What is needed nowadays to be a great photographer...?

Gato Amarillo · Jan 27, 2014

I think the only two things really necessary are a distinctive vision and a good work ethic.

By "vision" I mean a way of seeing the world or some part of it that speaks to an audience -- even if that is an audience of one and that one is the photographer. Your pictures must have meaning to someone -- which has very little to do with technical quality. If you want to be rich and famous they must speak to a fairly wide audience, but it's perfectly OK if your audience is only your family, your friends, or fans of the local high school sports team.

By "work ethic" I mean a commitment and perseverance to keep going, to develop the craft and find the tools to express your vision. A great many people have a talent for music, sports or art but very few of them work hard enough to make the most of their abilities. Like sports or music, you have to put in the hours if you want to do your best.

The third thing I might add is "the right tool for the job." Although in some ways this is a part of the work ethic, since part of the process is figuring out the right tool and getting one's hands on it. The right tool is not always the most expensive one or the latest thing. Edward Weston made many of his best photos with a lens he bought for $5 in a flea market -- as I recall it even had a crack in it. Cartier-Bresson did most of his best work with an older model 50mm lens -- a Leitz for sure, but not a snob lens. Avedon did a great deal of his work with Rollei twin-lens reflexes -- certainly a top quality camera, but a type many people found difficult and frustrating to work with, and one that did not offer interchangeable lenses.

Aside from photography itself, if you want to become famous or make money you also need some abilities for self-promotion and business -- but those are somewhat separate issues. Many average photographers make very good money, while some of the best and most talented struggle to get by. There is an old joke that the best way to make money in photography is "be a B+" -- be solid, reliable and dependable, but don't do anything so cutting edge as to scare away the customers.

Gato

--
"We paint with our brain, not with our hands" -- Michelangelo
Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at Silver Mirage Gallery:
silvermirage.com

Dennis · Jan 27, 2014

chkproductions said:
Dennis said:

Figure out what's important. Are you shooting for praise ?

The above is probably the most poignant comment I've read on this website.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks

That comment was actually inspired by a blog post I read a few years ago by a dpreviewer who used to spend time on one of the sites like photo.net and then finally gave up on it, because he realized that he was chasing likes and doing photography to please other people, rather than the photography he wanted to do.

chkproductions said:
but personal commitment to the subject at hand is what probably makes the resulting images more special and unique even if that subject type has been photographed for 100 years.

I agree. There are your "problem solver" types like Joe McNally who can shoot anything you throw their way. But I don't think many commercial photographers will have any lasting significance, outside of creating some memorable photos with some historical meaning. A lot of successful photographers, though, I think treat photography as secondary to what they're photographing. They're more passionate about their subject than about the gear/practice. That's certainly true of a lot of the more successful nature photographers (some of whom were proverbial "starving artists" in their earler days). More recently, I think of Clark Little - the Hawaiian surf photographer, who transformed a lifelong passion for surfing into a remarkable business, having little to no previous experience with photography. Granted, he uses a pro DSLR body and a heavy duty underwater housing ... nobody ever said you're supposed to be able to do any photography with a point & shoot ... but just an illustration of how his success comes from personal commitment.

So the whole question of whether good gear is required to be successful is kind of moot, because there are too many ways of defining success (and the OP hasn't offered a definition yet).

chkproductions said:
http://chkphotography.zenfolio.com

Really nice galleries - I particularly like "Details".

Dennis

Osvaldo Cristo · Jan 27, 2014

As almost all business it is necessary good skills on Marketing and Business also to be a successful Photographer. Of course the way to do that is not exactly the same Procter & Gable (as an example) makes. Different business, but the spirit is the same...

Add a little bit of luck, and voilà!

Ok, talent will help also. Vision, as some prefers, but you can use third parties to help you.

Followed by technical skills either in the photography making process or post production. Again, for those also you can use third parties.

Finally equipment. It will help a lot in the hands of a person with talent and appropriate skills - but I do not think it is decisive most of the times.

Best regards,

--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin

joeybob · Jan 27, 2014

hoakin1981 said:
As for Michelangelo, who i believe even mentioning him in this place is an insult by itself, i trully believe that if the brand that made chisels back then was called Nikon, then i think he would have a Nikon D4s chisel.

At the end of the day you either have what it takes to be a great _____________ (fill in the blank) or you don't.

D Cox · Jan 28, 2014

Dennis said:
chkproductions said:

Dennis said:

Figure out what's important. Are you shooting for praise ?

The above is probably the most poignant comment I've read on this website.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, thanks That comment was actually inspired by a blog post I read a few years ago by a dpreviewer who used to spend time on one of the sites like photo.net and then finally gave up on it, because he realized that he was chasing likes and doing photography to please other people, rather than the photography he wanted to do.

