# What makes a photographer a Master Photographer in today's day and age?



## itsanaddiction (Dec 26, 2007)

I was once told that photographers were masters because their prints were perfect on so many different levels - composition, lighting, printing quality, etc.

With mainly everything being digital these days, what makes a photographer a Master Photographer? Fewer people print - so you can barely say printing techniques - anyone can learn to photoshop what they want, etc. So what makes one a master?


----------



## elsaspet (Dec 26, 2007)

Master is something you earn through education and contest credits.  
Here is the PPA guideline:
http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=123


----------



## itsanaddiction (Dec 26, 2007)

thats not what i meant. i didn't mean degree wise.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 27, 2007)

Marketing I'm sorry to say. Your skills may make you an incredible photographer, but to be remembered you need to release expose your name. Photography used to be an art reserved for the artists who dedicated their life to it, like Ansell Adams. But these days with about half of the worlds population owning a camera, about half of the camera owners calling themselves photographers just to belong to a group despite only taking snapshots and posting on flickr, the only way to be remembered as a photographer is to market that image.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 27, 2007)

itsanaddiction said:


> I was once told that photographers were masters because their prints were perfect on so many different levels - *composition, lighting, printing quality*, etc.



actually, these still today are the deciding factors (of course the list is not complete), ... why do you thing digital has changed anything there? 

In addition to that, to be considered to be one of the great ones, you have to be different, have your own style, do something others don't.



> With mainly everything being digital these days, what makes a photographer a Master Photographer? Fewer people print - so you can barely say printing techniques - anyone can learn to photoshop what they want, etc. So what makes one a master?



Anyone *can *learn the darkroom just as anyone *can *learn photoshop. It is just that only few people *do *really learn it :lmao:

And digital printing these days is also an art in itself as you can see by the many poor prints


----------



## bapp (Dec 27, 2007)

My opinion of a master has less to do with the technical side or marketing as it was mentioned above and more to do with ideas.

Any body can become a technically superb "photographer" however that certainly does not qualify them as a master. Most of the photographers I have researched who are regarded as masters certainly have the technical side of photography nailed, however it is not that which determines their status. It is there ability to convey information and ideas that others cannot that is recognized by the critics of the world.

Even those who do not produce technically perfect images can still be regarded as masters. Henri Cartier-Bresson for example, didnt even print his own images.

The idea that marketing some how determines a master is nonsense all the promotion in the world will not allow you into that elite group if your pictures are poor.


----------



## Joves (Dec 27, 2007)

I dont think you get the master status till you are either dead or, near dead. I think that you reach that if you shoot pics that affect people, when they view them. It isnt a case of just shooting good or, great pics but, phenomenal ones.


----------



## dipstick (Dec 27, 2007)

itsanaddiction said:


> I was once told that photographers were masters because their prints were perfect on so many different levels - composition, lighting, printing quality, etc.
> 
> With mainly everything being digital these days, what makes a photographer a Master Photographer? Fewer people print - so you can barely say printing techniques - anyone can learn to photoshop what they want, etc. So what makes one a master?



Anyone can learn to push the buttons in PS, but that does not mean they have the right visual understanding to make their images better. In my opinion there is no difference if people use PS or a traditional darkroom to make their prints. 

But photography is a process that consist of a lot more than just making the final print. Although the workflow is digital nowadays, the criteria for mastering photography has not really changed.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 27, 2007)

bapp said:


> It is there ability to convey information and ideas that others cannot that is recognized by the critics of the world.


 


bapp said:


> The idea that marketing some how determines a master is nonsense all the promotion in the world will not allow you into that elite group if your pictures are poor.


 

Aren't these two statements mutually inclusive.  How can an artist be recognized by the critics of the world if some amount of marketing had not been employed.

The pigeon-holes of good, poor, ugly, distasteful, irrelevant, awesome, beautiful, inspiring, repressive or any number of subjective terms can be cast on any of the purported masters are all equally inconsequential unless a recognition exists.  This recognition, for lack of a better term, is  marketing.


