Photography as an art form is seeming more and more strange to me by the day.

[Svanderov]

To start off - i'm just a beginner.

Often, I think about the level of importance of the photographer in creating the photo, and how much they should be praised for it. It seems to me like some photographers are raised to godlike status simply because they were lucky to find a 1 in a million subject, and i'm not sure if i'm liking this.

Tim Walker is my favorite photographer as of now, and it's not even close with anyone else. He has full control over his models, his photos are 100% his creation and I can understand why he is praised so highly.

On the other hand - there's someone who came across an Afgan girl with particularly striking eyes, and took a photo where if she were replaced by someone else, it would just be a good portrait photo, nothing special. It's well-lit and in focus, but beyond that, the hero of the photo is the girl, not the photographer.

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Or am I wrong to think this way, and perhaps a part of the art of being a photographer is the skill of picking these subjects out, spotting them and catching opportune situations to take the best picture, and a lesser photographer would've just walked past that girl or taken the photo from a less striking angle or distance?

Wait a second...

 

[ronscuba]

To start off - i'm just a beginner.

Often, I think about the level of importance of the photographer in creating the photo, and how much they should be praised for it. It seems to me like some photographers are raised to godlike status simply because they were lucky to find a 1 in a million subject, and i'm not sure if i'm liking this.

Tim Walker is my favorite photographer as of now, and it's not even close with anyone else. He has full control over his models, his photos are 100% his creation and I can understand why he is praised so highly.

On the other hand - there's someone who came across an Afgan girl with particularly striking eyes, and took a photo where if she were replaced by someone else, it would just be a good portrait photo, nothing special. It's well-lit and in focus, but beyond that, the hero of the photo is the girl, not the photographer.

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Or am I wrong to think this way, and perhaps a part of the art of being a photographer is the skill of picking these subjects out, spotting them and catching opportune situations to take the best picture, and a lesser photographer would've just walked past that girl or taken the photo from a less striking angle or distance?

Wait a second...

2 different photography genres. Tim Walker does fashion photography and Steve McCurry is a photojournalist.

Forgetting about the photographers, the photography process of the 2 genres is totally different. Sure there are some skills that overlap, but plenty of others that apply more to one genre than the other.

--
https://www.ronchauphoto.com/
https://www.instagram.com/rchau.photo

 

[PJPfeiffer]

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Regarding photographic luck ... my definition is knows the camera pluses and minuses, knows the area, knows the behavior, has the camera in possession and at the ready.

 

[LeicaEye]

To start off - i'm just a beginner.

Often, I think about the level of importance of the photographer in creating the photo, and how much they should be praised for it. It seems to me like some photographers are raised to godlike status simply because they were lucky to find a 1 in a million subject, and i'm not sure if i'm liking this.

Tim Walker is my favorite photographer as of now, and it's not even close with anyone else. He has full control over his models, his photos are 100% his creation and I can understand why he is praised so highly.

On the other hand - there's someone who came across an Afgan girl with particularly striking eyes, and took a photo where if she were replaced by someone else, it would just be a good portrait photo, nothing special. It's well-lit and in focus, but beyond that, the hero of the photo is the girl, not the photographer.

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Or am I wrong to think this way, and perhaps a part of the art of being a photographer is the skill of picking these subjects out, spotting them and catching opportune situations to take the best picture, and a lesser photographer would've just walked past that girl or taken the photo from a less striking angle or distance?

Wait a second...

First Off, not every photographer has the privilege to travel or even visit different places (even within their own community).. If you are a Press photographer and you get to these places where major things are happening, experience/equipment and expertise all come into the equation - not necessarily in any particular order.. Without equipment 'The Eye' is useless, with a camera and no vision 'The Eye' remains useless. Join 'The Eye & Vision' plus a camera and you have the opportunity to get an image that shouts 'Look'.. Many many images are pure luck.. That surely is the nature of photography! Even in the studio or an outside Shoot with much of the arena controlled, unless the photographer can spot the moment of connection - Zilch.. Not all photographers walk around looking for that opportune moment.. Believe me, there are some damn good photographers walking around.. L

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Good photographers are luckier than bad ones.

An old maxim is “grace builds on nature”, that is, totally unmerited good things, like luck, good fortune, etc., are superimposed upon what you already have (your knowledge, skills, experience, diligence, whatever)—and most especially what you do with it.

Would you call a young child, finding a diamond, lucky if she just glances at it and then throws it away? Or a gemologist who immediately recognizes it for what it is, and puts it in a marvelous piece of jewelry? The same goes with photographers: I would think that your example photographer wasn’t just lucky once but a multitude of times.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[marcio_napoli]

To the OP, I'm wondering if I'll give my shot, this topic is radioactive hazard on these lands.

For now, I just think this is a very interesting thread, perhaps one of the most intriguing in a looooooooooooooong time.

So thank you for that

I honestly think you're into something. Not saying I agree 100%, but also not far from it at all.

Maybe I'll jump in later.

Interesting thread, that's awesome!

