How do you excel at photography?

[sravan]

<p>I am not a Pro and am not planning to be a Pro and so I am not talking about specialization in one field of Photography.<br>

When comparing photos of the masters and those 99% on flickr, the things that capture me are<br>

1. Clarity of subject. Means to me to make sure the eye is drawn to the subject easily.<br>

2. Composition. Means to me that the extraneous items to the story of the photo are minimized and the composition is pleasing.<br>

Now these three are more about the creativity of the photographer. Not being a very creative person natively, i struggle at these and I try to practice as much as I can to get better as I believe there is no shortcut to greatness.</p>

<p>So with creativity being hard for me I am turning to the technical aspects of photography to differentiate myself from those around me (Those who are not Photography enthusiasts). To me things I can work on easily are:<br>

1. Good Exposure. Means to me that the details that you want to show are clear while the details not germane are hidden in plain sight.<br>

2. Good Lighting. Means to me use shadows and highlights to hide what you dont want. Use lighting to the fullest extent to the end goal of your vision. (even if that vision is a copy of somebody else's work)<br>

3. Better photos straight out of camera with minimal photoshop. I am not a purist and I believe most photos do require a bit of post processing and leaving the post processing to the camera is like leaving the development to the corner photo store machine. So using raw and doing small tweaks are ok in my book. So my preferred choice is to use lightroom where the possibilities are much more limited than photoshop and to me fall better on the "post processing" side than on the "create new art from photos" side of the fence. (remember I am not a creative type).<br>

4. Use equipment that gives you photos that cannot be taken with point and shoots. Examples include using Tilt Shift lenses, using Macro lenses, using larger aperture lenses for shallow DOF, using wide angle lenses, using multiple strobes etc. While many of these effects are not needed for great photography, they are an easy way to differentiate oneself from the hordes with point and shoots.</p>

<p><strong>The question finally. What other aspects of photography did I miss? What else can I learn to differentiate myself?</strong></p>

<p>PS: If you are asking why am I doing photography if I am not creative, well I believe to keep one's mind strong one has to exercise both the logical and creative sides. Photography is something that captured my imagination and is what I use to express my creative side (to the extent I can).</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>PS: If you are asking why am I doing photography if I am not creative, well I believe to keep one's mind strong one has to exercise both the logical and creative sides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography does not always have to be creative. It can be just as valid when used as documentary. i.e. record shots of people or an area.</p>

[dan_south]

Good suggestions so far. How about emotion. Humor, fun, a sense of adventure and the unexpected, love, respect,

reverence, intrigue, despair, redemption, determination - try to convey some of these in your photos.

[tonmestrom]

<p>when you want to excel there is really no substitute for hard work. Hard work and passion for what you do are the two most important things as are perseverance and a profound understanding of light.<br>

Equipment is the last thing you should worry about.</p>

[Brad_]

Edit ruthlessly and only reveal your best. And don't fall into the flickr trap...

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>The question finally. What other aspects of photography did I miss? What else can I learn to differentiate myself?</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Go to as many art galleries and museums as you possibly can. Find well printed books and monographs featuring the photogrpaher or or photographers you most ardently admire. Practice. Take an intensive weeklong workshop with the living masters you most admire if they offer them and if you can afford to do so. (My choices would be Albert Watson, Gregory Heisler, and Jay Maisel -- but that is just me.) </p>

<p>Practice. </p>

[phule]

<p>What's the flickr trap? Did Admiral Ackbar sign up for an account recently?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> What's the flickr trap?

 

In a nutshell...

 

I think flickr is a fine vehicle for social networking - that's what I use it for. But really poor for showcasing

good photography. It's pretty much become an image dumping ground. I used to have a so-called "Pro"

account to get above the 200 image limit imposed on the free account. That was probably one of the worst photographic decisions I've made. I let it expire 6 months ago and it feels great. Have 6 or 7 images there now.

