View Full Version : how do you know if you're any good?
back alley
05-26-2008, 16:13
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
Gather the opinions of others, who have credibility and criticism that you respect?
oftheherd
05-26-2008, 16:30
What Vickko said, or just your own sense of what is good, no matter what others may think.
Darren Abate
05-26-2008, 16:53
When you show people your work, do their jaws drop at all? Compliments will go from, "That's really nice," to "Wow," and then to some level of speechlessness. ;)
Remember that it's all relative. It can't be measured in compliments, and it can't be measured in money -- I've seen some pretty crappy shooters make a lot of money with their photos. Photography as a business is often about who you know.
No-one can "tell" you if you're good or bad; they can only have their opinions. I suggest you post your work to a forum and open your images up to constructive critique. I think having your work critiqued by experienced shooters is something that all photographers -- young and old -- should do.
Cheers,
Leighgion
05-26-2008, 17:00
You never will.
The approval of the masses, your peers and even wealth resulting from your work doesn't mean you're any good. All you have is your will to existentially confirm yourself through the action of continuing to take photographs until your life is over. :)
Good is subjective..
One person may say you are good while another may say your photos suck.
. . .I get called for a second "date" and she tells me to pack an overnight bag.... oh wait..... hold on.. I should really read the WHOLE post before responding huh.. :D
Smirking,
Dave
kshapero
05-26-2008, 18:01
I'm good first if I feel good about a particular photo. Being good is ever changing. You have to keep shooting. HCB WAS good. Also I like it when others enjoy the photos I like.
bmattock
05-26-2008, 18:08
How do you know if you're not any good?
mackigator
05-26-2008, 18:12
Are you happy? Good makes me happy first.
"you're no good, you're no good, you're no good, baby, you're no good"--Linda Rondstadt
Have you ever heard this song and thought she was singing to you? Could be a sign.
What is this "good" you speak of? ;)
anoldsock
05-26-2008, 19:00
...even if you are good, you should never settle for it. And this is my opinion only, but you should always strive to better than you are because once you get complacent you're no longer as good as you were
Ben Blacket
05-26-2008, 19:12
Generally, peoples direct comments will only be positive. If you have an exhibition & all you get is silence or whispers behind your back, or the "comments" section of your flickr photos is left blank, then you know you're pretty bad! No one will comment "this photo stinks", in fear of receiving similar feedback about their own work!
Great question. Possibly the best so far on RFF, IMO.
On the one hand, one can't know what one doesn't know. On the other hand, "good" is pretty subjective. It's also too easy to get complements here on RFF because most folks are so damn nice. I've read too many glowing complements for mediocre work on internet photo forums. It all depends on the the evaluation scale that is used to judge photography. One should be more positive with a beginner photographer. People willing to part with their money for your photographic work is a pretty good indicator. It's the free market idea.
Who cares whether you are good or not. Maybe whether you are willing to learn is more important?
Like Fred-San said, you just don't know... but you can believe to what anyone say.. or not!
Now, are you happy with the level you achieve (this is important too) because it affects how you pursue your vision depending of others opinion.. or not!
If you are happy, it means you got something, keep on, if you are not happy, try harder or change completely and find another path, but keep on trying, don't give up on you.
This thought brought me to think (oh boy you made me do it), how the Photography could be so subjective.
If one presents his/her portfolio do critics most of the time does not get any attention. Critics "see" so many portfolios that the "nices" aren't good enough.. for them, they are searching for something different (whatever that means), and different depends on how he/she (the critic) woke up that morning or what some magazine publish on what is trending (or not...).
For normal people that don't do art or photo has their inner Self the portfolio could be fantastic just because looks good for them. They can even buy them for thousands!
So, who you going to believe? And further than that, what is "Good"?
I'm exhausted! To much brain activity at 5 am!!
back alley
05-26-2008, 20:14
Generally, peoples direct comments will only be positive. If you have an exhibition & all you get is silence or whispers behind your back, or the "comments" section of your flickr photos is left blank, then you know you're pretty bad! No one will comment "this photo stinks", in fear of receiving similar feedback about their own work!
it's all those blanks in the comment section that got me wondering...
Leighgion
05-26-2008, 20:25
Or not... :cool:
You can always take up hairdressing.
That's merely the exchange of one form of existential ennui for another. Photographic angst is displaced by the ambivalence of barbary. :D
it's all those blanks in the comment section that got me wondering...
ok! now you make me worried! Seriously!:bang:
I didn't need that today!:(
But that is nor your fault... is mine!:mad:
I think it depends on how well you please your intended audience, and I am my own audience - although I'm happy to show my photos to others and I'm pleased when people like them, I really only shoot for myself. And so far, I'd rate myself as good enough to please myself with a sufficient proportion of my shots to make it enjoyable for me to continue.
But I also compare my stuff with other people's, and there are many people out there whose work pleases me more than mine does, so by my measure they're better than I am (and likewise there are people whose work pleases me less than my own does), and that gives me inspiration to try to get better.
back alley
05-26-2008, 20:37
ok! now you make me worried! Seriously!:bang:
I didn't need that today!:(
But that is nor your fault... is mine!:mad:
sorry, my friend!
i did not want anyone to fret, my goal was to see how other amateurs determine if they are any good and how they do that.
i have sold photos. i have worked as a wedding photographer. i had a small studio where i did family portraits and nudes. i have a (very small) following locally that like my street stuff.
yet, i still wonder...
sorry, my friend!
i did not want anyone to fret, my goal was to see how other amateurs determine if they are any good and how they do that.
i have sold photos. i have worked as a wedding photographer. i had a small studio where i did family portraits and nudes. i have a (very small) following locally that like my street stuff.
yet, i still wonder...
No harm done my friend!:)
It is a very deep question and I like you did it.
Born in a family of professional photographers (both parents) I learn that unless you are good enough for the market (not the critics ok) you don't get food on the table.
