  No real surprise.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

SCraig said:


> I can honestly say that reading through the responses to this has not been very enlightening.  There are a number of modest people who I expected to grade themselves lower than I feel they deserve, and there are a number of pretentious people who I feel graded themselves higher than they deserve.  No real surprise.



I don't really think it's supposed to be enlightening for YOU... as far as others are concerned.  It's meant to be enlightening for you as far as YOU are concerned 

Maybe some people think I rated myself too high... maybe others think I rated myself too low...

I think I rated myself where I belong, because the fact of the matter is, you don't really know what's going on behind the scenes.  All you see are the one or two photos I post that I think came out alright... that STILL have composition or lighting issues from time to time...

You don't see the GROSSLY exposed car model shot that I just did two weeks ago... or the inconsistent event photos from a month ago...

I don't share those with you... they don't go up in my portfolio for the most part... so of COURSE some people are going to think I'm being modest.  (Unless they they think I'm being cocky, then that's a whole OTHER deal).

But the fact of the matter is, from shoot to shoot... and sometimes even from shot to shot... I'm not very consistent.  I'm not.  I'm okay with admitting that, and I'm working on fixing it.

Maybe that's the same deal with others who are being seemingly "modest".  ::shrugs::


----------



## chuasam (Jul 8, 2012)

e.rose said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > And wow @ the selective color. YUCK!
> ...


in all fairness...that's probably the best usage of selective colour that I've seen.


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2012)

Erose - one grades ones creative worth not upon what you failed to create, but upon what you achieved in creation.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 8, 2012)

e.rose said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > I can honestly say that reading through the responses to this has not been very enlightening. There are a number of modest people who I expected to grade themselves lower than I feel they deserve, and there are a number of pretentious people who I feel graded themselves higher than they deserve. No real surprise.
> ...




This is a truely honest answer and I admire you for calling yourself out.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 8, 2012)

e.rose said:


> I don't really think it's supposed to be enlightening for YOU... as far as others are concerned.  It's meant to be enlightening for you as far as YOU are concerned
> 
> Maybe some people think I rated myself too high... maybe others think I rated myself too low...
> 
> ...



That, my friend, can be said of anyone.  How many canvases did the great master painters throw away and refuse to allow anyone to see.  How many compositions did the great composers destroy before they were finished.  As Overread stated, we grade others on what we see of their work.  Some people, the honest ones, are going to grade themselves on everything, both what is shared and what isn't.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

SCraig said:
			
		

> Some people, the honest ones, are going to grade themselves on everything, both what is shared and what isn't.



Which is why I placed myself at a 4 and not a 2.  I KNOW some of my images aren't terrible (again, the ones that see the light of day), so I'm not a 2 or 3... But based on all the images I DON'T let through... I'm not a 5 yet either.  Maybe by the end of the year I will be, because I'm taking the rest of the summer to get back to learning and improving... Not just shooting... But RIGHT THIS SECOND?  I'm not a 5 yet. ... YET.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 8, 2012)

I do think that the grading system is a bit whacked but from what I can see there are several people who have low-graded themselves, either out of modesty or insecurity or not a good evaluation of what I have seen.

I won't list them for fear of missing someone.

So there, that's the last general compliment I will ever give here.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jul 8, 2012)

Damn now I have to go back to the beginning and try to figure out who's who lol


----------



## mishele (Jul 8, 2012)

No use in fighting it, I'm in stage 3 because I'm shooting flowers yet.......


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2012)

lol, nice try mishele, but none of us are convinced.

--

I think that this grading system works well for people who are needy, whiney little turds who need the approval of "wowing" their audience. 

Then again without them who would fill the pages of Popular Photography?


----------



## IByte (Jul 8, 2012)

e.rose said:
			
		

> HEY man... that was over TWO YEARS ago... and I ONLY did it because she was the "client" and that's what she wanted!
> 
> Never again have I don't that since.  :lmao:



She was young, full of ideas, and she needed the money lol.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2012)

That is an odd and hastily thrown together article.

Stages #1-#5 are random smatterings of things that are true about tyros. You can get over that stuff in a few weeks, or maybe never, the point is it's all newbie mistakes.

EDIT: #1-#4 is what I meant, I hope obviously.

Stages #5 pretty much just describes a working professional, and #6 sort of describes a working artist in vague and hero-worshippy stylings. Nobody can go to 'any event' and consistently come back with superb images, though. Everyone has off days, and everyone has subjects they just can't pull anything excellent out of.

There's a gigantic yawning chasm between the first grouping and the second grouping, representing (typically) years of work and/or training, thousands of images, and at least a little talent.

As for me? I ****in' suck. I get lucky from time to time, and I carefully cull those sort of OK ones out and stick them somewhere to be seen. If I'm at a stage, I am in the enormous yawning chasm between "total n00b" and "actually pretty good".