Many people spend their lives desperately hunting for praise.

D Cox · Jan 28, 2014

joeybob said:
joeybob said:

As for Michelangelo, who i believe even mentioning him in this place is an insult by itself, i trully believe that if the brand that made chisels back then was called Nikon, then i think he would have a Nikon D4s chisel.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day you either have what it takes to be a great _____________ (fill in the blank) or you don't.

Yes, but some people are late developers.

meland · Jan 28, 2014

Vision. Drive. Persistence. A knowledge of the subject. And then somewhere down the list comes the equipment.

Of course it's natural to think "If I had XX Body or lens then I'd be able to get that perfect shot!" And manufacturers are more than happy to promote that feeling and why wouldn't they?

But I can say that from the 'famous' photographers I've met, and in a 30 year career in the business I've had the good fortune to meet quite a few, hardly any of them were that obsessed about their equipment, other than it should be reliable. Of course you could say that because they had already 'made it' they didn't have to worry because they had the best equipment already. But they didn't always have the best especially when they started and yet they still produced work that captured our attention. And there have been many instances when these guys have showed what they can do with a one shot camera, or a cheap P&S and yet they still manage to produce remarkable stuff.

JoePhoto · Jan 28, 2014

It is very obvious that ALL that is needed for great photos is a great "camera".

I mean it MUST be the only thing necessary. Whenever I show someone a photo, the first thing they say is "WOW, you must have a great CAMERA !!!".

That sounds like proof to me.

knickerhawk · Jan 28, 2014

Are you saying there were no great digital photographers and no great digital photos taken five years ago when state of the art cameras had 12-18 mp? What about ten years ago when 8 mp was state-of-the-art? Fact is, P&S cameras of today are technically superior to state-of-the-art gear from just a relatively few years ago.

Are you saying that Jay Maisel is a failed photographer because his favorite go-to lens is the pedestrian Nikkor 28-300mm super zoom? Fact is, he remains one of the greatest living photographers despite his preference for a consumer lens.

Your assessment and assumptions are way, way off, I'm afraid, and a classic confusion of cause and effect. Simply put, photos are not good because good equipment was used, or good processing was employed. Rather, good photographers know how to use their equipment and processing skills to create good photos. It all begins (and ends) with talent and vision. Everything else is an afterthought.

Richard · Jan 28, 2014

Just kidding..

The best images I have found are ones that tell a story, you need no photoshop, no gear requirements, no rules of composition, not even talent. These photos effect you emotionally and usually are the most memorable

Now saying that, if you are able to add eye candy through photoshop, use composition to make the image more appealing to the eye, have talent and a good eye for photography all the better.

Out of all the thing I would prefer. I would prefer talent first. Some people have an eye for photography and I believe this cannot be taught. You have it or you don't.

Whether it be in sports or any type of competition, there are someone people who have the talent and if they work as hard as the competitors, they will always come out on top.

That is not to say someone with less talent could not win or produce a good shot. But for me talent is number one.

Number two is hard work. A person who works hard at it will be able to learn photoshop, exposure, rules of composition, the tool, in this case the camera.

Finally there is gear, which in some cases allows you to capture things that cannot be captured with lesser gear. Narrow DOF, wide angle with sharp corners, fast shutter speed and af in low light.

But in the end, if I could have only and abundance of one, it would be talent.

oakin1981 wrote:

hoakin1981 said:
I decided to post this question here mostly motivated by the controversy created by the recently published photos of the Russian mom and her kids, shown on DPreview as well of course.

I have asked myself the same question dozens of times and as time passed, I realized that my answers changed every time. In the beginning I thought it was all about the gear, the better you have the better photographer you are. Then I reconsidered, its about talent, pure talent and great vision that makes a great photo. Later on I realized that with proper PP you could make aesthetic marvels from just good raw files so I said, it has to be the PP proficiency then!

Back in the old days things were simpler, you had your 35mm or 120mm film and a camera to shoot with. Of course the film development played a huge part but provided that that part was done proficiently enough it all came down to pure photographic vision.

I have read on many photo related sites that its the photographer that matters, not the camera, and that even with a simple 1st generation P&S 3 megapixel camera a true artist can make masterpieces. Well, I used to believe that, but I am not so sure anymore.

If by todays standards a photographer wants to be great at what he/she does, its not that simple. You must have it all I am afraid.

Vision

Talent

Top of the line gear

Top of the line glass

Top of the line camera bodies

Excellent PP skills

The photos made by the Russian mom obviously reflect the above more or less. The body is a FF Canon 5D MarkII or MarkIII (not sure) and its safe to assume that the glass in front of it is equally good. There is obvious talent/vision present and no one can deny that a lot of PP has taken place.