----------



## bapp (Dec 27, 2007)

kundalini said:


> Aren't these two statements mutually inclusive.  How can an artist be recognized by the critics of the world if some amount of marketing had not been employed.
> 
> The pigeon-holes of good, poor, ugly, distasteful, irrelevant, awesome, beautiful, inspiring, repressive or any number of subjective terms can be cast on any of the purported masters are all equally inconsequential unless a recognition exists.  This recognition, for lack of a better term, is  marketing.



My point was based on a previous comment that marketing was what determined a "master". I was stating that no amount of marketing can put you into that category. For lack of a better phrase "you cant polish a turd".

Obviously for a photographer to be known as a master they will need recognition, but if nobody had ever heard of Ansel Adams and he put all his photos in a loft he would still be a master!!


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 27, 2007)

bapp said:


> My opinion of a master has less to do with the technical side or marketing as it was mentioned above and more to do with ideas.
> 
> Any body can become a technically superb "photographer" however that certainly does not qualify them as a master. Most of the photographers I have researched who are regarded as masters certainly have the technical side of photography nailed, however it is not that which determines their status. It is there ability to convey information and ideas that others cannot that is recognized by the critics of the world.


 
If you are talking about any other type of photograpy other than fine art, have all the ideas you want. Otherwise, truely fine art photography has nothing to do with ideas, nor did the masters such as Weston, Callahan, Coburn, White have any intention of conveying ideas with their photographs. One of the primary reasons they are considered Masters is/was their ability to connect with the viewer through their photographs, stir a deep emotional response not unlike what they felt when making the picture and their ability to see completely is what sets them apart.

Leave the notion that art is about ideas in school.


----------



## bapp (Dec 27, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> If you are talking about any other type of photograpy other than fine art, have all the ideas you want. Otherwise, truely fine art photography has nothing to do with ideas, nor did the masters such as Weston, Callahan, Coburn, White have any intention of conveying ideas with their photographs. One of the primary reasons they are considered Masters is/was their ability to connect with the viewer through their photographs, stir a deep emotional response not unlike what they felt when making the picture and their ability to see completely is what sets them apart.
> 
> Leave the notion that art is about ideas in school.



I agree with some of what you are saying...

"It is there ability to convey information and ideas" my quote

By information I mean this to include emotions created by there work. By ideas I include the initial process of creating an image, be it fine art or not, photographs are created.

I really do not know enough about fine art or fine art photography to comment fully. I do know that creating an image requires thought processes regardless of it's genre. 

I find it impossible to believe that Weston shot those stunning portraits without a thought of composition view point tonal range a message or emotion to convey!! Surely it would have been integral to the whole process?

But then again that could be why I am not a "master"


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 27, 2007)

bapp said:


> I really do not know enough about fine art or fine art photography to comment fully. I do know that creating an image requires thought processes regardless of it's genre.
> 
> I find it impossible to believe that Weston shot those stunning portraits without a thought of composition view point tonal range a message or emotion to convey!! Surely it would have been integral to the whole process?


 
Since this is not really on topic anymore, I won't go too heavy on this:

The creation of fine art, a photograph, should certainly be informed by intelligence, but it is not lead by a specific thought process it is always by feel and intuition, never analytical.

No, Weston did not compose in the sense that composition is typically defined as, for him it was all about seeing and the ability to see the whole and be able to extract the parts for his pictures, a very differenct process than most approach it.

I suggest you get a copy of Weston's Day Books, you seem to have much interest in photography.


----------



## bapp (Dec 27, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> I suggest you get a copy of Weston's Day Books, you seem to have much interest in photography.



I'll check my library at skool.... haha just a little snipe back at ya!

Yeh my Uni has a massive photography collection and I will certainly check it out! It is a concept I am not familiar with!


----------



## shundaroni (Dec 28, 2007)

There won't be any more masters, at least not for a while. Photography is too available...too widespread. It's lost it's luster with the population at large, partly due to it's prevalence and partly due to the perception that was voiced in the original post: anyone with photoshop can make great art. 