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>I like the suggestion of "editing ruthlessly." It is painful. But a necessary discipline. On a technical point, and one that most friends seem blind too, is FOCUS. Learn to focus! Why can't most people focus? I have a friend who went on a $25,000 safari with $25,000 worth of stunning equipment and returned with 10,000 blurry shots. What's the point of a carbon gitzo tripod, full-frame sensor DSLR, an f/4 500mm lens and spectacular wildlife if you can't focus? But man, does that friend know how to hold down the shutter to fire off 9 fps. Result? Thousands of blurry elephant shots.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Also you might want to pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's book "Learning to see creatively"</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sravan, I don't think good photography has to have clarity of subject and it doesn't have to have "pleasing" composition. In many good photographs, the photograph is the subject, not something IN the photograph. I don't mind having to work to get to a subject, which is often revealed slowly and with great difficulty. Many good photographs move my eye around the frame and don't answer the question of subject but rather pose it. Descriptive words besides "pleasing" better suit the kinds of compositions I find masterful: dynamic, complex, multi-perspectival, . . .</p>

[phule]

<p>[[i think flickr is a fine vehicle for social networking - that's what I use it for.]]</p>

<p>You do realize that flickr is not inherently a "social networking" site, right? The social networking is simply one aspect of it. A lot people do use it simple as off-site storage and then populate their 3rd party photoblogs from a sub-set of the uploads. How is that a "flickr trap" ? I find it odd that you would choose to associate your needs (and misconceptions) as the only possible way to use flickr.</p>

<p>And as for not finding high quality photos, I think that claim is absurd at /best./ If you can't find quality photography on flickr then you are actively not trying.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Depending on what type of photography you pursue, you might ensure that your social & interpersonal skills are well honed too. A precursor to the making of images of people is often conversation, discussion, finding out about the subject and their life and perhaps offering something of yourself in return. I see too many photographers, some, surprisingly, expressing aspirations to be wedding/street/documentary photographers, but whose conversational ability is quite frankly, really very poor. You dont HAVE to be a great conversationalist to succeed, but I'd say it certainly helps.</p>

[jtk]

<p>If the photographer's first concern is "good" work, s/he's missed something. If her/his first concern isn't becoming more of an individual the photos will never be significant.</p>

 

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I agree with Brad in that the hardest part is editing especially editing your own work. That said though, people do have different taste. And we are all in different stages of photography. I have some pics I liked a few years ago but would trash today and vice versa...See how difficult it could get?</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> You do realize that flickr is not inherently a "social networking" site, right?

 

Huh? Where did I claim otherwise? As I said above, that's what *I* use it for. I would have thought that mentioning

that I had a "Pro* account would have made it very clear that yes, you can upload thousands of images, for whatever purpose you want. Many do.

 

>>> I find it odd that you would choose to associate your needs (and misconceptions) as the only possible way to

use flickr.

 

What misconception do you *think* I have? I know how flickr works and have been using it for some time posting

images, belonging to groups, etc. And where did I say that what I use it for now is the *only* way to use flickr. I'm relating a personal experience.

 

If you feel that flickr is a great way of showcasing a photographer's best work, and that works for you, that's great. I'm happy for you. Or if you feel that putting up a bunch of average stuff is fine, that's great too. Myself

and quite a few other photographers feel differently.

 

I just don't have that many really good images. I know that some people

have thousands. I do have a lot of ho-hum photos, but don't feel the need for other people to have to wade through them. There's way to much chaff out there already.

[john_bellenis]

<blockquote>

<p>4. Use equipment that gives you photos that cannot be taken with point and shoots. Examples include using Tilt Shift lenses, using Macro lenses, using larger aperture lenses for shallow DOF, using wide angle lenses, using multiple strobes etc. While many of these effects are not needed for great photography, they are an easy way to differentiate oneself from the hordes with point and shoots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Something about this strikes me as a little strange. The lenses you describe are merely tools that help people achieve various goals. If you shoot architecture, table top or want to play with shallow, off plane focus, then you would choose a tilt shift lens., etc. Generally the job defines the tool choice - not the other way around.</p>

<p>Simply deciding to use various tools, just to try and produce something "different" would seem to me to be recipe for boring images with no motivation other than to use a specific lens. Where is the passion for your subject? Where is the desire to shoot something that inspires you - followed by the search for the right tools to achieve those ends?</p>

<p>I am not arguing against experimentation, but shooting merely to appear different to the "hordes with point and shoots" seems pointless - some of those point and shoots are producing stunning, original and gorgeous images.</p>

<p>If I were you I would take a step back and reassess your goals. The best photography is not driven by a desire to appear different, to use specialized equipment or to become the best technical camera operator. It is all about content - subject, composition, lighting, impact, timing, color, mood and emotion. But most of all it is produced by a passion for your subject matter and a desire to translate your vision and interest into images.</p>

[philipward]