Would the Russian mom be able to make such lovely photos with a simple P&S? I don't think so. Could she do it if she had the equipment and vision but lacked the necessary PP skills? Again, don't think so. Of course the results would be very good in those cases as well, but they would not be this good.

So who cares you say? I don't, you don't, but she does. And why? well because maybe a children's book editor who wants a nice cover for one of his kid books to be published cares as well. Or perhaps one of those companies that make big posters for kids rooms to put on the walls. This list obviously goes on forever. You need quality, and hard work. Talent, but also the tools.

You do not see these days many new photographers become famous for their street work for example. What sells now are photos from war-zones and disaster sites which are on a whole different ball game of course for many many reasons. I seriously doubt we will see a new Henri Cartier-Bresson anytime soon. There is no room for one.

Its very hypocritical I think to say that none of us would not absolutely love to have one of our photos published. Either on a magazine, or a book, or posters or whatever..

Lets face it, this recognition is important because it is a difficult achievement not easily conquered. Who does not love it if a shot posted on flickr gets 1000 views and 500 comments on the first 2 days.

Of course there are exceptions, surely there are many photographers who only shoot for themselves, who do not care what other fellow photographers think of their work, and who are content with this. But this is the minority I am afraid. With today's availability in photo sharing opportunities like facebook, flickr, 500px and all stock selling sites present, even self-publishing, its difficult to be that much detached from all.

The competition is fierce, and the bar is set way too high and gets higher each day. What can you do if you cannot afford a FF body for example? If you have the talent but not much else?

What can you do, if you want it all but you don't have it all?

Thank you for your time.

jimrpdx · Jan 28, 2014

Great light, and a battery with enough charge to capture it.

hoakin1981 · Jan 28, 2014

knickerhawk said:
Are you saying there were no great digital photographers and no great digital photos taken five years ago when state of the art cameras had 12-18 mp? What about ten years ago when 8 mp was state-of-the-art? Fact is, P&S cameras of today are technically superior to state-of-the-art gear from just a relatively few years ago.

Are you saying that Jay Maisel is a failed photographer because his favorite go-to lens is the pedestrian Nikkor 28-300mm super zoom? Fact is, he remains one of the greatest living photographers despite his preference for a consumer lens.

Your assessment and assumptions are way, way off, I'm afraid, and a classic confusion of cause and effect. Simply put, photos are not good because good equipment was used, or good processing was employed. Rather, good photographers know how to use their equipment and processing skills to create good photos. It all begins (and ends) with talent and vision. Everything else is an afterthought.

Sometimes I honestly believe that some folks do not even bother reading the original threads carefully enough and just reply to what they think they read. To reply to your question, no, I never said that. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you are actually agreeing with me. 10 years ago great photos were made as well of course because 10 years ago the 8 megapixel camera you mention WAS state of the art. Back then that level of IQ was acceptable because technology had evolved to that point. Now though that level is simply not enough, this is what I am saying.

Of course Jay Maisel is not a failed photographer, but do you really think that he would be this much acclaimed and successful if he was a landscape shooter with the same 28-300mm consumer lens? Don't think so. And this is only confirmed by the hundreds of landscape photographers using FF DSLRS and 2k USD lenses. I've read about Canon body shooters that even buy adapters to use the Nikon 14-24 just because its simply the best for crying out loud.

My assessment is not off. Talent, skill, hard work, vision etc. matter, they always have and they always will. But those qualities are not enough when it comes to any style of photography except for street work. Landscape, fashion, wildlife etc. all require specific and expensive gear. Not necessarily state of the art but certainly not Rebels.

knickerhawk · Jan 29, 2014

hoakin1981 said:
knickerhawk said:

Are you saying there were no great digital photographers and no great digital photos taken five years ago when state of the art cameras had 12-18 mp? What about ten years ago when 8 mp was state-of-the-art? Fact is, P&S cameras of today are technically superior to state-of-the-art gear from just a relatively few years ago.

Are you saying that Jay Maisel is a failed photographer because his favorite go-to lens is the pedestrian Nikkor 28-300mm super zoom? Fact is, he remains one of the greatest living photographers despite his preference for a consumer lens.

Your assessment and assumptions are way, way off, I'm afraid, and a classic confusion of cause and effect. Simply put, photos are not good because good equipment was used, or good processing was employed. Rather, good photographers know how to use their equipment and processing skills to create good photos. It all begins (and ends) with talent and vision. Everything else is an afterthought.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I honestly believe that some folks do not even bother reading the original threads carefully enough and just reply to what they think they read.