I have work professionally for almost two decades, so I'm used to critics. I may have some worth then.. that does mean I'm good or that I have any value today... I don't and I keep trying but I'm not in the market either, fortunately!
Is just the size of the blanks that gives the reality! :confused: got to live with it and... keep on trying not to get worst ! :)
I compare myself to the masters. I may never be as good as that or find my own voice as persuasive, but what else should one strive for?
I think it depends on how well you please your intended audience, and I am my own audience - although I'm happy to show my photos to others and I'm pleased when people like them, I really only shoot for myself. And so far, I'd rate myself as good enough to please myself with a sufficient proportion of my shots to make it enjoyable for me to continue.
But I also compare my stuff with other people's, and there are many people out there whose work pleases me more than mine does, so by my measure they're better than I am (and likewise there are people whose work pleases me less than my own does), and that gives me inspiration to try to get better.
Ditto... only shoot for myself, but of course it's nice when others admire/appreciate the photos.
btw ... I don't think I'm good enough... (not being self deprecating here). What keeps me shooting though are those rare times when you just "get it". Few and far between, but the one or two photos where I feel I "got it" makes the experience well worth it...
jan normandale
05-26-2008, 22:06
Helmut Newton was a very good commercial / professional photographer who specialized in product.. most people figure only his erotic stuff was "good"
It all depends on what you like or don't. I've seen people like Newton who were in demand because they were good, yet that wasn't what their own interests were. Fortunately Newton was talented in both endeavours.
Michael Jordan was in love with baseball.. he was mediocre as a baseball player but was one of history's best basketball players.
Can't always please everyone so take some time to please yourself even if you are not good at what pleases you.
The blanks are worrisome! I think "not good" = boring. Photos are boring when they trigger no response, say nothing to the viewer, or say something trite or trivial. Subjective and variable of course. I think you're "good" when you can use the visual language effectively to communicate something to the viewer; evoke some personal insight, even if the "message" is different for different viewers.
Joe, good question; I struggle and wonder... Sometimes looking at photos I think I see something of value, but often I'm not sure. Boring is easier to spot, but even then I may wonder if I'm just missing the message.
upload your works on Flickr, without friends, without tags, without groups, You just wait for the real feedback...
The founder of a company I used to work for, when asked the secret of his success, said:
Employ good people
Put them in front of the customer
Ask for the money
I would like to adapt this to the purpose of the thread.
Take good photos
Display them to people
Ask for the money
Regards,
Bill
Agreed, a good question and a lot of interesting replies. I often wonder about that and how I can get better.
I have learned a lot since joining RFF because when I see a photo in the gallery that I wish I had taken it forces me to think about what it is I like about it. Similarly I post photos I like and when I get comments I look at the gallery and web site of the person commenting to get a sense of what I like about their work, it puts things in perspective.
At the moment getting better is taking the form of playing and experimenting with the photographic tools, formats and genres.
You know you're good when people start imitating your published work.
You know you're really good when they don't credit you as an inspiration anymore.
You know you're fantastic when you finally start copying others' good work.
You know you're a genius when you finally start copying others' very good work and don't credit them as an inspiration anymore.
kalokeri
05-27-2008, 02:30
how do you know if you're any good?
ī
Good question. Interesting answers and thoughts so far.
My very own thought as someone who takes pictures for just for fun: I am good if I am content with the picture and others do like it as well. The problem is Iīm not content that easy. That forces me to go on, try it again, get a better result. Others maybe pleased or just polite - thatīs difficult to say.
As semrich pointed out the gallery and flickr are great inspirations. Iīve learned a lot the last 2 years of regulary visiting rff. Thanks to all of you. You showed me the path Iīm learning to go - or as Keith put it: learning daily.
Thomas
bmattock
05-27-2008, 02:37
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
I, personally, don't know.
I also do not know if I am good at breathing, pumping blood, walking, tying my shoes, shaving, or a whole raft of things that I don't measure, I just do. Photography is something I do.
I will admit that I have fretted on occasion when a photograph I am particularly pleased with attracts no notice, while one I hardly felt worth the effort to make public garners praise; but I don't bother with that anymore. Certainly, I am happy if someone likes my photographs, and I do want them to be seen, or I would not put them online. But there is nothing anyone can say about them that imparts any measure of goodness on them - or me.
Imagine the most successful photographer in the world - he or she will always have their critics, those who dislike their work, who think they 'made it' through happenstance or by being outlandish or by 'knowing someone' and what does that mean? Does it make their photos any more or less good?
Outsider art and rustic art are often prized when discovered, but are they up to any technical standard of excellence, are they good?
I will leave the value judgments of my work to others - after all, it is only the viewer who can have an opinion about the goodness or badness of a particular photograph, and their opinion cannot be wrong; it is their opinion.
I have often stated that 99% of all photographs are crap, and mine among them. I mean that - in my opinion as a viewer. That does not make the photographer good or bad, or his or her photographs good or bad. It is simply a value judgment that applies only to my opinion - which exists between my ears only. I don't think that highly of Ansel Adams' work. Technically of a very high quality, his photographs of various mountains seem to me to be boring and sterile, joyless. That's *my* opinion - the rest of the world thinks he is nifty keen.
So I don't reject the concept of 'good', I just don't know that it applies to me or my photographs. I yam what I yam (says Popeye the Sailor man) and I make photographs because that is what I do. Good? Bad? Relative to what?