Practice,practice,practice.Eventually you will find your niche and then persevere until you master that genre.You never will but the joy is in the journey.Sorry their are no easy packaged answers.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>4. Use equipment that gives you photos that cannot be taken with point and shoots. Examples include using Tilt Shift lenses, using Macro lenses, using larger aperture lenses for shallow DOF, using wide angle lenses, using multiple strobes etc. While many of these effects are not needed for great photography, they are an easy way to differentiate oneself from the hordes with point and shoots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography is about photographs, not using equipment that makes photos looks somewhat different. Like the whole original post, this has nothing to do with good photography. Good photography is about having something to communicate, not a bunch of quasi-technical "rules." Following the original post is a good way to produce boring photos. Following one's inner light will work far better, and only takes a minute to describe.</p>

[sravan]

<p>John, Yes it is absolutely reverse - Facing a crisis of not having a passion for a subject to focus. I had a passion for flowers for around 4 years, but that has waned. While i am waiting for a passion to ignite, I am trying to kindle it by learning the technical aspects and broaden my skills. This is so that i look outside what I have been doing for that spark. But your answer gave me more things to think about and try to master. I havent thought about how to capture color, mood and emotion.<br>

While you are right about tools being tools to capture your vision, learning the tools is also important. I know it is at best a stop gap measure until I find something that I find close to heart.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>A guy stops a guy on the street and asks, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" The second guy answers, "Practice, practice, practice!"</p>

<p>You excel at photography the same way as you excel at most things, learn as much as you can about the subject and practice, practice, practice! You can learn by taking courses in a school or online, or you can teach yourself. You can do a lot of reading and looking at photographs on your own. You can join a camera club. You can learn a lot here and at other forums.</p>

<p>I disagree with the idea that one cannot learn to be creative. I know that I am much more creative now than I was years ago. I think that as you learn more and study other photographers you can become more confident and your mind becomes more free. Freeing your mind and becoming confident in yourself leads to creativity. I'm not saying that we all can become great artists, but we can become more creative.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>A few more ideas:</p>

<p>Put a little bit of yourself in each photo. Every photo you take should reveal something about you or your personality in some small way.</p>

<p>Every photo should have a purpose. Say to yourself, "I am taking this photo because..."</p>

<ul>

<li>this building/location/neighborhood fascinates me.</li>

<li>I wanted to show what it was like to be in this location/situation.</li>

<li>there's something fascinating about this person's face/clothing/appearance.</li>

<li>I love pets.</li>

<li>I can sense this person's sadness/happiness/rage/elation/desperation.</li>

</ul>

<p>No one needs to learn to be creative. We are already creative; it's in our DNA and it's how we survive. What many people have to learn is to trust their creative instincts. Some people have been intimidated into believing that they aren't creative. Toss that steaming pile of not-so-useful rubbish into a big trash bag, seal it tightly, heave it into the nearest dumpster, and let your natural creativity soar. If you're not being creative, you're like an eagle who's afraid to use his wings. You already have it, now trust it. Let that proud bird fly.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>My mentor at Rit , Professor James Megargee, used to say that your interest in photography is direcrtly proportional to the amount of film you shoot ( prior to digital). So, my advice to you is to shoot as much as possible and further to shoot everything and anything that interests you. Edit after the shot not before the shot.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Other than the occasional lucky coincidence very few great photographs are taken by accident. Most are the result of careful planning, making sure you are in the right place at the right time, learning, for instance for landscape shots, where the sun will be, where the best viewpoints are etc. etc.<br>

And then being totally familiar with your gear. How many of us have actually made test shots at all apertures and focal lengths on our lenses so that we KNOW what the DOF will be for a given shot. And get to understand your histogram, it's a great tool to have as long as you really know it. And know the rules, rule of thirds etc, yes you can break them but it's easier to do that constructively if you know them in the first place.<br>

Then get lucky as well lol.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>Given the number of people who photograph what I photograph, I'm not sure I excel, but I do know I can produce excellent work.<br>

I know I produce excellent work, because I have won competitions, and my work published regularly and in a wide range of publications.<br>

I know I don't excel, from the number of commissions I get for major events.<br>

I'm good at what I do, because I'm interested in what I shoot - equestrian sport and cricket. But I know that I have a long way to go before my income from photography precludes the need for income from writing.<br>

What are the things to learn? For me, developing the business, something that's almost more important that the photography side. And also when to set aside those rules for getting ideal exposure and composition.</p>

<p>Just my 2p.</p>