How ironic.

hoakin1981 said:
To reply to your question, no, I never said that. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you are actually agreeing with me.

No I'm not. Not in any conceivable way am I agreeing with you and, yes, I carefully read and fully understand your original claim. It's just that it's wrong. It's wrong specifically about the Russian photographer you used as an example and it's wrong generally.

hoakin1981 said:
10 years ago great photos were made as well of course because 10 years ago the 8 megapixel camera you mention WAS state of the art. Back then that level of IQ was acceptable because technology had evolved to that point. Now though that level is simply not enough, this is what I am saying.

Nope. The great images taken back then are still great today. Other than pixel-pimps and gearheads, nobody even knows or recognizes or cares which equipment was used. And to the extent that earlier top-end digital equipment and current low-end digital equipment has greater limitations at the extremes of low light shooting or upsizing, there is still a VERY big sweet spot in which TALENTED photographers with VISION can operate. A VERY big sweet spot. Equipment is the lamest of lame excuses for why any photographer doesn't succeed.

hoakin1981 said:
Of course Jay Maisel is not a failed photographer, but do you really think that he would be this much acclaimed and successful if he was a landscape shooter with the same 28-300mm consumer lens? Don't think so. And this is only confirmed by the hundreds of landscape photographers using FF DSLRS and 2k USD lenses. I've read about Canon body shooters that even buy adapters to use the Nikon 14-24 just because its simply the best for crying out loud.

Yes, and you can put a chimpanzee in front of a Steinway. That doesn't mean the noise it creates is going to be any sweeter. The notion that a Canon shooter is going to produce meaningfully better landscape images when he/shet slaps on an adapted Nikon 14-24mm is (sorry to sound like a broken record here) just plain laughable. You're mixing cause and effect again. (FYI, I sold my Nikon 14-24mm earlier this year. A very fine lens but it didn't turn me into John Sexton, unfortunately.)

OceanFroggie · Jan 29, 2014

hoakin1981 said:
What is needed nowadays to be a great photographer...?

A keen eye in the right place at the right time.

hoakin1981 · Jan 29, 2014

knickerhawk said:
hoakin1981 said:

knickerhawk said:

Are you saying there were no great digital photographers and no great digital photos taken five years ago when state of the art cameras had 12-18 mp? What about ten years ago when 8 mp was state-of-the-art? Fact is, P&S cameras of today are technically superior to state-of-the-art gear from just a relatively few years ago.

Are you saying that Jay Maisel is a failed photographer because his favorite go-to lens is the pedestrian Nikkor 28-300mm super zoom? Fact is, he remains one of the greatest living photographers despite his preference for a consumer lens.

Your assessment and assumptions are way, way off, I'm afraid, and a classic confusion of cause and effect. Simply put, photos are not good because good equipment was used, or good processing was employed. Rather, good photographers know how to use their equipment and processing skills to create good photos. It all begins (and ends) with talent and vision. Everything else is an afterthought.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I honestly believe that some folks do not even bother reading the original threads carefully enough and just reply to what they think they read.

Click to expand...

How ironic.

knickerhawk said:

To reply to your question, no, I never said that. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you are actually agreeing with me.

Click to expand...

No I'm not. Not in any conceivable way am I agreeing with you and, yes, I carefully read and fully understand your original claim. It's just that it's wrong. It's wrong specifically about the Russian photographer you used as an example and it's wrong generally.

Your opinion. Respected, but still wrong because you fail to see the truth.

knickerhawk said:
knickerhawk said:

10 years ago great photos were made as well of course because 10 years ago the 8 megapixel camera you mention WAS state of the art. Back then that level of IQ was acceptable because technology had evolved to that point. Now though that level is simply not enough, this is what I am saying.

Click to expand...

Nope. The great images taken back then are still great today. Other than pixel-pimps and gearheads, nobody even knows or recognizes or cares which equipment was used. And to the extent that earlier top-end digital equipment and current low-end digital equipment has greater limitations at the extremes of low light shooting or upsizing, there is still a VERY big sweet spot in which TALENTED photographers with VISION can operate. A VERY big sweet spot. Equipment is the lamest of lame excuses for why any photographer doesn't succeed.

The great images created back then are still great by that standards, not todays. A great landscape shot from back then today will look noisy, small and soft.

We are not discussing about excuses here, and since I am the OP (believe its called) I know better so trust me on this. This discussion is about whether a photographer (amateur or not) can actually become known and successful by using entry level equipment. Even if he starts with basic equipment, by the time he gains some acknowledgement, he/she will definitely invest in better gear. Why? because this will update the quality of work they produce. If they keep using the same gear, then they are plain stupid.

