TaylorScott Photography wrote:
I was flipping through MM when I came across something about "lower quality photographers". Is there such a thing? This person must have been taking about the "GWC", or the guy that shows up to a photoshoot and with a high-end point and shoot camera.

So here is my question to you. Disregard you experience level; how do you rate yourself in a subject matter;

Lower quality photographer
medium quality photographer
high quality photographer

Where do you fall? Or is this a stupid subject matter and I am wasting your time reading this post?

Got you to look anyways.

Taylor

who is a better photographer? the person that photographed marilyn monroe? or the person that photographed a dirty trashcan?

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Obviously, the quality of the work photographers produce can vary greatly.   

I don't list an experience or quality level and see no reason rate myself.   Models who are interested in doing TF with me, can view my work and judge for themselves whether or not they think it's of a quality that's worth their time.   Similarly, potential buyers decide for themselves based on what they see whether or not it's something worth buying.

+1         very silly to "rate" in my opinion, there are too many variances , old box camera to cheap camera or "high end" doesn't guarantee anything. Its more about perception, the "eye", and look or style? Its up to the person or client looking for that look. From a sharp detailed bw look to a saturated washed out over exposed color, they are all sought after. From Leibovitz to Arbus to Mann to Warhol to Richardson, who is  to "judge" but the client? Rating a photographer is similar to rating a painter, its just an opinion.....................W

Mike Collins wrote:
From my experience?  Those that boast how fantastic they are, usually aren't.  Those who are passionate about what they do and are very humble are usually better than most.

Yes, you do have to sell yourself but I rarely hear a great photographer say "I'm a great photographer".  They usually sell themselves and let the imagery speak for itself.  Good or bad.   

Most times, I hate my work.  I know it's better than the average guy but no where near the some of the people I look up to.  But it sells and I'm content.  But I don't boast about it.  You rather like my work or you don't. 

What you think of me is none of my business.

"It is not difficult to be great occasionally; the real challenge is to be good consistently." – Richard Avedon

TaylorScott Photography wrote:
So here is my question to you. Disregard you experience level; how do you rate yourself in a subject matter;

Lower quality photographer
medium quality photographer
high quality photographer

I'm not quite "high quality" but a little better than "medium quality".  Here's my thinking:

I measure the quality of a photographic image two ways -- the aesthetic and the technical.  I suppose one could measure the quality of a photographer by their ability to produce quality results consistently.

The technical addresses things like the following:
...  Is the exposure "good"?
...  Does the post processing enhance the photo?
...  etc.

The aesthetic addresses thing like the following:
...  Is the photo interesting?
...  Does it clear express the photographer's vision?
...  How unique is its presentation?
...  Does it show the viewer something new?
...  etc.

I'd rather look at an interesting (but technically modest) image than a technically perfect but boring image.  Thus, I consider the aesthetic to be more important than the technical.

Lately, I've been noticing several images on MM where the photographer appears to have relegated his technical decisions to his camera (e.g. a poorly exposed image that isn't quite saved with photo editing).  While I have room for improvement, I think I can do a lot better than that.

And I have room for improvement with my aesthetics, too, but that's another story.

So there -- somewhere between "medium" and "high" quality.



I could also argue that the question itself is kinda unfair.  A photography business is 10% photography and 90% business.  I can conceive of an obnoxious a-hole photographer who can consistently make high quality images but for whom no one wants to work.  People skills, reliability, organization, efficiency are all potential measures for the quality of a photographer.

TaylorScott Photography wrote:
I would like to thank everyone for your input. Sorry there is no booby prize, other than to know how you see yourself and how others should see you. With every picture I take I try my best to gain the highest quality I can, but since no one is perfect than we accept what we achieve. We strive to do our best but because someone does not like the the way it was composed or the colors, or even how they shoot, that they may lack the higher qualities of the professional who shows their work only in a gallery or is published in one of the top 10 magazines.

The professional never rests. Demands change and Professionals step up to the challenge.
I see many many photographers on MM that are excellent, and if they took the time to learn lighting... Boom home run....
Photography is a skill. As all skills they are learned and practiced to get better and better. The more (not necessarily longer) that you study and practice a skill you are going to get better at it.

I will tell you what one of the best photographers I have ever met told me.
"Take a rusted old can. How many ways can you shed light on the subject to make it interesting?"
Wow powerful.
I actually found a ugly uninteresting tin can. I spent 2 weeks photographing that can. Indoors and outdoors. You would be amazed at what I learned in photography in 2 weeks with that can.
And that was one very small exercise.

I think so many people pick up a camera and expect to be shooting magazine quality in a few short days. And they quit or they settle. The ones who make it do neither.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I consider myself high quality because I do not settle for less than in my final product. I will never pass a photo to A client that I didnt feel was close to perfect.

Yet you have never shared any of this with MM.

Herman van Gestel wrote:
I know i don't suck...but my opinion doesn't matter, but of my professional network...

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

No Herman, you don't suck.  Nice stuff.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

Yet you have never shared any of this with MM.

I have yet to shoot anything that would be MM material. What MM mostly finds interesting is not what I shoot. My modeling on the other hand fits right in. Not to hard of a concept to grasp and understand I hope.

Laura Bello wrote:
I think there's lower quality photographers in that their work is not as good as professionals, it has little to do with what equipment they use/experience if you're wondering if it's related.  You could own a full frame camera and be shooing for 10 years and still be a lower quality shooter to me if we're talking about the work in their portfolio. 


And I'm probably a medium quality shooter at best.

Seriouslly, I don't see the lation on quality and being professional. There are a lot of professional in who do crap images and a lot of amateurs who do greate images.

I think quality depends on the public. For the avarege public the comercial look image is high quality while for many artists is low quality, in a artistic point oc view dispite the tecnical aspect.