Of course, the premise of that second part is faulty and has been shown to be such in this thread, but nonetheless it is still public opinion. Each of us is likely guilty of perpetuating it too. Have you ever seen a good photo while browsing the internet or looking through a magazine and thought to yourself, "Oh I see what he did there...a little curves adjustment" or "I would burned a little more around the eyes"? I'm sure we've all at least thought, "Hmmm...I could do better." That last thought is at the root of the issue. 

People aren't as impressed by great photography because they figure, with the right equipment, they could do it just as well. So we start to equate "good photography" with nothing more than access to money and the equipment it can buy.

Hell, if Ansel Adams was publishing those photos today, he wouldn't be credited as a master. It was the process of photography and the chronological context that made his photography phenomenal.


----------



## usayit (Dec 28, 2007)

I don't necessarily agree...

I don't believe there will be photography "masters" per say but there will be "masters" of a particular art or subject that uses photography as their medium.  There will be "masters" who are able to think beyond and not be blinded by the wide availability of cameras and technology.  People who think out of the box and don't follow the masses.   People who chase a particular theme, subject, style that sets them apart.  

All the so called.. photography masters.. out there probably thought of themselves as something first and photographers second.  Journalist, story teller, painter, sketch artist, graphic artist, and in Ansel Adam's case...  a nature lover/environmentalist aimed at preserving the worlds natural wonders.  

I also agree with Garbz.  There are most likely a few masters roaming the world right as we speak.  They just never "broke out" simply because they were neither marketed or discovered.  Even Ansel Adams was not known widely until he published his book as part of the Sierra Club's efforts to preserve the areas who photographed.  Guessed what?... it worked!  

(In my opinion, recognizing Ansel Adams as a photographer only is not paying much homage to him.  You have to recognize him as an environmentalist first and foremost with the skill of a wonderful photographer. - side track).

The wide availability of cameras is not the issue.. there were plenty of cameras in the world in the 1930s (Ansel Adams climb to recognition).  Thats like saying that there will never be any "masters" in the written word because everyone and anyone can pick up a pencil and write.  

In this forum, most of us see ourselves as photographers first... thats the problem in the first place...  Me included...  I am in it for a lifetime of joy and a creative outlet.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Dec 28, 2007)

bapp said:


> ...
> 
> Even those who do not produce technically perfect images can still be regarded as masters. Henri Cartier-Bresson for example, didnt even print his own images.
> 
> ...



Here you use the most perfect example of proof that it is all about marketing. The very inventor of modern day photography marketing. HCB was as much a genius marketeer as he was a very prolific photographer. Look what he did for Magnum and photography in the commercial world. But, most of all look what he did for himself - some of the most iconic street photographs to come from the 20th Century. Would we remember them (or, the photographers name) if he hadn't managed to get them published time and time again in the world's media?

A quick scan of the web today reveals that there are plenty of utterly brilliant photographers producing brilliant work and getting very little recognition or, respect or, money. You have to sell yourself if you want the 'master' label. People don't just elect random photographers and big them up as masters to the world.

Personally, I consider a photographer who excels in all technical and creative aspects time and time again as a master of the art. But, like I say, there are plenty of them about who are completely disregarded by the vast majority simply for lack of marketing.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Here you use the most perfect example of proof that it is all about marketing. The very inventor of modern day photography marketing. HCB was as much a genius marketeer as he was a very prolific photographer. Look what he did for Magnum and photography in the commercial world. But, most of all look what he did for himself - some of the most iconic street photographs to come from the 20th Century. Would we remember them (or, the photographers name) if he hadn't managed to get them published time and time again in the world's media?
> 
> .




If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound?

We are now entering a discussion on semantics.... my point is that if you cannot take pictures, no matter how much marketing you have you will not be a master. Also masters that have gone before if they had not been recognized or had no interest in being recognized would they not still be masters....?