Best regards,

--

www.marcionapoli.fashion


Marcio Napoli _ fashion photographer . indie filmmaker
.
NEW video - Hasselblad street fashion shoot

.
check it out my You Tube channel:

.
Aliens (acclaimed short film_714 K views on YT):

.
Instagram:
@marcio_user

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

To start off - i'm just a beginner.

Often, I think about the level of importance of the photographer in creating the photo, and how much they should be praised for it. It seems to me like some photographers are raised to godlike status simply because they were lucky to find a 1 in a million subject, and i'm not sure if i'm liking this.

Tim Walker is my favorite photographer as of now, and it's not even close with anyone else. He has full control over his models, his photos are 100% his creation and I can understand why he is praised so highly.

On the other hand - there's someone who came across an Afgan girl with particularly striking eyes, and took a photo where if she were replaced by someone else, it would just be a good portrait photo, nothing special. It's well-lit and in focus, but beyond that, the hero of the photo is the girl, not the photographer.

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

No doubt photography has a luck factor. But then when you look at work from successful pro photographers, it becomes obvious that their is more to it than just luck.

This reminds me so much of my old fishing days. I guess one could say (and some probably did) that I was just so darn lucky, catching all the big fish that I caught. And no doubt, a few of those probably were just really lucky catches. But to consistently do as well as I did, I think it involved a bit more than just luck.

Pro photographers and pro fisherman tend to make their own luck

Or am I wrong to think this way, and perhaps a part of the art of being a photographer is the skill of picking these subjects out, spotting them and catching opportune situations to take the best picture, and a lesser photographer would've just walked past that girl or taken the photo from a less striking angle or distance?

Wait a second...

 

[HappyMartin]

Luck yes for sure. Strange thing about luck though is that the harder you work the luckier you get.

 

[LeicaEye]

Luck yes for sure. Strange thing about luck though is that the harder you work the luckier you get.

That covers a multitude of jobs/ vocational activities. L

 

[nikonzednaikonzee]

.......... the hero of the photo is the girl, not the photographer......

and in that statement you've summed up exactly the quality of that portrait. Steve McCurry made a picture where the viewer cannot help but have to think of the identity of the subject. It tells a story loud and clear. It may not be the subject's story, indeed it wasn't, but it is a story. And my my isn't that what we want to do with almost every picture we take? It is no wonder at all that there should have been some controversy around it at some point.

If one dismisses the art of Steve McCurry, then what about almost all the paintings before photography came along? They hardly tell the truth, and they hardly tell a visual truth either- the artist didn't even have to photoshop out anything- he or she just didn't have to paint them in in the first place.

 

[kenarchi]

Lucky. The more I learn and practice this photography thing the more lucky I get.

The more I practice hitting the tennis ball accurately the luckier I get hitting the winning shot.

The more I do in preparation of selling the luckier I get in being in the top sales nation wide. (Bobcat Loaders, 1978-1991 So Cal)

So, these lucky artists sleep and dream with their gear as they say.

I would have dreams of surfing large waves and within a day or so the big sets of waves would arrive from the Mexico storms.

So feel the rush, you won't notice you have the camera in your hand.

 

[JohnSil]

To start off - i'm just a beginner.

Often, I think about the level of importance of the photographer in creating the photo, and how much they should be praised for it. i'm not sure if i'm liking this.

Tim Walker is my favorite photographer as of now, and it's not even close with anyone else. He has full control over his models, his photos are 100% his creation and I can understand why he is praised so highly.

On the other hand - there's someone who came across an Afgan girl with particularly striking eyes,

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Or am I wrong to think this way,

Svanderov, I looked at the work of Tim Walker, he is really good.

Speaking to luck in photography, I've compared it in the past to the old saying about selling real estate. 10% of the agents are making 90% of the sales, the other 90% of agents are selling the remaining 10%! Photography seems to be like this. Why do 10% of photographers have 90% of the Luck?

FishChris is right, you gotta know where, when and how to get the big fish.

Photography like any other sport, I'm comparing it to a sport(LoL), takes TALENT. Some people are VERY talented, other not so much. I don't know if you've ever done a sport but some of us could train to go to the Olympics until we drop dead and that's the closest we'll get!

Photography if totally unregulated so anybody can do it so it's hard to see who has the talent but despite of all this, the best will still, like in anything else, float to the top. We need to give credit where credit is due!

As a new photographer you'll have to have patience with what photography even is. The more you learn the more your philosophies about photography will evolve. It's a never ending pursuit. And lets hope you are one of the talented ones or should I say one of the lucky ones by which others will be judged!!!

John

 

[tony field]

Essentially all excellent photographers i can think of has very good "photo construction" ability. For example Horst P Horst, Sam Haskins, Richard Avedon, Yousuf Karsh, etc. Some of them some of them like Tim Walker construct all aspects of the picture and produce delightful graphical creations. Others are masters of light control for much simpler subject interpretation. All of the excellent photographers have their own vision, some of which you may or may not appreciate.