----------



## Compaq (Jul 8, 2012)

I think I'm able to produce images I am happy with in most situations. Of course, taking my equipment into consideration. I don't own focal lengths longer than 50mm.
I'm not sure which category I fit in. My best shots aren't flowers, and I don't think I'm ruining the image quality with my post processing. I'm fond of saturated, tonemapped images, and realise that some of my shots may rely only on the processing. I also think I have plenty of shots that would look good in a house. I've been know to spontaneously run out with camera and tripod in hand to shoot in a quickly passing light.  So, I dunno, 3.5?


----------



## bleeblu (Jul 8, 2012)

I feel like there is a giant leap from four to five.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2012)

bleeblu said:


> I feel like there is a giant leap from four to five.



Bingo. This is a post pulled together to generate hits, and, lo, it is generating hits.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 8, 2012)

:roll:


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 8, 2012)

It's impossible to give a true and honest level because the list is all over the place and many bullet points, in my opinion, are listed in the wrong level.


----------



## Animaniac888 (Jul 8, 2012)

Stage one.


----------



## shefjr (Jul 8, 2012)

I aspire to be a stage six(with no desire to be a paid professional). I would count myself a stage one although I do see pieces of myself in the stages up to and including three currently. Ugh! Does it ever become easier or click? Lol


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 8, 2012)

shefjr said:


> I aspire to be a stage six(with no desire to be a paid professional). I would count myself a stage one although I do see pieces of myself in the stages up to and including three currently. Ugh! Does it ever become easier or click? Lol


 Yes. Yes it does.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 8, 2012)

Why is everyone complaining?

Photographers seem to get flustered so easily when some no name random somebody questions their skills behind a camera. 

Even when that opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Just take it in good fun y'all, damn.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 8, 2012)

I didn't even read all the stages, I looked at the last stage and went with that.  I did think about it.  I produce consistant quality images on every shoot I have.  I have been doing this a long time and have clients that have been using my work over 15 years.  I have  built a reputation among my peers as being good at what I do, both behind the camera and in helping anyone that wants to learn.

I am still looking for different angles on every shoot, and do still try and challenge myself.  The latest is using an entry level camera to shoot, it has forced me to concentrate more on timing, something that many photographers throw out the window when they start using a high end 8FPS cameras.


----------



## Ron Evers (Jul 9, 2012)

I am not sure where I would place myself but certainly not @ the top or bottom.  I shoot mostly nature such as wildlife & it set limits as does the equipment I have @ the time.  As an example I came across some Goldfinches this morning when out walking & had a 70-105/3.5 on the camera, not much of a reach.  From my position the birds were back-lit, I had a choice, go with the equipment I had, try to get closer, try to get to the other side of the birds to favorable light.  I am slowly learning after many lost opportunities that you take what you can & shot from where i stood & not scare off the birds.  This is one of the shots highly cropped:

View attachment 13326

Certainly not a "good" rendition of the bird but what I was able to get under the circumstances.  National Geographic will not be calling.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 9, 2012)

Overread said:


> Somewhere between 3 and 4 - however the stages don't really purely connect with talent and seem to also focus around the concept of taste as well. Which leads them to be very odd when they give examples as if a certain kind of "taste" to what the photographer wants to produce is what each level will use (granted there is truth in the maturity of taste, however I'm not sure I agree with this grading system - eh he's clearly not seen any Mish flower photos )



Yeah, the subjective nature of some of the comments take what is already a mildly obnoxious post and pushes it pretty clearly over the edge. 

That said, given what he wrote there I'm probably a high 4 working to make it to a 5.

I had to laugh my ass off over the "creative tilt" comment.  Yeah, um.... yeah. 

It *is* kinda interesting, even though it's sorta silly.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 9, 2012)

unpopular said:


> stop being modest, rose. You're much closer to 5, imo. At least with your studio work.



Totally agree.  ERose is a better photographer than I am by far.  It was sorta daunting to watch her go from total freakin' noob to very proficient photographer in very short order.  I still have the wind burns from the drive-by she did as I was puttering along in the slow lane.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm stage high 2/low 3 at best.  I don't even qualify at worst.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm like a 6E on the other one I think.  More usable scale.


Of course, we all know that Chuck Norris is like a 50 Z.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2012)

^^ maybe, but not in singing


"in the eyes of the ranger..."


----------



## newbobolix (Jul 10, 2012)

In my signature (flickriver) I have a stage 3 shot (the bird) so I'm sure I'm already there


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 10, 2012)

Hmm.

So if I would manage, by pure chance, a single stage 6 shot, I'd be good ?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2012)

I think stage 6 is more a frame of mind.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ maybe, but not in singing
> 
> 
> "in the eyes of the ranger..."



Screw you. I'm an awesome singer.

Oh wait... you meant Chuck.


----------