Lets stop kidding ourselves. When we say successful, we don't mean a lot of "great job" comments on flickr. Successful is a photographer that makes marketable photos, that can make a living from it, put food on the table. Everything less is just romantic nonsense. As eloquently put by a fellow photographer on a previous reply, no good to become known 100 years later after you have died poor. That is the meaning of being a professional, its your profession. Otherwise you are just a hobbyist.

knickerhawk said:
Yes, and you can put a chimpanzee in front of a Steinway. That doesn't mean the noise it creates is going to be any sweeter. The notion that a Canon shooter is going to produce meaningfully better landscape images when he/shet slaps on an adapted Nikon 14-24mm is (sorry to sound like a broken record here) just plain laughable. You're mixing cause and effect again. (FYI, I sold my Nikon 14-24mm earlier this year. A very fine lens but it didn't turn me into John Sexton, unfortunately.)

Not getting the "Chimpanzee" remark, perhaps you care to explain. So why do you believe that all those Canon owners keep buying adaptors and the 14-24 for then? They have nothing better to do than spend 2k on a lens with various limitations from the incompatibility? If not to produce better shots why then? Please do tell.

As for your experience with the 14-24, only you know why you decided to sell it. If you originally bought it thinking it would turn you to John Sexton then I am sorry but that was impossible. You see I believe pro gear will make a great photographer only by contributing to improve work based on a rock solid foundation made of talent and vision. Unfortunately both those traits cannot be bought. And this has been my point all along, you need the gear to make it.

P.S. Have you seen that photo of Jay Maisel with the D4 in hand?

darklamp · Jan 29, 2014

hoakin1981 said:
I am the OP (believe its called) I know better so trust me on this. This discussion is about whether a photographer (amateur or not) can ....

This is an open forum and once you start a thread you do not have any control over the direction the discussion takes. You cannot tell people what the discussion is about.

Like any conversation, a thread develops a life of it's own.

What the OP intended for any thread is totally irrelevant.

Jim Cassatt · Jan 29, 2014

I remember seeing one of those B&H videos by Jerry Gionin, a really good wedding photographer. As a joke, he photographed a relative's wedding with a iPhone and submitted the results to a prestigious wedding photography contest, one which he had won several times. His iPhone actually took 4th place. I remember taking a picture with my 300D with kit lens when it arrived in the fall of 2003. Great detail, even enlarged.

JamesRL · Jan 29, 2014

There are lots of pros out there who are making a living with DX cameras. Many of them use older D300s for example. The newer entry level cameras have sensors that are clearly superior. The pros could use those cameras, and some do have them as backup.

Likewise many pros with a D700 didn't upgrade and don't feel the need to yet.

And I fundamentally disagree with the idea that old photos are only "great" by the standards of the day. There are many timeless shots done with what would now be considered obselete equipment. The difference is the photographer had the skills to make the most out of what they had.

Ansel Adams had the ability to use many different cameras, and used everything from 35mm to 8 x10 view cameras. Hard to tell the difference in his shots, because his PP skills made the difference.

hoakin1981 · Jan 29, 2014

darklamp said:
darklamp said:

I am the OP (believe its called) I know better so trust me on this. This discussion is about whether a photographer (amateur or not) can ....

Click to expand...

This is an open forum and once you start a thread you do not have any control over the direction the discussion takes. You cannot tell people what the discussion is about.

Like any conversation, a thread develops a life of it's own.

What the OP intended for any thread is totally irrelevant.

And you should be more considerate before posting a comment stating the obvious which in this case is that I don't control the discussion. Unless someone has appointed you "protector of the freedom of speech and postings" in this forum.

And since you went into this trouble let me disagree by saying that what you claim about each thread developing a life of its own is true but a good thing only up to a reasonable point. You see that is why we enter a subject when we start a thread, because we want to ask, discuss, show etc. something specific. Of course in the course of the discussion there could be a deviation from the original path, but that is not necessarily for the best. I don't see the point if this thread ended up discussing whether Duft Punk deserved the Grammy or not.

Otherwise we would not have subjects and categories and types of threads, just an endless chaos of random questions and answers, relevant and not.

Lumixdude · Jan 29, 2014

Here we are on DPreview again where the gear heads will tell you that you can't take a good shot unless you own a DF, 6D or better. Meanwhile, todays micro 4/3 king the OMD-M5 will produce equal or better quality pictures than yesterdays 1D... Those that are saying you can't get good photo from consumer level cameras just aren't right. Even a lowly D5300 will get you there...

What is needed nowadays to be a great photographer...?

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

meland

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts