bad photography

[plop1389]

i've recently seen quite a lot of photographists work and most really impress me so I was wondering how hard is it for photography to be bad or in other words what distinguishes really great photoraphers and ones that are just OK?

[noxlumos]

My eldest son Danny is an artist/ photographer currently working as a photo journalist and it's incredibly easy to take a bad photograph. He takes endless shots only a fraction of which are useable if you are talking about striking photos.It's a lot easier now with digital format but in the old days of film it was harder still.

[gammaray]

As a commercial photographer for the past 27 years I would say so. I work in the advertising industry and regularly shoot images that have to be perfect from the clients perspective. It doesn't really matter what my personal opinion of an image is as long as the client, the art director and anyone else with the ability to stop my career dead in the water likes it.

I see a lot of student books from prospective employees and frankly I'm almost always dissapointed. Time was when shooting chrome film was a black art and a skill to be revered. These days it seems that as long as you have access to Photoshop you can shoot any rubbish you like in the first instance. The problem is that digital has killed the necessity to be technically proficient, and for old school like me that dilution of technical skill is a problem.

In fashion photography there seems to be an element of "the Emperors new clothes" where you can get away with pretty much anything unsharp, poorly lit and composed and it's held up as the new black!

Obviously I come at this from one perspective, but you only need to check out student shows to see what I mean. If your checking out photography, have a look at the work of the industrial photographer Walter Nurnberg. There was a man that knew how to use the medium.

[jno]

it's a different world today gammaray and I think we just have to live with that. It's like protesting that cars have killed the art of the blacksmith. I've read a lot about photography and I think most of it is rubbish (the books, I mean, rather than the photographs).

Some photos are clealy brilliant; almost everyone will think so when they first see them (Doisneau's kiss, Man Ray's 'moving' car). And some aesthetic principles do seem to be universal, like the rule of thirds - that a horizon, for instance should fall a third of the way up or down the picture, not across the middle.

But much of it is simply about what you like; a photo of a person may speak to you but not to anyone else. Many people admire the style of Helmut Newton, for instance; I think he stinks. But that's just a personal opinion.

[gary baldy]

Photography is science and art combined.
In my opinion although a small amount of the science is needed if the art bit is good enough then you can forgive a lack of technical competency.
Like any art form if it moves you in some way then its 'good' art isnt it?

I think the test of a good photographer is to give them a cheap �99 camera and see if their photos are any good.

Speaking personally i try to compensate for my lack of technical ability (and expensive kit) by being more thoughtful in my subject matter and i suppose i have a 'hit rate' of one good photo per roll (at most) and one really good photo in 100.

Anyway - saying all that its all subjective isnt it?

PS. noxy - would i have heard of your son - has he got a website you wanna plug? Likewise gamma - be interested to see your work too.

[gammaray]

You are absolutely right RoaldoM. Photographs of bottled water and pizzas don't inspire much passion - except in brand managers and ad people, but then I'm not trying to inspire people or change their lives, that's not my function. I am considered a good photographer because I give the clients what they want. Frankly what my peers in the industry, or people outside the industry think of my images is not really of much interest.

I have to aproach photography as a business because that's how I keep body and soul together. I don't have the luxury of shooting film (or digital) to just see what happens. Although reputation will get me a foot in the door, I am judged ultimately on the images I produce for the client on the day. If it all goes pear shaped a web site full of well excecuted images means nothing to a client looking at reshoots and time delays.

There is room in the industry for everyone work the way that suits them best. To get what they can out of the photography they practice, whether that be aesthetic appreciation of commercial success.

[gammaray]

sorry...That should read 'or' not 'of' in the last line.