The answers to your questions are, well no. But then I've never shot in a studio, or desired to, and the kind of photography you're talking about is something I've never tried to make a forte.
To say however that every photo must be technically and asthetically saleable for the photographer to be deemed competent, I think is an exaggeration. I feel safe in saying that all photographers that make their living from it, have done assignments where they were met with a new set of variables and conditions that they had not encountered before and they learned from past and present mistakes. I don't claim to be a great photographer, but I get results that are pleasing a sufficent percentage of the time, that I don't place the camera behind my rear tire and back over it. :-) I don't expect to get great results all the time. If I was that meticulous, I would either not have time for photography, or possibly come to despise it as being simply a job. I see plenty of published (Nat'l Geographic for instance) shots that I personally think are horrendous. Those photographers are no doubt competent, possibly have a different sense of asthetics, or the photography is being used for the purpose of supplementing the story and does not really stand on it's own. I'm probably taking issue with a single word you used. Incompetent. A person that takes a poor photo may be ignorant, indigent, impotent, or incontinent, but it doesn't mean they are worthy of being labeled incompetent. Tom C. From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> Subject: Re: OT - Taking Your Photography To The Next Level. Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:13:55 -0500 >You miss my point, Tom. The proof sheet is to pick the best of a bunch >of good photos, not to sort the crap from the mediocre, or at least that >was the way we thought of it in the old days. > >Tell me something, Tom, can you look at a print and pretty much tell how >it was lit? Can you reproduce that lighting with a minimum of >experimentation? Do you know what types of poses look graceful and which >do not? For a skinny person? A fat person? How to photography a very >shiny object without reflections? How to light a large rotunda? Those >are all questions people on this list have asked, usually with the >preface, "Some one wants to pay me to do this, how do I do it?" > >And then there is the question I've never seen anybody ask, "How do I >learn to use my camera without even thinking about it?" There are a few >here on the list that I know can do that, and probably a few more that I >do not know, but I would guess there are not more than 20-25 out of the >600+ folks. When you have learned how to do that, you will find that you >really do not like fiddlely cameras. > >Anybody, especially with todays cameras, can shoot 2000 frames of >something and get 10 decent photos, it is another thing to shoot 10 and >get those same 10 photos. A really good photographer is not sorting >diamonds from a pile of rocks, he is sorting flawless diamonds from a >pile of diamonds. > >Don't take the above a put-down, take it as a challenge. > > > >Tom C wrote: > > If I was getting paid for every hour I was doing photography, I suppose >a > > higher perecentage of my shots would also be better. Since I'm not >getting > > paid for it, and am often in a hurry, on my way to/from a paying job... > > > > I wasn't suggesting that it was a law of averages, but your words are at > > odds with what I've heard at least several celebrated photographers say. > > > > I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement: > > > >> I guess I do not care who feels insulted, but if every single photo > >> (that you work at making) is not technically and esthetically salable > >> you are not competent. > > > > How can that be? I write software and am pretty good at it. It doesn't >mean > > that I can't make a mistake and have the end product not function as > > designed or envisioned. Having that be the case does not mean I'm > > incompetent, simply human. > > > > I'm not insulted, but I do believe you are wrong. If what you say is >true, > > there would be no need for proof sheets and editing, and the >'professionals' > > are the ones who make the most use of them. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >> Subject: Re: OT - Taking Your Photography To The Next Level. > >> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:15:44 -0500 > >> > >> As long as we understand that the top photographers toss-outs are >better > >> than our best, that is true. > >> > >> It really bothers me that folks think great photographs are a product >of > >> averages, of luck. A competent photographer does not produce many duds > >> (as long as he is working at it, if he is old and lazy like me, he gets > >> a lot of them, but not because he doesn't know better). > >> > >> I guess I do not care who feels insulted, but if every single photo > >> (that you work at making) is not technically and esthetically salable > >> you are not competent. Now that does not apply to experimental stuff, > >> that is learning, and goes on forever, but your everyday photography > >> better be pretty damn good if you think you are a photographer. > >> > >> I suggest folks get a Speed Graphic and a Polaroid back. If you think > >> being able to shoot a lot for almost nothing improves your photography, > >> you will be surprised at what knowing that every time you press the > >> button it is going to cost you $2.50-$3.00 ($5.00 with flashbulbs) will > >> do for it. > >> > >> -graywolf > >> > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >>> I thought it contained some useful reminders. What he fails to >mention > >>> though, is that no matter how good or celebrated a photographer one >is, > >> the > >>> majority of photographs are throwaway and never make the portfolio or > >> get > >>> exhibited to others. > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