M. Valdemar
05-27-2008, 02:49
I'm different and I don't
care who knows it
Somethin' about me
It's not the same, yeah
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play no goddamn game
Got a different way a walkin'
I got a different kind of smile
I got a different way a talkin'
Drives the women kind of wild
(Kind of wild)
(He's different)
And I don't care who knows it
(Somethin' about him)
It's not the same
(He's different)
And that's how it goes
(And he's not gonna play
your gosh darn game)
I ain't sayin' I'm better than you are
But maybe I am
I only know that when I look in the mirror
I like the man
(We like the man)
I'm different and I don't
care who knows it
Somethin' about me
Not the same
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play your goddamn game
When I walk down the street in the mornin'
Blue birds are singin' in
the tall oak tree
They sing a little song for the people
And they sing a little song for me
(He's different and he
don't care who knows it
Somethin' about him
Not the same
He's different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play your gosh darn game)
I'm different and I don't
care who knows it
Somethin' about me
Not the same
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play no boss man's game
RANDY NEWMAN
If there is no objective criteria of good or bad photography, then it follows that some people will love it, come will think it is crap, and others could care less. All you have to do is search out those who love the crap you shoot and avoid those who could care less, and you can be another Gary Winogrand. :)
This sums it up nicely! Find people who might like your stuff and tell them you are good.
Think of Eggleston's one man show at MoMA; Ansel Adams personally called the curator to ask what the hell they were thinking! Eggleston is the bees knees to some and not others. Same with Adams. The list is endless- even with people who are in museums.
You will never be good to everyone, but who cares about everyone?
I know this one, it's a easy one, man!
You are good when no one screams loud and runs away in front of your pictures.
:)
R.
telenous
05-27-2008, 06:15
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
This is somehow two questions packed in one. The first is "When do you think you are good?", the second "Are you good if others think that you are?".
The reference for the first is whatever goals you (generic 'you') set for yourself. If photographic goodness consists (for you) in sitting on piles of money made from your photography then you are good if you are sitting on piles of money made from your photography. If it's to have your photos in galleries and the art establishment praising you then you are good if you have your photos in galleries and the art establishment praising you. If it's all of the above plus women throwing themselves at your feet then you are good when that happens. And so on.
The problem with the above is that it's a little too subjective. You can claim goodness even if your stuff is crap for others by setting impossibly low standards. (Conversely, an amusing alternative is to justify your photography, no matter how bad it is, by claiming that you have impossibly high standards, and that failure to meet them is only natural after all).
The second question is more complex because 'the others' are not a unified, single entity with a uniform opinion. In fact, whatever you do, some people will like it (e.g. your mam) and some will be bored stiff. The ratio could be important though. Lets pretend though that the group that matters is that of your peers, other photographers of similar photographic persuasion. Well, then you 're good when there's consensus in their rapturous response, admiration, enthusiasm, or even jealousy-induced-hate. The greater the number of admirers the better. If they are voluntarily expressing their admiration again all the better (so the best time to get a sincere response is after you are dead, because then you are not useful to anyone. Unfortunately it is also a bit late to be of any use to you too).
The problem with this is that it is far too detached from how you think about your work - others may hate what you do all the while you are perfectly happy with it. And who's to say the others are right and you are not?
So, there are two outcomes from four combinations:
(1) You think you stink, and others think you stink too -> you stink
(2)You think you 're good, but others think you stink -> result depends on what you place more importance to
(3) You think you stink, but others think you are good -> as above, but it will feel better if you let others persuade you
(4)You think you 're good, and others think so too -> You made it. You are good (there's none left to disagree with it).
:D
literiter
05-27-2008, 06:23
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
Maybe you just have to believe in your own stuff. Use your own council.
Many times Ive seen others work; photos, paintings, writing etc. and have been completely put off, only to find the work has either been critically acclaimed or sells like crazy.
The big thing I think is to be pleased with your own work and be prepared (and this is the hard one) to have it adored by someone else. Sometimes we prepare so hard for the time someone really dumps on our creation that we are completely unprepared when someone really likes it.
When you receive too many cheezy comments, you know it's a sign your pics are bad.
When no one comments, you know they are extra bad.
How to know if you're good? I have no idea. Usually it's obvious... IMO.
I you like your picture, you are good.
I visited long time ago the "Art brut Museum" in Lausanne, Switzerland. This is all about mentally disabled people that basically had no teachings on art and probably no perception of what others thought about their work. Some were amazing, while most were weird and not to my taste. But none were done to be displayed in the first place and for me to judge it they were good or not.
pesphoto
05-27-2008, 06:36
When you receive too many cheezy comments, you know it's a sign your pics are bad.
When no one comments, you know they are extra bad.
How to know if you're good? I have no idea. Usually it's obvious... IMO.
Just because someone says they like your composition or that they like the light it means your pics arte bad? hmmm.....:bang:
M. Valdemar
05-27-2008, 06:37
I used to be a magazine editor and publisher.
When I look at something that stinks, I say "it stinks", and you can count on it.
If you feel otherwise, you're delusional, which is more common than you would imagine.
You can' t please everyone, so be sure to at least please yourself. Do what you do, the way you do it, to the best of your ability, and keep striving to learn and improve. If others like your pics, that's gravy.
You know you're good when you can tell by looking at a picture which lens it was taken with!
ClaremontPhoto
05-27-2008, 06:49
Be happy with your own work yourself first. This is paramount.
Listening to others can be too confusing.
One member here once told me "You have no artistic value, give it up".
Another member has sent me PMs praising my photos.
Whom should I believe?
(ok, I believe the PMs).
I agree completely with Pitxu.
BillBingham2
05-27-2008, 07:02
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
I look at two measures.
The first is internal, am I happy with the image. Did it convey or capture what I wanted it to with all the qualities I imagined when I pressed the shutter release? If so, then I'm good, for that frame.
The second is external. When I show a picture(s) to someone do they ask to see more. If so, then I'm good enough for them.
At the end of the day as long as I have one or the other I'm a happy camper. Both and it's a great day.