Sure Cartier-Bresson was a genius at marketing publicity etc... but he was also a master with a camera!! If you have an example of a photographer who was rubbish but regarded as a master due to there promotion I will be happy to with tract my statement!


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Dec 28, 2007)

A friend gave me 'Scrapbook - Henri Cartier Bresson' recently. As far as I can tell, his skill was not as a master of photography. With few obvious exceptions the photographs are not highly memorable. It is a fascinating book that reveals much about HCB and his working methods. Also a fascinating archive of documentary/reportage photography. It's a great gift I appreciate, but I don't rate HCB as a master of the art/craft of photography. As you've said yourself, his shots often lack any technical expertise and he didn't print his own work. What he was good at was putting himself in the right place at the right time and selling.

Cindy Sherman is utter shyte to my eyes, but many consider her to be a modern day master of photography. Personally, I can only see unremarkable (if fun) photography that has been hyped to importance. There are many others I could name. Martin Parr is possibly worth a mention in the contemporary context. He had some original ideas that today seem as bland and dated as anything else. None of his new stuff appeals to me. He's a rubbish photographer, yet he is undoubtedly the leader in the UK as far as marketing himself goes. Interestingly, HCB objected to him joining Magnum. I wonder how much of that was about his photographic style or, a threat to HCB's selling crown?


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Jan 5, 2008)

Study the masters, even if you don't like them, to understand why they are considered masters.  Then when photography is resurrected (because in case ya haven't heard, it's currently dead) you'll be able to detect the youngling masters rising from its ashes.


----------



## shundaroni (Jan 5, 2008)

usayit said:


> The wide availability of cameras is not the issue.. there were plenty of cameras in the world in the 1930s (Ansel Adams climb to recognition). Thats like saying that there will never be any "masters" in the written word because everyone and anyone can pick up a pencil and write.


 
You misunderstood. I didn't say anthing about availability. I said that photography as an art/hobby/profession is widespread. There aren't too many average folks writing novels. There are, however, millions of average folks taking photos and publishing them. Along with that, comparing photography to writing is a big stretch, because taking a good photo is much, much simpler than authoring a good book. With a little luck and good timing, an average person can shoot an incredible scene. Not too many people can rely on luck to make a best-seller.

Aside from that, like I mentioned earlier, we have the hurdle of public opinion. Photography has lost it's luster because it truly isn't all that hard to mimic "the greats" any more. Just look at all of the Dragan knock-offs...some of whom have improved upon the technique.

For the label "Master" to have any meaning, they must be widely known as such. An "unknown Master" is still unknown, so they are of no consequence. I don't imagine we'll have another Ansel Adams (someone who is widely known and regarded as a master) any time in the near future.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 5, 2008)

A Master is someone who can do what they want when they want with their medium.

There are Master Carpenters as well as Master Photographers.

What some of you seem to be calling Masters is more succinctly labeled in todays  jargon an Icon.

An Icon in photography would have to be some one who self promotes due to the shear weight of numbers of photographers in the world who would otherwise share attention.

As to an example of this, even though he was more in the graphic arts, would be that soup can guy.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jan 5, 2008)

I like the original meaning of the word 'Master', and think it still has a lot to be said for it in any creative activity. In craft trades it is the status eventually reached by a practitioner who has served as an apprentice, then as a Journeyman improver. In the Medieval trade guilds, you could only become a Master if you were elected to that position by the existing Masters of the guild. 

The term 'masterpiece' originally meant the piece of work you produced for assessment by the guild Masters so they could decide whether you were good enough to become one of them, so the term implies formal training and the attainment of a level of skill that is examined by your peers. Masterpiece now just means something of the highest quality, but it gives you a hint of what a big deal it was and how difficult a standard this was to achieve.

In many ways this is similar to how photographers become members of the Magnum agency, with annual voting based on the assessment of candidates' portfolios. Existing members decide if you are good enough, in the old medieval trade guild way. I like that - you aspire to be a master and your peers decide whether you meet the required standard. Nothing to do with marketing, nothing to do with letters after your name, but everything to do with convincing other photographers.

