What Makes a Great Photographer Great?

[MarkBarbieri]

If you stand next to a great photographer and shoot the same thing with the same settings on your camera, your picture will look pretty much the same. There isn't nearly as big a difference between cameras as the camera makers would like you to think. The differences are certainly there when you are shooting in special situations like really low light, fast moving subjects that are hard to focus on, or when you need a really long or really wide angle lens. Most of the time, those things don't matter.

So why do great photographers have such great shots and the rest of us turn out much inferior work?

Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject. I'd be interested to hear yours.

The best photographers take a lot of crummy pictures. They just don't go waiving those around. You see your garbage. You don't see theirs. When you are looking at Joe McNally's The Moment It Clicks, you are seeing the very best pictures that a pro has taken over a fairly long career of shooting pictures full time. You can make your pictures seem better by simply showing fewer of the crummy ones.

Light is everything. All a camera does is capture light. If you want better pictures, you need better light. For studio portraits, that means setting up a bunch of lights and modifiers and knowing how to use them. For landscapes, you pretty much take the light you get. The great landscape photographers get their great shots when the light is best.

If you want to improve your shots, you want better light. That means taking landscape shots around sunrise (no one said it would be easy) and sunset. It also means learning to control light better. That could mean getting a stack of speedlights (with modifiers) and learning how to arrange and control them to set up a perfect look. It could be as simple as knowing the photograph your subject in the soft light of a north facing window and having someone hold a big white sheet on the opposite side to fill in the shadows. The key is understanding how light affects the scene.

They know how to use the equipment they have. They know how long of a shutter speed to use to show movement. They know know what aperture to use to get the DOF they want.

Most importantly, the best photographers are creative. They start by understanding the language of photography - not the terms like aperture and exposure, but the way people interpret what they see. They know that we pay more attention to areas in focus than areas that are out of focus. They know that we see some blurs and movement. They know that our eyes are drawn to the brighter parts of a picture. They think about how a viewers eye will work it's way through picture. With this photography language, they figure out how to tell a story with a single picture.

Why do you think great photographers take great pictures?

 

[maccagerl]

Great topic!
I think another important quality of a great photographer is PATIENCE!
Getting to a place early and waiting and waiting for the perfect convergence of light, action, people, mist, whatever.
Waiting for THE MOMENT.
Scouting a great location and going back every day until something photo-worthy happens there.
I wish I could remember where I saw this, but it was a website about a prof photog, I think he was with National Geographic, and he would talk about how he got each shot.
One shot he described was taken in a little town in Europe.
He found a perfect backdrop on a little street with trees and a nice stone wall, and gorgeous old architecture, that the light hit beautifully. He went back there every day at a certain time of day to catch that special light, and finally one day there were two elderly women in local dress with their baskets of food who started to embrace each other right in front of the perfect spot - he got the photo and it was a beauty!!! But it took a lot of patience to wait for the moment. And it paid off!

 

[Suburbanmom]

As I've been taking people portraits, I think that a great photographer connects with his/her subject and makes them feel comfortable. Whether it be children, seniors, family, friends, or strangers, if the person being photographed is not comfortable, it won't be a great photo. This is not easy. Sometimes, you just click (pun...haha) with your subject and sometimes nothing works. A few weeks ago, I photographed a group of teenagers at a senior high banquet. I had no trouble connecting with the girls, but the boys...aack! Which surprised me because I have sons (but the oldest is only 13, so maybe I just don't get it yet). But I knew that the overall key was to connect with them and make them comfortable. Sometimes I did it, sometimes I didn't. I think a great photographer can do it more often than not.

 

[Frantasmic]

I subscribe to Popular Photography magazine. They have an article each month where a "great" photographer describes their recent good shot along with other shots that didn't quite make it. After reading these articles for a few months, I've concluded that great photographers make great photos by realizing good composition. As the OP states, we don't get a chance to see the merely "good" or "mediocre" photos from good photographers, but this article shows you those almost pictures.

And nearly all of the photographers explain why the ones they didn't use didn't make the cut was mostly because of composition. The photographer thought they had a good shot, but a cow got in the way or the eagle was scared away at the last moment, etc. Timing, patience, and lighting all combine for composition and I think the great photographers know when all elements of a good photograph come together.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I read a good tip recently (I don't remember where, unfortunately). It said that in order to get great photographs, find great light first, then find your subject. Most people try to do it the other way around, often without success.

I also saw this article that gives food for thought: Your Camera Doesn't Matter

I think a combination of knowledge, experience, and familiarity with equipment yields the best photographs. Sure, anyone can get a lucky shot now and then, but percentage-wise, those who get the most good ones fit the description above. Just look at the great photographers on this board alone who show us this time after time.

One last thought: a longtime professional photographer I met not too long ago told me that in a lifetime, a good photographer probably only gets a dozen or so really spectacular shots. Of course, he shot mainly in the days of film, so today's photographers, by the sheer number of pictures they take, would probably have more. But it does help you keep things in perspective if you're disappointed with your work.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

But it does help you keep things in perspective if you're disappointed with your work.

When you guys go out shooting (or shoot while you are out) and get back, do you usually find that your shots met your expectations, are better, or are worse?

I rarely find that my pictures live up to my expectations. On almost every shoot I have one of two reactions

1) Gosh, I should have thought to do X (which could be any of a million things that I forgot to do, did wrong, or didn't think of).

2) Wow, that didn't work. I wonder what I could have done better.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic when I shoot, but I am almost never happy with my shots. Sadly, it is often the shots that I put the most time into that disappoint me the most. I have definitely noticed that my failure rate is highest when the light isn't good (I overestimate how much I can compensate) or when I'm handling my own lighting.