B2 (;->
Just because someone says they like your composition or that they like the light it means your pics arte bad? hmmm.....:bang:
Not necessarily. But when someone says "Nicely seen", you bet it's cheezy and they just want to be your friend so you can reply something cheezy to them, too. ;)
nikon_sam
05-27-2008, 07:15
When your own kids ask for a print of some photo you took...
back alley
05-27-2008, 13:49
some very interesting thoughts, many thanks.
as for me, well, i don't really have a well defined response. there are days i think that i'm pretty good and days when i think i should just sell it all and find a new way to spend money and time.
i have to admit that i'd love a few more 'wow' moments from others and even from myself. i'd like to be able to see what others see when they praise a photo that i think is poor and to stop wondering why when i love a shot and no one makes a comment.
but then, there are 'famous' photogs that i don't like at all...and some shooters here at rff that i just love.
there are days ... i think i should just sell it all and find a new way to spend money and time.
On these days I usually ask one of my dogs. They love my photos - and everything is well again :)
Cheers,
Roland.
Not necessarily. But when someone says "Nicely seen", you bet it's cheezy and they just want to be your friend so you can reply something cheezy to them, too. ;)
That's a really good response. I like the way you put it.
jan normandale
05-27-2008, 15:18
Nothin's good anymore anyway, so don't worry about it. Have a coffee, keep shooting.
It's only photography.
Imagine if it was building bridges.. now that's serious.
jan normandale
05-27-2008, 15:29
The one thing I hate about you is your complete lack of conviction.
I was going to comment on that one, glad you did it for me ;D j/k
charjohncarter
05-27-2008, 16:01
I read a study once (ten years ago) that had concluded that people that think they are competent are the least competent. AND the ones that were actually competent, never thought that they had done their task as well as the could/should. So, I guess, (and having employed many people in my life), I agree with this study. You can relate that to your photography; if you like.
FallisPhoto
05-27-2008, 17:03
You can' t please everyone, so be sure to at least please yourself. Do what you do, the way you do it, to the best of your ability, and keep striving to learn and improve. If others like your pics, that's gravy.
By the number of competitions you win?
Pretty subjective subject but as others have alluded, I like to think that if you're mostly dissatisfied and ruthless there's a good chance you're stuff will be occasionally good rather than always boring.
antiquark
05-27-2008, 17:24
Yeah, I'd agree with some of the other posters, if you're happy with your own pictures, and you like looking at them, then that's all that matters.
usagisakana
05-27-2008, 18:26
How do you know if you're not any good?
by being continually displeased with your work.
dazedgonebye
05-27-2008, 19:18
If you think you're good, you're good.
Just do yourself a favor and don't go showing your work to any ignorant savages that might disagree.
grahmjordan
05-27-2008, 19:54
"How do you know if you're any good?"
If you have any passion in you for what is you do, any desire that can not be quenched, so much invested that you deeply care - then I would allow myself the embrace the thought of knowing "I'm good." Now To Be Known is something quite different.
Unfortunately, we can and have created a measuring stick for everything and we carry it in our pocket everywhere we go. We not only use this tangible, narrow, generalizing, incognizant stick for our own work/expressions but we wave it around measuring every one's work around us too. Looking at some of the deeper currents and things in life I doubt you will find, as much as we want to, a means for measuring let alone a value for rating and doing so only hurts the experience.
Try, try your ass off, pause to care, and don't stop there.
...there are days i think that i'm pretty good and days when i think i should just sell it all and find a new way to spend money and time...
I noticed that you do not get very close to your street subjects unless you "know" them and this may contribute to your feeling that your pictures aren't consistently good enough.
Even though your rf cameras are small they still have to be operated with two hands and you do end up looking more serious than your typical tourist as a result of using these tools all the time.
Perhaps a smaller automatic high-end p&s film camera, one that you could hide hanging under a jacket when not being used and operate with one hand only, might help you to get closer to your subjects and photograph them more quickly.
When I use my Minilux on the streets I find that I can easily get much closer and snap off much quicker shots of people. After a series of silent snaps I just let the Minilux fall out of my hand and it elegantly swings down under my jacket out of sight.
Do you own one of these high-quality compact film cameras yet, such as a Leica Minilux/CM, Contax T2/T3 or Nikon 23Ti/35Ti? These tiny 135mm film cameras with their fantastic small lenses can do wonders for your psyche on those particular days when you're not feeling so bold.
kalokeri
05-28-2008, 06:59
there are ... days when i think i should just sell it all and find a new way to spend money and time.
If running around and taking picture is a passion there is no need to give it up. If you think you should have done it better, try again (and again). As long as you donīt have to make your living with photography itīs all up to you in first place.
Dreaming about being the admired photog ? Forget it, just look a flickr and realise how many pictures you like have no comment at all. Some people have found their special way of seeing the world, got the attention of others - you will know some of them. I have no problem to admit that I like their work far more than my own, but they are also an inspiration.
Donīt give up.
Thomas
pesphoto
05-28-2008, 07:08
I used to care a lot less about what poeple thought before i discovered the internet and forums and such and started posting my images all over. Actually enjoyed just doing it for myself. Once again...too much time online.....
No - that is not always good measure, some of the greatest artists have been constantly displeased, and worse.
Yeah but do not forget that the greatest artists we're displeased because they knew they could do better and they knew they we're good.
Usually, when you're good, you know it.
Trawlerman
05-28-2008, 07:29
I've gotten to the stage where I shoot for myself alone.
Of course I appreciate constructive comments and always try to take them on board. I do as much reading up as I can and always try to learn as much about the fundementals of an area. Overall though, as long as i'm happy with the shots that's all that matters.
The biggest area that I work in photographically speaking is in photographing ships. In my local area there are a few of us who do this and whilst we don't compete with each other I always like to see what others are doing. Personally I like to produce something a little different to what others are doing and perhaps add my signature look to these images.
I also like to work alone and then discuss my output with others at a later stage. I've found that whilst out shooting with the local Flickr group or it's members they cramp my style and I feel pressured to come up with the goods.