Outside of formal organisations like Magnum we run into a bit of difficulty, but the basic idea still applies. Who regards Ansel Adams as a master? Well, perhaps not the average person on the Clapham omnibus, who has never heard of him, but anyone who has any knowledge of photographic history would probably agree that he is. Of course you may disagree, and there are a lot of photographers who may or may not be masters (William Eggleston, anyone? Master or charlatan?), but that's why this kind of debate is interesting.


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 5, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> A Master is someone who can do what they want when they want with their medium.
> 
> There are Master Carpenters as well as Master Photographers.
> 
> ...



I was just thinking along similar lines. Why does a Master have to be famous? Certainly there are a huge number of people with similar technical skills and vision as the famous photographers, we just haven't heard of them. And do you mean Andy Warhol the soup can guy?

I think it's someone who's mastered the trade. I think that would be the most accurate definition, although that probably means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Film buffs probably don't much care about photoshop and can still create phenomenal photographs and vice-versa.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Jan 5, 2008)

I've heard of certain ceramics artists referred to as "master throwers" and painters as "master watercolor artists," etc.  I still don't understand it used as a description in that way.  What must someone do to earn the lower case "master" artist, let alone the capital Master, which seems to be what is addressed here?  The lower case "master" is certainly a more obtainable goal, yet I still don't understand it at all.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jan 7, 2008)

ThomThomsk said:


> I like the original meaning of the word 'Master', and think it still has a lot to be said for it in any creative activity...



I don't like the definition you give and I think in today's context it is totally irrelevant. The original question was; 





> *What makes a photographer a Master Photographer in today's day and age?*


Today's day and age is undoubtedly the age of the internet and digital technology. Digital technologies have made very sophisticated cameras very affordable. The internet has made publishing and selling much more accessible. If you Google 'masters of photography' you'll find many names listed that didn't qualify for such status in the 'old school' manner. Personally, I think a superior technical knowledge is as much of value today as it ever was and I have much respect for photographers who understand the science of the art fully. However, I also have a great deal of respect for William Eggleston. He has been hugely influential. You only become influential by getting your work seen by the masses. You only achieve that with very clever marketing, high profile exhibiting and publishing.

I will maintain that ultimately it is, and always has been down to marketing. Whether marketed by an organisation like Magnum, the photographer themselves, or a successful agent.

There are also names that are becoming familiar on the web alone. Amongst the masses at places like Flickr there are a few individuals with a very unique style and huge following. Some may well go on to be considered as Masters in future years without having to get the vote from the elite of the photography world.


e2a; Possibly worth mentioning that Google is not case sensitive!


----------



## RMThompson (Jan 7, 2008)

The term "master" in this format can only be given by others, and even then will always be disputed by someone. Ansel Adams may be a master to some, but others will view him as nothing more than a wildlife photography who was in the right place at the right time to document history whose pictures were rather bland.

Mastery, my dear photogs, is in the eye of the beholder. It's useless to strive towards it, because it's only given to you by another and usually posthumously.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jan 8, 2008)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> I don't like the definition you give and I think in today's context it is totally irrelevant. The original question was;



I didn't set out to answer the original question, simply to explain the origins of the word 'Master' (which is not the same as 'master', regardless of what Google might tell you). There is a certainty about the formal process of peer review, which is one of the reasons it is so common. It is probably elitist, but I make no apology for that. I expect the OP had the more informal use of the word in mind.

Thom


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 8, 2008)

The OP was asking what it takes to become a "Master Photographer".

My opinion is that a master of any art is anyone that has worked hard to perfect their art and received the acknowledgement of their peers. However, what I see happening is exactly what Sideburns said... marketing.

Anyone that can take "pretty good" pictures and has massive marketing will eventually be acknowledged as a master by the industry.

Its more about the holy dollar than true mastery of the art.


----------