The surprising thing is that while my shooting has improved over the years (at least I like to think so), I'm not any more satisfied with it than I ever was. Places and subjects that always vex me are forests, flowers, things in water, and sports. Subjects that most often leave me happy include people on beaches, just about anything in Monterey, and Disney stuff.

So are you happy with your shots? Happier now than you were when you started? Or more frustrated because your expectations have risen faster than your skill and creativity?

 

[Master Mason]

Ansel Adams said if he could take one good picture a month, he had a good month.

As to Mark's last question, as you improve, you learn more and therefore have more things in your pictures to look at, so you become more critcal of your own work. You also know the thoughts that went behind the photo, so when you look at it, you have that backgroud. Others do not have those thoughts when they view your shots, so their not carrying that bagage in their opinions.

I am often happy with my shots, I throw away way more now than I used to because I am more critical of them, so my number of keepers is actually much lower than when I first started, but the one's I keep I am much happier with than my best shots of even a year ago.

 

[jann1033]

good topic mark( I've been hungering for something meatier than what lens to take , no offense to anyone) so my 2 cents

i was looking up photographer's quotes yesterday to add to my website( which i redid...again...3rd time ) and the thing i noticed was how almost everyone said the same basic thing at least once, photography is more than taking a photo...ie technique. which we all knew I guess, but it's easy to get hung up on shutter speed,aperture, even light and forget to really look around and see something. I particularly liked this... "Mysteries lie all around us, even in the most familiar things, waiting only to be perceived" Wynn Bullock.... and this one from Anne Geddes..." the emotional element(??) is an image's most important element regardless of the photographic technique( paraphrased since i can't read my own writing)because to me that makes a good photo, seeing or capturing something in a way you and maybe others didn't see it before. i was thinking about Ansel Adams, (think we've discussed this) but thousands have taken the same photos, what makes your heart stop when you see his and not someone else's? due to what he did to capture what he saw IE his"vision" ( via darkroom or whatever). so to me you can only develop an eye to look beyond the ordinary..i think that comes with practice, letting go of preconceived ideas about what makes a "good photo" and trying things...if they don't work, so what ?
maybe they will give you another idea of what to try next time.

as far as part b( i need to go back and see if i even answered part a or went off on a tangent ) actually i am starting to like my photos better( no one else maybe but i am ) i think partly because while i want to get a technically "decent" shot i am really more concerned with getting the "mood" that hit me when i took a shot ...so it takes more work pp with color etc that probably would have been darkroom processed stuff pre digital but a couple things i have done i have actually liked and not cringed when i looked at them that is maybe one or two from 200-300 shots but i also shoot a lot of what "hmm wonder what that would look like if i did this" which sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. ie i tend to like dark shots so i'm sure purists would cry ( even though i do try to keep things semi correctly exposed and not blown highlights or lost shadows)but i like them like that and it's my camera (so basically it's taken me 2 yrs to get used to digital enough to not be afraid to do what i did with my old camera )

I really view photography as an "art" form rather than a "journalistic" form and to me just like any art form you have to develop your own style..maybe your style is "Andrew Wyeth" IE "detailed reality", maybe it's Picasso, IE not so "detailed reality" but it conveys what you want it to convey and any style is OK. do you want to just copy the scene before you or say something about it. either can be OK, just different aspects.

 

[JR6ooo4]

So are you happy with your shots? Happier now than you were when you started? Or more frustrated because your expectations have risen faster than your skill and creativity?

More frustrated. Mostly at lack of time. Which is a prerequisite to exhibiting patience.

Mikeeee

 

[boBQuincy]

Ansel Adams said if he could take one good picture a month, he had a good month.

Speaking of Ansel Adams, from reading some of his books it is astonishing how much time he spent getting the best print possible from a negative. Most (probably all) of our digital images can benefit from processing as well, it is a very rare image that is perfect as is.

Alain Briot, who I consider a great photographer, also considers processing to be a critical part of the process to a great photograph. Alain also writes very well and explains some of his processes in his books, most enlightening.

 

[jann1033]

I have definitely noticed that my failure rate ... Or more frustrated because your expectations have risen faster than your skill and creativity?

i don't see them as "failures" i see them as something that didn't work. i really do believe my edison quote) i can't control the light, the cow that got in the way, that i slipped on a leaf when i pressed the shutter...i just figure i'll try again...i really love photography but i know if i am frustrated by it i'll quit so i just look at it as a learning experience...someone who is imo a really good photographer was telling me how they gave up photography for yrs due to being frustrated...and i don't want to do that so i try to not get negative.

 

[jann1033]

Speaking of Ansel Adams, from reading some of his books it is astonishing how much time he spent getting the best print possible from a negative. Most (probably all) of our digital images can benefit from processing as well, it is a very rare image that is perfect as is.

Alain Briot, who I consider a great photographer, also considers processing to be a critical part of the process to a great photograph. Alain also writes very well and explains some of his processes in his books, most enlightening.

ita, it seems the trend is sometimes to think the photo should leap from the camera without the slightest touch of human hands but that sure didn't happen pre digital. it kills me how many contests want "pure untouched" photos...so guess they would only accept undeveloped film before? ( not talking "journalism" here, taking "art")

 

[jann1033]

Places and subjects that always vex me are forests, flowers, things in water, and sports. Subjects that most often leave me happy include people on beaches, just about anything in Monterey, and Disney stuff.

do you really care about the subjects that you feel are problems for you or do you think you need to be able to take a fantastic photo of them? i think sometimes things we aren't particularly interested in we don't really have the same passion to shoot ie i don't care for sports, so why would i care if i do a good job shooting them? i'd rather concentrate on what i really like to shoot. i think if it were your technique you'd never have any shots you like, maybe it's more the subjects are not that interesting to you to start with.