John Rountree
05-28-2008, 08:45
Frankl.y, I think you have to trust yourself. You have to trust yourself to set goals that are high enough to be good. You have to trust yourself to honestly critique your own work. You have to trust yourself when you have a postiive or negative reaction to to your own work. Now, it is exceedingly nice to have your own feelings corroberated by someone else. But, in the end, it is your personal experssion and you must be happy with it. As others have pointed out, even photographers with large reputations for good work can not appeal to everyone. But the biggest reason to trust yourself is because if you are are really making art, it just might be that you are ahead of everyone's curve. It may take a little time for your critics to reach the same level where you are operating. Usually, if something is really new it takes time for people to really understand and appreciate what they are seeing. So, you must be honest with yourself and trust your own instincts and feelings.
Jason808
05-28-2008, 13:29
John I agree - though I do a combination of that and feedback from others. Really, my best critic is my wife. She's pretty honest with me because she wants me to succeed photographically. If she likes it, she says why. If doesn't like it or it does nothing for her, she says so too.
Man, is that loaded with double entendre... :)
Steve Bellayr
05-28-2008, 16:33
how do you know if you're any good?
After you are dead a couple of decades your negatives are found and there is a retrospective of your work at a renowned museum with a high gloss book issued. (Which means if you shot all your work in digital you better hope that flickr is still up.) The living are only well paid.
M. Valdemar
05-28-2008, 17:01
Just watch "American Idol" early in the season.
You'll see dozens and dozens of people who fervently believe they are "good".
It's absolutely painfully obvious to anyone watching (go on, you don't have to claim you've never seen it), who is good and who is bad.
The people who believe they are good are bitterly angry when rejected. They still feel they are good and everyone else is wrong. They are "misunderstood", or have some self-proclaimed "special talent" or "vision" that they are aware of, but everyone else is not.
You can extrapolate that to about 99.99% of those who have expensive camera equipment. websites, Flickr pages, galleries, participate in online forums, etc., and believe that they are talented.
They are "making themselves happy", but feel their talent is unrecognized by the ignorant masses.
Frankl.y, I think you have to trust yourself. You have to trust yourself to set goals that are high enough to be good. You have to trust yourself to honestly critique your own work. You have to trust yourself when you have a postiive or negative reaction to to your own work. Now, it is exceedingly nice to have your own feelings corroberated by someone else. But, in the end, it is your personal experssion and you must be happy with it. As others have pointed out, even photographers with large reputations for good work can not appeal to everyone. But the biggest reason to trust yourself is because if you are are really making art, it just might be that you are ahead of everyone's curve. It may take a little time for your critics to reach the same level where you are operating. Usually, if something is really new it takes time for people to really understand and appreciate what they are seeing. So, you must be honest with yourself and trust your own instincts and feelings.
[QUOTE=M. Valdemar;826957]Just watch "American Idol" early in the season.
You'll see dozens and dozens of people who fervently believe they are "good".
It's absolutely painfully obvious to anyone watching (go on, you don't have to claim you've never seen it), who is good and who is bad.
The people who believe they are good are bitterly angry when rejected. They still feel they are good and everyone else is wrong. They are "misunderstood", or have some self-proclaimed "special talent" or "vision" that they are aware of, but everyone else is not.
You can extrapolate that to about 99.99% of those who have expensive camera equipment. websites, Flickr pages, galleries, participate in online forums, etc., and believe that they are talented.
They are "making themselves happy", but feel their talent is unrecognized by the ignorant masses.
So, just what are you trying to tell me? ;)
jan normandale
05-28-2008, 20:19
So, just what are you trying to tell me? ;)
Frank, read carefully. He's telling you to watch more American Idol... sheesh does it have to be spelled out for you? j/k
hlockwood
06-06-2008, 10:27
how do you know if you're any good? photographically speaking...
I know I'm not good enough because I almost always see, from the print or screen, that the shot could have been better. Composition is the typical problem. But I keep trying.
Maybe if I had an M8 I'd get more keepers. :D
Harry
Pherdinand
06-06-2008, 10:44
well,many of us don't know if we are any good, and still, we are brave enough to think we can make big bucks of our art:)
hint,hint.
photophorous
06-06-2008, 13:46
The only way to "know" you are good is to define the criteria for what is good and then meet that criteria. There is no definition that we can all agree on, so from that standpoint the answer to your question is, "you will never know." But if you decide what being "good" means to you, then you have a chance. Otherwise it's just a popularity contest, and judging by the musicians who make it to the top 40, popularity doesn't necessarily equal talent.
At this point in my photographic journey, I feel like I am still a student. I may make a photo once in a while that I really like, but even then I can always point out errors. I put a lot of photos on flickr because I use it as a kind of visual blog to keep my friends and family involved in what's going on with my life. Sometimes that is serious photography and other times it's just documentation. I take the few comments I get as encouragement to continue, so in that since I love getting them. As long as I feel like I'm improving, I'm happy. I'll worry about being good later.
Paul
M. Valdemar
06-06-2008, 14:23
Anyone wishing to know if they are good photographers or not may post three of what they consider to be good photos of theirs in this thread.
I will then tell them, so there is no further question, whether they are good or whether they would be better off taking up bingo or golf.
You can then sleep nights.
Anyone wishing to know if they are good photographers or not may post three of what they consider to be good photos of theirs in this thread.
I will then tell them, so there is no further question, whether they are good or whether they would be better off taking up bingo or golf.
You can then sleep nights.
Okay, I'll bite. I'd be interested in your opinion, since we seem to have such a conflicted on-line relationship.
i don't think i'm any good, but i have two of my photos in the window of my frame shop and people always stop to look at them.
i've sold a few of them, but i wonder if it was because i price them cheaply to get rid of leftover moulding or if they really like the images. i have a hard time believing anyone would want to pay for a picture they can take on their own.
i would have never put them out there, but my wife insisted i try it. i'm glad she did, the last one i sold paid for half of my new m6!
bob
back alley
06-06-2008, 14:49
i figure that i should be good by now...and some days i think that i am.
brave move frank, i'm curious to find out if you're any good...;)
Good shots Frank!
