Do you need to be a good photographer to take a good photograph?

[Ken Rennie]

2 days ago I was fortunate enough the visit a small tarn in Cumbria. The light was perfect, low raking sunlight illuminating the yellow grasses in the water. Taken about about 30 minutes before sunset with good clouds. The tarn showed good reflections but the slight imperfections in the reflection added something extra. The recent storms had removed the leaves from the birch trees so everything was not perfect.

The questions I would like peoples' thoughts on are:
" Just how difficult is it to take a photograph like this?"
" How much skill does it take a photograph like this?"
" As the title suggests, do you need to be a good photographer to take a good photograph?"

Ken

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Nice image.

Being in the right place at the right time is more than half the work on getting a nice image with reasonable skills. With the kind of imaging available in modern smartphones I believe one can get a very nice with it - for the web anyway.

 

[Ben Egbert]

No question about it, being at the right place at the right time is at least half of it. But in my opinion, that is half of being a good photographer. Knowing where and when to go, where to stand for a good composition, what lens, what shutter speed, what exposure.

This is a beautiful example.

 

[Jeffrey]

My strong opinions are:

It's easy to 'take' a nice picture. Just point your automatic camera at the nice scene and press the button. And then there are true photographers, some of which can be considered artists. There are various terms that we use to describe what we do. I don't simply take pictures. I create compelling images. I don't 'take' anything, what I produce are not 'shots', and if I 'capture' anything it is only one short task performed towards the beginning of the entire process. These concepts that I present here can be elaborated on extensively and have been just that in books, classes, and lectures for a very long time. I'm not going into all that now. To answer just how difficult is it to take a photograph like this? Not difficult at all. None of it. But it certainly requires skills of all sorts. It may be a complex process, and challenging at times. I never thought of it as difficult. As the title asks, my answer is no. However it can require work to 'make' a good photograph. Anyone can take one.

 

[Ken Rennie]

I should have changed the question to " does a good photo photograph have to come from a good photographer?"

 

[JimFox]

What a fun question Ken!

Through the years I have seen various people post an awesome photo (not here) to where I thought that this person must be a really great photographer. But then for years after that these people would post nothing but junk, lots of it looking worse then point and shoot because these people would take a decent photo and ruin it with their post processing.

So my answer is, I think anyone can get lucky once or twice in their life when they stumble upon being in the right place at the right time, and can take a great photo.

The question I have is: can they consistently take great photos? And the answer to that is No.

Without great skills and gifting, one can not “consistently” capture great photos.

Everyone can get lucky once or twice, just like in a lottery.

 

[JimFox]

I should have changed the question to " does a good photo photograph have to come from a good photographer?"

I was typing this while you made this comment, I think my comment still applies even to how you would rephrase the question.

 

[AlanLichty]

I have to agree with Jeffrey - getting a good capture isn't all that hard if you were in the right place at the right time with a good enough camera in hand. Turning that into a great image does take skill and experience with your processing tools.

 

[Kyle Jones]

I think Jim is on to something with consistency. There are some scenes, due to the natural features, light and other conditions for which pretty much anyone could take a stunning photo with their phone. Far fewer of them could turn that stunning photo into a compelling piece of art on the wall and even fewer would be able to consistently produce images of that quality.

This particular scene doesn't seem too challenging - provided the photographer is familiar enough with the area and weather to have been there. That said, as processed this looks very much like a "Ken Rennie" photograph.

 

[Ken Rennie]

I started this thread partly because this was an incredibly easy photograph to take. Not quite put the tripod down and press the button but the composition didn't require much juggling, the dynamic range was fairly easy to handle, processing was minimal or at least minimal for me. To my eyes this image is good, or as good as many images that I have sweated over for ages but and a big but good for me probably produces a continuum of responses from satisfactory to good in others. The other reason is largely covered by many of the responses above. I am a member of a camera club and several of the members manage to consistently produce award winning images and it may be the consistent ability to produce quality images that defines a good photographer. Ken

 

[Ken Rennie]

My strong opinions are:

It's easy to 'take' a nice picture. Just point your automatic camera at the nice scene and press the button. And then there are true photographers, some of which can be considered artists. There are various terms that we use to describe what we do. I don't simply take pictures. I create compelling images. I don't 'take' anything, what I produce are not 'shots', and if I 'capture' anything it is only one short task performed towards the beginning of the entire process. These concepts that I present here can be elaborated on extensively and have been just that in books, classes, and lectures for a very long time. I'm not going into all that now. To answer just how difficult is it to take a photograph like this? Not difficult at all. None of it. But it certainly requires skills of all sorts. It may be a complex process, and challenging at times. I never thought of it as difficult. As the title asks, my answer is no. However it can require work to 'make' a good photograph. Anyone can take one.