If you like constructed images you might appreciate Marcio Napoli on this forum.

Don't misunderstand the role of "luck". A good photographer has a consistent ability to create his own luck by being in the right place at the right time. If you consider the Afghan Girl to be a negative manifestation of luck, you really have a strange appreciation of the art of photography.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[sybersitizen]

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Or am I wrong to think this way ...

You're only wrong to think that photography is any one specific discipline. It's not.

It's okay for someone to appreciate photos that are intricately staged while being unimpressed by photos that are moments of opportunity, and it's also okay for someone to appreciate photos that are moments of opportunity while being unimpressed by photos that are intricately staged.

It's even better when someone can appreciate many kinds of photos.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

To start off - i'm just a beginner.

Often, I think about the level of importance of the photographer in creating the photo, and how much they should be praised for it. It seems to me like some photographers are raised to godlike status simply because they were lucky to find a 1 in a million subject, and i'm not sure if i'm liking this.

The thing is, people as a group have a tendency to incorporate a select few into culture to become famous, even though there are many people that are as talented or even more talented than the ones with godlike status. It happens across all aspects of human life.

Past a certain point, the relative fame of a photographer has very little to do with skill, and more to do with influencing/marketing. For example, I know one photographer whose work I really love, but they just like shooting for fun. I always find their shot striking and very creative. There's another photographer in the same genre who is relatively famous but it's really hard to believe that looking at their shots.

Personally, i think the world would be a better place in many ways if people did not get so obsessed about one photographer or another, or one person or another. At the same time, it seems like it's because of a fundamental mechanism in societies where culture must be created: once a person is elevated through a somewhat stochastic process, it is valuable to elevate them further to create a common language.

For example, think of how many people talk about Ansel Adams....people refer to him not just because he was a good photographer, but because it gives photographers a personalized vernacular that somehow enhances communication. Is Ansel Adams a godlike photographer? Well all I can say is that there are hundreds of unknown photographers out there who create works that are just as nice as his.

I don't think we are going to change much about this phenomenon, because it seems ingrained. All you can do if you want to become similarly famous is fight your way to the top with an arsenal of influencing tactics rather than rely on your talent.

 

[Tim Reidy Productions]

Tim Walker is my favorite photographer as of now, and it's not even close with anyone else. He has full control over his models, his photos are 100% his creation and I can understand why he is praised so highly.

On the other hand - there's someone who came across an Afgan girl with particularly striking eyes, and took a photo where if she were replaced by someone else, it would just be a good portrait photo, nothing special. It's well-lit and in focus, but beyond that, the hero of the photo is the girl, not the photographer.

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

Or am I wrong to think this way,

Yeah you are wrong to think that way, while you may get lucky with what subjects you have to work with, you still have to make the best with it.

and perhaps a part of the art of being a photographer is the skill of picking these subjects out, spotting them and catching opportune situations to take the best picture, and a lesser photographer would've just walked past that girl or taken the photo from a less striking angle or distance?

finding photos is important in photography, as they are not always apparent. I tend to like to find things, but there are area where the subject, and the photographer make the photo.

lights and action make for an interesting background and subject together

or this is where I know what to do to get something here, I have a idea of what setting I may need for this subject and let the light be dictated by subject, and hopefully it will come out.

 

[FrancoD]

In a lot of cases this quote does apply :

I believe in luck. The harder I work , the luckier I get.

Sometimes things are not as easy as they appear, as one actor put it :

it took me 30 years to become an overnight sensation.

 

[AlbertTheLazy]

Pro photographers and pro fisherman tend to make their own luck

A pedestrian on 57th Street sees a musician getting out of a cab and asks, “How do you get to Carnegie Hall?” Without pause, the artist replies wearily, “Practice.”

That joke is nearly as old as me but its message is still true.

 

[iljitsch]

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

So if we compare this to movie making, you respect the director and the director of photography, but not the camera operator?

(Although I guess a photographer is not just a "camera operator" but more like both the DP and camera operator functions.)

I.e., to you composing the image in front of the lens is what it's about?

Personally, I have great respect for news photographers who manage to capture the mood of an event by using the right position, angles and especially timing. Even street photographers, I guess. :-D

Others may even see those records of fleeting photons as nothing more than mundane raw material for the real art that happens in post processing.

 

[LeicaEye]

I just cannot respect photos where I can see that the photographer was more lucky than anything else.

So if we compare this to movie making, you respect the director and the director of photography, but not the camera operator?

(Although I guess a photographer is not just a "camera operator" but more like both the DP and camera operator functions.)

I.e., to you composing the image in front of the lens is what it's about?

Personally, I have great respect for news photographers who manage to capture the mood of an event by using the right position, angles and especially timing. Even street photographers, I guess. :-D

Others may even see those records of fleeting photons as nothing more than mundane raw material for the real art that happens in post processing.

How do we know when a picture is/was ‘Luck’? Surely unless the photographer tells us, we might never know.. Many famous images were ‘set up’ L