I'd like to play but I'd prefer a serious judge.
Thanks Ned.
M.V. has told us that he was once a magazine editor. I don't know if it was as a photo editor, or for which magazine, but he may have an informed opinion. Please, post away, Ned and everyone. Let's take up his offer. I'm hoping M.V. will also post 3 of his own favourites. Somehow it's easier to accept criticism from a photographer who's own work you respect.
M. Valdemar
06-06-2008, 16:04
Technically, your photos are adequate, but I don't see anything groundbreaking or really original that would advance the consciousness of the hive mind.
I sense the photos are meaningful for you, but would not be outstanding in any important way for future generations. I don't think you could commercially support yourself with photography.
I would describe my own work about the same way. I have taken commercial photographs that have paid well, and I can shoot pictures to satisfy a client. I take photos for my personal use that are meaningful for me and are technically extremely competent, but I don't think I have made any photographs that would be appreciated by future museum curators as anything "important", except maybe as historical ephemera with certain landmarks or people in them. I'm not that good.
Thanks Ned.
M.V. has told us that he was once a magazine editor. I don't know if it was as a photo editor, or for which magazine, but he may have an informed opinion. Please, post away, Ned and everyone. Let's take up his offer. I'm hoping M.V. will also post 3 of his own favourites. Somehow it's easier to accept criticism from a photographer who's own work you respect.
I feel that I am can take good photos. Does this make me a "good photographer?"
M. Valdemar
06-06-2008, 16:14
The photos you recently posted of your trip were technically competent as documentary travel photographs that would be taken by a typical tourist.
They were interesting because of the location and context. As far as visual perspective and images that provided unique insight, they were not there.
They were tourist/snaps done by a hobbyist, albeit ones that a typical traveler might not have access to due to not being able to "blend in".
They were meaningful to you, and if you presented all your photos to a editor interested in an illustrative story about the region, he may have picked one or two, such as the restaurant shot.
You get most of your pleasure from using interesting old lenses and cameras and participating in forums. If you did not have this interest (which is fine by me, I don't knock it), you could get the same results with a point and shoot camera.
I feel that I am can take good photos. Does this make me a "good photographer?"
Thanks for taking the time to respond M.V. Still want to see some of yours that you like.
As far as commercial success, that isn't done with groundbreaking or original work that would advance the consciousness of the collective mind, only galleries would be looking for that (and only if they could make a buck off it). Can you imagine presenting wedding or family photos created by pressing 2 wet negatives together, emulsion to emulsion so that the 2 images are blended into each other creating an interesting but non-representational composite image?
Commercial success aside (and I have some), the different aspects of photography amuse and satisfy me. If no one liked what I do, I'd still do it, and wouldn't change a thing.
But why do you post here with what seems to me, anger and derision? Why the condescending attitude? We're just a bunch of folks doing what we do and use this forum to talk about it. Again, I wonder what your issue is?
M. Valdemar
06-06-2008, 16:41
I'm not posting with derision at all. Seriously.
I'm giving an opinion only when asked. I don't wildly criticize when not asked.
In the long run, I think it's kinder to tell someone the truth when they have aspirations that their talent doesn't merit. There's nothing wrong with hobbyists enjoying discussion and using equipment that they like.
I've also helped, published and encouraged those who do have talent, and I have been right on the money. I recognized talent in teenagers and people in their 20's who are in their 50's now and world famous.
What does annoy me is people who are not realistic about their abilities or lack of it. That doesn't make them un-talented. There are people, for example, who have websites which provide interesting and informative analysis of the technical aspects of Leica cameras and lenses, but who take the most godawful photos on earth. They can make even the most gorgeous Nordic women look uniformly hideous, for example.
This annoys me.
Ah, I've visited that site, once, long ago, briefly.
"In the long run, I think it's kinder to tell someone the truth when they have aspirations that their talent doesn't merit. "
Or is it, more accurartely, your opinion?
Silva Lining
06-06-2008, 17:02
Some of my photos I think are 'good' leave little impression on others, whereas often the converse is found, i.e. technically flawed photos to my eye are classed as good or great by those who are looking at the picture not the photograph.
I'm not a poor photographer, I take pictures that please myself and often others, however, I am never fully satisfied and even if others were to class me as good, i know I can get a lot better.....and that I am not yet good enough...
M. Valdemar
06-06-2008, 17:16
OK, let's change the definition of "good".
Your ten best photos are pleasant and competent. I guess you would call them "good".
When I say "good", I mean "great", as in something that stops you in your tracks, redefines the visual language of the art, or sears a photo into the memory.
I'm very critical about what is "great" or not. I don't see too much "great" ever.
I see "good" hobbyist or "good" derivative photos taken by those enamored of gear quite bit. I also see a lot of "poor" photographs that the "photographer" is proud of and feels they are "great".
Mr. M. Valdemar,
Only God is Great.
We are just humans. Maybe you are super human? Maybe not.
M. Valdemar
06-06-2008, 19:24
Well, if you believe in God, then he put me here and he put everyone's photos here, and I'm only doing what God put me here for. If it's God's will I can't help but do what I'm doing, right?
On the other hand, doesn't God reveal himself through greatness in art by humans?
In any case, I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion. We are talking about what constitutes a "great" photograph.
I think there is such a thing as a quantifiable classification of what is a good and bad photograph.
If I am running a dog magazine, I can hire a photographer who will always bring back a good, clear, competent photo of a dog if I send him to photograph one. He may not be artistic or visionary, but I can rely on him to always come back with a usable dog photo. If I am running a celebrity magazine, I hire a photographer who will stalk Britney Spears and come back with a printable photo. He need not be a genius, the photo need not be "great".
If I was the curator of a photography museum, my expectations would be higher, my criteria far more stringent.