And for the avarege public what doesn't look comercial is not that good.

So it depends on what kind of quality is being talked about.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
It is not about how good you are. It is about how much work and energy you put into it.

I completely disagree with this.  When I look at a photograph, how much effort someone put into it is completely irrelevant.

There are some exceptions that prove this rule though.  Into that category I would place the photographer Sebastião Salgado.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I have yet to shoot anything that would be MM material. What MM mostly finds interesting is not what I shoot.

A lot of what I photograph is of no interest to MM either but I allow the MM community to see it so that, when I come on the Photography Forum, they might be able to form an opinion as to whether I know what I’m talking about or not.

Mike Collins wrote:
From my experience?  Those that boast how fantastic they are, usually aren't.  Those who are passionate about what they do and are very humble are usually better than most.

In my years working as an editorial portrait photographer, I met a lot of people who were at the top of whatever it was they did and I found humility to be very rare among all those involved in the arts.

I think this is because many of them have a fanbase and they are constantly being told how wonderful they are.

The world of sport is an exception. 

The World champions and Olympic gold medal winners I photographed all seemed very humble.

I think this is because, in sport, there is always a winner and a loser and it’s far less about opinions.

Marciofs wrote:

Seriouslly, I don't see the lation on quality and being professional. There are a lot of professional in who do crap images and a lot of amateurs who do greate images.

I think quality depends on the public. For the avarege public the comercial look image is high quality while for many artists is low quality, in a artistic point oc view dispite the tecnical aspect.

And for the avarege public what doesn't look comercial is not that good.

So it depends on what kind of quality is being talked about.

I guess I was talking not about technical quality but overall quality. You could shoot with a film camera with natural light and do no retouching and still have amazing images as long as what you're shooting works to that look. The level of quality of a photographer is a weird concept, I just figured it meant the photographs skill level. I don't care who what or how you're shooting as long as you're getting published or producing amazing work. Like I wouldn't call myself a low quality photographer (although maybe I am) but I don't even use strobes or work with agency models.  I think resources and experience are more likely to lead to a high level photographer but that's not always the case.

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
Let's be honest: we're ALL Kings of our own islands.   And on own own islands, we Are All The Sh*t.   But it's the rare photographer who realizes how small his island really is.  ;-)

I'm swimming in the ocean, looking for a life raft.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

In my years working as an editorial portrait photographer, I met a lot of people who were at the top of whatever it was they did and I found humility to be very rare among all those involved in the arts.

I guess I just hang around a more humble group.  I'll never forget while helping Dean Collins on some of his seminars he would always say he was "average at best".  Yet, he had some of the most famous brands in the world as clients.  At&T, Hyatt, Toyota, NFL, etc.   Yet he never boasted about his work.  He knew he was good and people liked his work.  he could be depended on.  And he was funny as hell.  God I miss him.

Another who I associated with again, had famous clients.  Never talked about how good he was.  Hell, hardly talked photography.  Yet he had the best clients in town and even nationwide.  Got tired of commercial photography and now does mixed media sculpture.   

There is nothing wrong with saying how good you are.  Hell, if you don't think your good, you better stop now.  If you don't believe in yourself, no one else will. 

I humble myself so that I keep trying to get better.  And I know there is someone right behind me wanting to go after the clients I have so I better stay on top of things.  If they are better AND a better business person and they do take my clients?  So be it. 

"Nobody steals your clients.  YOU lose them." Dean Collins

Caitin Bre  wrote:

I have yet to shoot anything that would be MM material. What MM mostly finds interesting is not what I shoot. My modeling on the other hand fits right in. Not to hard of a concept to grasp and understand I hope.

I suspect we all understand...

Mike Collins wrote:
I guess I just hang around a more humble group.

These people weren’t my chums or people I go to the pub with but people I met during the course of my work.

But I think humility is overrated anyway.  The famous Victorian cricketer W.G.Grace refused to walk after being given out once, with the justification that most of the crowd had come to watch him rather than anyone else.

And he was undoubtedly correct.

Michael McGowan wrote:
Some of us are good at one thing and not at another. I know very few photographers who can do art shows AND commercial. People who do slick beauty shots and labor for yours over every pore are less likely to be great at capturing the key moment during a riot.

That doesn't make any of them good or bad overall. We all just have our specialties.

Now, if within a person's specialty, he isn't able to deliver, then he probably falls into the poor photographer category. If he's able to deliver now and again, he's advanced to perhaps average. Deliver practically on demand? That's good.

Some disciplines do overlap, but in general you'll have to determine the quality inside the genre where a photographer works.

I've told this story before but, it's relevant to your statement.

A good friend of mine is a photo editor at the NY Times.  When I started shooting I wanted to be a PJ.  Went around the world shooting and, after a trip to subsaharan Africa, brought back a pile of photos to show her.  She went through them separating them into to groups.  Afterwards she told me she had good news and bad news and which did I want to hear first.  The bad new of course...  "Well, you're not a photojournalist and you probably never will be", she said pointing to the larger of the two piles.  So what's the good news, I asked?  "You're a wonderful editorial portrait photographer, when you have control of the environment and the subject.  Focus on that."  So I did.

I love lots of different types of photography and I'm "OK" at most.  But just ok.  There are a very few forms of photography that I'm good at, and maybe one that I excel at (in comparison to my own work).  We can all appreciate a variety of work, but there is a natural way that we see the world.  Understanding what that is for each of us, I think, is key to developing beyond the mere technical.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
We can all appreciate a variety of work, but there is a natural way that we see the world.  Understanding what that is for each of us, I think, is key to developing beyond the mere technical.

It's that way we see the world that defines our style, it's not some presets in ligthroom but our fingerprint on life.