Thanks for your reply Jeffrey it may take me a while to fully understand it. Ken

 

[Ben Egbert]

What I notice when I am with Jeffrey, or Amy or Jim Fox is how they work a scene. I watch but I never seem to learn and I have been doing this for 40 years. When I get home and later see their images, they are so different from mine in composition and content. I am not sure it can be learned; it seems to be some innate ability. and all of this is before any considerations of post processing.

While I have never worked alongside Ken Just looking at his work I can see I would have the same issue.

I conclude that I might be technically competent, but lacking in the artistic element.

In fact many of the images I see that I know are highly regarded leave me feeling nothing. In the end, seeing and feeling is a matter of the mind.

 

[Ken Rennie]

Thinking more about this. A good photographer can see images where lesser ones can't. A good photographer explores around their chosen subject to try and line up a complementary foreground and background. A good photographer goes when the light and season is optimal or returns when it is. A WISE photographer only shows their best work. My own thoughts on my best images: right time, right place and don't make a mess of the processing. Ken

 

[Ben Egbert]

Good point about showing too many images. I always seem to be in a situation where I feel the need to post more than quality can support. I have recently started posting less just for that reason.

 

[Jeffrey]

A good photographer knows when it is OK to put the camera back in the bag and NOT make an exposure. I do that half the time.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Good point Jeffrey, but I am not going to make my way to a hard to get to place and not take a picture. I suppose a lot of my images are just record shots. The trick is to get over not getting keepers or show images after a lot of time and effort is involved.

I work hard to make a good image wherever I am, but when that is not possible, I usually take something.

 

[Jim Dockery]

My answer to the rephrased question, "does a good photo photograph have to come from a good photographer?" is no, the quality of a photo isn't determined because a certain person pressed the button. Ansel Adams didn't print every exposure he made and didn't show every print to the public. My wife isn't a dedicated photographer, but on our travels she occasionally captures one of my favorite shots with her iPhone in an area that I
worked long and hard with my real camera and lots of editing back home.

With modern camera/phone technology the computational AI is so good that the technical challenges fall away and with enough clicks even a monkey can capture a good shot or two out of a 1,000 (not comparing my wife here - she is quite the opposite only taking a few snaps). Like others have said though location and timing are key and most monkeys like to sleep through sunrise while a dedicated photographer sets an alarm and reluctantly crawls out of a warm sleeping bag to capture the new day dawning at a location they might have driven thousands of miles and then hiked to. Of course if there aren't any clouds and the sunrise isn't anything special a few documentary snaps may result which will make it into a slide show, but not a print or even posting to a photo group like ours.

Another part of the question is what makes a good photo? For many people that seems to be either including themselves or their friends looking good having a great time. When I hand my phone to people to see recent pix that is often what that they focus on, esp. zooming in on their face to see if they look good (I've learned to delete any that actually make someone look bad). While recently editing photos from a month long trip I find myself smiling and chuckling out loud when I see a good shot that captures the character of my friends and brings back memories of our wonderful days hiking in the desert. I love the best landscapes, but they don't give me the instant smile that my friends do.

Here is an example of my young friend Drew (son of my ski buddy Andy who was also on the trip). Drew was filled with child like energy and wonder on his second trip to the desert. It was fun to watch him explore, climb around, and boom out in his big voice, "This is sooo cool!"

BTW, the original photo is beautiful and looks like it begged to be taken. With modern equipment I wouldn't say that it would take a high level of skill to capture, but your composition is excellent and that certainly took some artistry.

 

[Aaron Macomber]

I’ll revive this thread, definitely some good points have been made. I agree with Jeffrey in that great images are made, not taken. Post-processing ability is definitely important and its a skillset unto itself. As Jim mentioned, many times you will see a photograph that was actually pretty good positively murdered in post. I’ve probably been guilty of that myself in earlier years; I’d like to think I'm past the photocidal phase of my life.. I think it takes a skilled photographer to see the scene and expose it properly so that it can be made into an image that conveys what the eye saw and what the photographer felt when the capture occured. You cant make gold from lead, so if the capture and composition aren’t on point, there's nothing that can be done in post to make it happen, therefore rendering that portion of the party moot. Blown highlights are gone forever as well as underexposed shadows, etc etc..

“You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.”
― Ansel Adams

“You don't take a photograph, you make it.”
― Ansel Adams