The question was asked by the OP and I'm answering it. Unfortunately, I'm going to offend a lot of people because they will be told things they may not want to hear. I would also answer as honestly if I saw a "great" photograph. Editors are hated when they send rejection letters. I've been cursed many times when someone has brought me a portfolio, and I have to politely tell them we cannot use their material. Editors are paid for their judgement. The internet has allowed the masses to publish, sans editors.
There are many people who worship and buy "legendary" cameras and lenses, and therefore by association feel that they too will now be "legendary" photographers with a body of work to match. They can come together via internet into mutual admiration societies, however, this does not alter reality.
.
Do I understand you compare yourslef to God?
And I'm curious: You talk about people thinking they are or will be legendary photographers because they use Leica. I haven't even remotely seen this. You are disgusted by so many things that don't even exist.
I honestly think you are merely projecting and miroring yourself, here.
Oh, and don't go thinking I am offended. Anyone who, after looking a picture of a baby, replies that his baby is better looking is, to me, very close to being severely mentally ill... which brings back and explains the self-comparison to God.
When you get to the point that you stop trying to take "good" pictures, and just take pictures.
I used to fret on this. MOF in so much I one day deleted my whole Uber page. Comparing my photos to other peoples work can get discouraging. Best to enjoy what you are doing and not worry about it. We are all human & we certainly are not going to please everybody. I got a request a couple of months back if a person could use a photo in a N.C. travel guide I said sure. I wasn't real overwhelmed over the photo but apparently they were, because a few days later a SE SE with a release form came in my mailbox for me to sign. I know this is small & it certainly doesn't mean my work is any good but it pleased me & thats most important.
There are many people who worship and buy "legendary" cameras and lenses, and therefore by association feel that they too will now be "legendary" photographers with a body of work to match. They can come together via internet into mutual admiration societies, however, this does not alter reality.
That's pretty much what these sites are all about - gear, snaps & mutual respect.
M. V. You have only recently popped up on my "RRF" Radar although you appear to be a fairly prolific poster with over 800 contributions. I don't trawl through that many Threads, that's probably why I've never really picked up on your input before.
Gear for me is a "no-no", a complete turn-off while for others its the main event, or at least a large part of their reason to be here. I personally enjoy the philosophical and image centred strands.
I don't think I am any "good" as a photographer if comparison with "the best" is the yardstick to be used. I haven't sold a photograph for about 30 years - mind you I haven't tried to! I do know that as far as the people I care about are concerned I do take good photographs, which is good enough, and I'm sure you would support this approach as I'm not attempting to rise above my station and have no great ambitions to become the next <insert name here>.
So why do you come to RFF?
For some reason people arent always who they claim to be on the internett.:)
Are you not a king of a castle? :D:rolleyes:
bottley1
06-07-2008, 01:08
Someone once asked the great Charles Dickens why he was such a prodigious writer, and he said that he wrote till HE was happy with what he had written, not what he thought others would be happy with. My experience of the amateur photog scene over a 40 year span is that most take pictures with an eye of impressing fellow photogs, judges, friends, etc. Also most photogs seem incapable of critically assessing their own work, and/or being objective/fair/honest about others work.
M. Valdemar
06-07-2008, 03:13
OK, then since we are in a populist mode here, EVERYBODY who thinks their photographs are good is good. There is no standard. The self or plebeian approval of one's work is sufficient.
EVERYONE's photos are good. Post away.
NO Valdy, the OP asked "how do you know if you're any good?"
Nothing to do with "greatness" or getting into MOMA or the history books.
You're completely out of your tree here.
M. Valdemar
06-07-2008, 03:16
I'm a 17 year old transsexual boy who supports himself by shoplifting and prostitution. All my posts are made at the public library.
You have discovered my dark secret.
Wouldnt that be like asking a stranger on the street if your photos is good or not?
For all I know you are a 16 y.o boy that works the french fries at McDonalds...;) For some reason people arent always who they claim to be on the internett.:)
M. Valdemar
06-07-2008, 03:25
I like to read about gear, camera collecting, and technical minutiae. I originally found the site while researching cameras that I own.
I think a few years ago this site was filled with extremely knowledgeable posters with esoteric information to discuss. That has dropped off quite a bit.
There are now more dilettantes and hobbyists, as well as "camera as jewelry and self-image booster" types, which is fine for casual hobbyists, but doesn't interest me too much. Questions about "which $400 camera bag should I buy" or "what is your favorite f-stop" don't interest me.
This forum is still far better than those such as POTN and Dpreview, which are basically for ignoramuses born yesterday.
As far as appreciation of images and good photography, this site aspires to that, but so far the inroads have been slight. There are some very good photographers here, but they are a small minority.
There are a great many technically competent but very average image makers here.
That's pretty much what these sites are all about - gear, snaps & mutual respect.
M. V. You have only recently popped up on my "RRF" Radar although you appear to be a fairly prolific poster with over 800 contributions. I don't trawl through that many Threads, that's probably why I've never really picked up on your input before.
Gear for me is a "no-no", a complete turn-off while for others its the main event, or at least a large part of their reason to be here. I personally enjoy the philosophical and image centred strands.
I don't think I am any "good" as a photographer if comparison with "the best" is the yardstick to be used. I haven't sold a photograph for about 30 years - mind you I haven't tried to! I do know that as far as the people I care about are concerned I do take good photographs, which is good enough, and I'm sure you would support this approach as I'm not attempting to rise above my station and have no great ambitions to become the next <insert name here>.
So why do you come to RFF?
hlockwood
06-07-2008, 04:38
OK, let's change the definition of "good".
Your ten best photos are pleasant and competent. I guess you would call them "good".
When I say "good", I mean "great", as in something that stops you in your tracks, redefines the visual language of the art, or sears a photo into the memory.
I'm very critical about what is "great" or not. I don't see too much "great" ever.
