Can you tell?

[rosmini sukardi]

Took this quote from Jacek Gasiorowski's website:

 

Reporter: How can you tell that a photo was taken by an artist, and not by a

relatively talented amateur?'

David Hughes: You cant.

 

Can you?

[ronaldo_r]

Depends on the photo. If it really sucks then it's 50/50

[steve_dawson1]

These terms: 'artist', and 'relatively gifted amateur' - what do they mean. Does a person define themselves to be an artist? Maybe the viewer of their photographs wouldn't agree. Can't you be a 'relatively gifted amateur artist'?

[fullmetalphotograper]

To basic rules that I have learned.

 

1. Professional photographers are predictable; the world is full of dangerous amateurs.

 

2. The newest and least experienced photographer will usually win the Pulitzer.

[rainer_t]

... and here comes the missing rule #3 ...

 

3. The world is inequitable.

[aaron meyer]

You're right, but I think you miss just slightly.<BR><BR>

 

Predictability is a double-edged sword. My Volvo is "predictable", but it's my 21-year-old, always breaking something, Porsche that I truly love. A "professional's" predictability has positive aspects (every shot is good), but the same thing that makes every shot "good" can also limit the "professional's" ability to produce a "great" shot. There's a lot to be said for the contributions of people who just plain don't know enough to know what they can't do.

[m_j25]

I don't think you can. I would argue that even an amateur could take amazing pictures. I believe everyone is an artist, doesn't matter if it is their first pic or their two hundred's one. It is still art.

[Spearhead]

I don't think you can tell who shot from any single photograph unless it involves tricky lighting, like a car in a studio.

[don_e]

I'll agree with Jeff that the professional is more likely to have the experience, kit, and motivation to handle complex situations, like mixed lighting, better than the talented amateur.

 

And there is such a thing as a bad artist and bad art, or mediocre.

 

It is possible to tell the difference between a good photo and a bad photo. As to who shot which, it is not necessarily obvious.

[ellis_vener_photography]

A really good world class graphic designer once told me "Everyone can take one great photograph. A talented professional's real trick that does is doing it repeatedly, even when under pressure."

[jacob_brown]

"How can you tell that a photo was taken by an artist, and not by a relatively talented amateur?'"

 

What an insipid question. In wrongly implies that the two are mutually exclusive groups. In fact, there are many untalented artists and many talented pros and amateurs who create art.

[john_macpherson]

Q "Reporter: How can you tell that a photo was taken by an artist, and not by a relatively talented amateur?' David Hughes: You cant."

 

You can tell, because the artist will go "oh wow yeah baby.....CLICK"

 

whereas the amateur will go...."err what? oh yeah...right....hmmm....better use this tripod, no wait, I'll use a higher shutter - 1/125....damn too dim, wait a minute (thinks....f5.6, nah, f8 then it'll have better dof)...hmm no still too dim, need 1/30...ahh..no! dont move, wait, ach bugger I'll just take it...CLICK".

 

 

What? Oh sorry, you meant could I tell the difference visually - no, of course not!

[maris_rusis]

No one can tell anything about a photographer from just one photograph.

 

If, on the other hand, one looks at an extended body of work exhibiting consistent creativity, vision, imagination, productivity, and a committment to aesthetic rather than commercial values then one could say artist.

 

Arguably there are photographic "artists" who do not manifest these qualities but are applauded nevertheless. Given enough talent for self promotion the distinction between successful artist and successful impostor is not clear.

[jennifer_durand]

To answer Steve Dawson :-

 

There are three categories of photographers in my opinion amateurs taking snapshots,

professional commercial photographers and lastly artists.

 

Amateurs can be anyone who has any kind of equipment who does not derive an income

from photography and does it for fun or a serious hobby. Most of us take snapshots for

friends and family.

 

Commercial photographers generally have had training and derive an income from

photography either full time or part-time. These photographers do weddings, product,

fashion, portraiture, architectural photography, photojournalists etc.

 

Artists are recognised after doing, usually a degree, in fine art. Part of their study is the

theory, history and practice of art and photography. They produce work that is founded in

the established theories, histories and practices of art. Photographic artists who have

worked in this way are Lee Friedlander, Alexander Rodchenko, Paul Strand, Ansel Adams,

William Eggleston to name but a few.

[don_e]

Jennifer, I'm inclined to agree with you overall, except I can't help seeing "merely" before your use of the word "snapshots". Obviously, the "merely" is not there, but it crept into the text as I read it.

[jennifer_durand]

That's your problem Don!

 

People can only accuse others as they themselves would behave under the said

circumstances. Your remark says more about you than me.

[don_e]

I wasn't accusing you of anything, and I specifically said I couldn't help seeing it, not that it was there.

 

Read your text again.

[jtk]

There are only amateurs and professionals: alleged "artists" are either amateur or professional, not a class by themselves as they don't really exist IMO.

 

An amateur making money from photography by selling images or services becomes a professional to that degree. A professional doing part of her/his work for pleasure is an amateur to that degree.

 

Amateurs and professionals both have varying degrees of skill and varying degrees of creativity. The professional is more likely to be in control of many aspects of the craft because it pays his bills, though he may not bother to selenium tone B&W. The amateur may selenium tone his prints but be incompetent with E6 and totally ignorant of studio strobes.

 

Wandering the woods with a view camera, or taking furtive snapshots of strangers on the street, does not make one more creative than photographing kids at Walmart, but photographing kids at Walmart does make one more professional than the poor soul who hangs "street photos" at coffee shops, praying for a sale.

[don_e]

Well said, John.

[jennifer_durand]

Don says "I couldn't help seeing it, not that it was there".

 

That's delusional. Did you notice that my answer was to a question posed by Steve Dawson?

Perhaps you should keep to the thread and keep your delusions out of this forum.

[don_e]

I guess I have my answer. Too bad. I was inclined to agree with you overall, as I wrote.

[tim_b]

"Artists are recognised after doing, usually a degree, in fine art. Part of their study is the theory, history and practice of art and photography. They produce work that is founded in the established theories, histories and practices of art."

 

I'm sorry but this is one of the most patently incorrect statements I have read in a long while. And writers are recognised after doing a degree in fine writing?

[jennifer_durand]

Tim B,

Doctors are trained at medical school and artists at art school. Usually the medical school

is situated in a university as with an art school, this is a well known fact and a long held

tradition.

 

Maybe you come from a part of the world where things are done differently. You should

then tell everyone on the forum instead of being obnoxious about someone elses post.

 

You have all wandered off the thread which reads : "Reporter: How can you tell that a

photo was taken by an artist, and not by a relatively talented amateur?' David Hughes: You

cant".

 

My answer to the thread is you can't unless you know the image was made by an

established artist.

[tim_b]

Jennifer Durand, which school trains writers in your part of the world? And poets?

[don_e]

Welcome to the sh*tlist, Tim.