I see "good" hobbyist or "good" derivative photos taken by those enamored of gear quite bit. I also see a lot of "poor" photographs that the "photographer" is proud of and feels they are "great".
Oh, damn! I was going to put the burden on you by suggesting you look at my pbase site to see if there were three "good" shots there. But now you've upped the ante: good means great. Probably not worth your time.
Harry
There's no definite answer to that question. What I think is good or great, others may find as crap. If you're shooting for payment, and the clients like your results, they'll think you're good. For my personal work, I shoot what pleases me. If someone else likes it, fine. If not, that's fine too. We've all seen or entered photo competitions, where the winning snaps were horrendous, in our opinion. But obviously the judges found them as good. We've all made images that we find quite uninteresting, yet someone else thinks it the best thing they've ever seen. Go figure. Unless it's for a paying client, shoot for your own pleasure, and don't be attached to the outcome.
Russ
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"
I want to play this game, I like my photography and I like opinions as well.
The hard part was choosing only 3 images too define me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/Cmogi10/L1062420.jpg
http://carlmogerley.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p820461508-3.jpg
http://carlmogerley.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p993002848-3.jpg
You talk to someone who is qualified to look at your work and make constructive detached evaluations. I have a friend who is an arts curator at a university ... it's her job to critique various art forms and organise exhibitions for her department. I value her input and she always says exactly what she thinks.
I value the input of my peers as much as those who are "qualified".
crawdiddy
06-28-2008, 15:58
So, Keith, the answer is: You know you're good when Lord Voldemort, or some other self-described former magazine editor says it is.
I love it when some of the members here write about "hobbyists" or "amateurs" or "civilians". I think they handle those terms in quotation marks so they don't have to wash their professional hands afterward. :rolleyes:
EtoileFinder
06-28-2008, 16:17
The only thing I know is that when I look at Eugene Smith and Cartier Bresson pictures or some great members from the forum, mines are bad and I still can do better and continue to learn. But when I compare what I do with pictures taken by my stepmother or from some arrogant self pretending professionals or artists, mines are not so bad.
I agree in part with Vladernar, but what is intriguing with photography is an amateur can by accident take a great picture capturing unintentionally something beyond what he understand, but he may not be a great photographer. It is not a necessary truth that great pictures are taken by great photographer.
Not fair to make fun of non-native English, unless it's on a T-shirt or Chinese menu. (it is non-native ... isn't it?)
literiter
06-28-2008, 17:09
If I were to accept criticism of my stuff it'd definitely have to be from someone who's own work I admire.
Magazine editors do not necessarily have to have taste, just the ability to fit work to their magazine. Some I fear, haven't a camera.
If you want your work criticized seek your mentor very carefully. See what they can do. If they can't come up to, or surpass your standards in photography, go elsewhere.
M. Valdemar
06-28-2008, 21:43
I've decided to stop telling people whether their work is good or not.
There's no need to hurt their feelings or outrage them. A person incapable of judging their own work accurately is probably living in a dream world anyway, so no reason to pop their bubbles.
One also doesn't have to be good at a particular craft in order to judge talent. That's fallacious thinking.
A "genius" is also very rarely good as a teacher or mentor.
M. Valdemar
06-28-2008, 21:48
OK. Last one, cmog10, I will just say that your photos are somewhat trendy. The sentiments they convey are those of someone who watches MTV or who likes fire trucks.
M. Valdemar
06-28-2008, 21:54
I agree, but a fortuitous accident is not the same as consistently producing work commiserate with one's unique vision.
I agree in part with Vladernar, but what is intriguing with photography is an amateur can by accident take a great picture capturing unintentionally something beyond what he understand, but he may not be a great photographer. It is not a necessary truth that great pictures are taken by great photographer.
Damn you tease.
Ah I hit refresh.
Hah, it made me smile. well played.
I value the input of my peers as much as those who are "qualified".
I also value the comments of people I regard as my peers ... that's important to me. It's good though to have a realist like my friend Lubi who wouldn't hesitate to tell me if she thought I was on the wrong track photographically for the talents, or not, that I have naturally at my disposal. She points out to me what are the strengths in my work and what are the weaknesses.
Chris101
06-28-2008, 23:38
While it is arguable if photographic talent can be learned, the ability to critique photography is something that can be developed.
By critique I mean something beyond the "I don't like it" that I see here and elsewhere on the net. A critic should try to impart an insight that goes beyond the obvious on the part of the viewer/reader. This popular go/no go style is, however, fun.
... or the "comments" section of your flickr photos is left blank, then you know you're pretty bad! No one will comment "this photo stinks", in fear of receiving similar feedback about their own work!
I find popularity on Flickr not to be a good judge of who's good and who's not. I find that when people make lots of friends/contacts, their photos start building up comments regardless of how good they are. There seems to be a sheep mentality where people all follow the crowd. I have come across many photos I find very ordinary or worse, not even really good, that have pages and pages of trite comments and annoying awards. On the flip side I have found many wonderful photos with no comments at all that leave me scratching my head. Riddle me that, Batman.
I can think of one person in particular on Flickr (a very good and popular photographer) who's every photo gets lathered in gushing comments like "you are the master" to the point where I don't bother looking anymore because it makes me nauseous. :rolleyes:
I have met a few people online who have commented on my work which makes me happy. I'd rather have a few people say nice, honest things than half of Flickr posting stupid "DIAMOND AWARD" animated gifs all over my comments.
As others have said, I shoot for myself. If others like my photos then that's great. If they don't, well, that's life. I'm not pro, I'm not selling my work, I'm not trying to prove myself to anyone. I motivate myself, and I strive to better myself.
35mmdelux
06-29-2008, 00:47
the truth is in one word: publish.
EtoileFinder
06-29-2008, 04:14
but in the context of being insulting to artists, who could resist?
I'm really sorry for my poor English, which can cause misunderstanding. If I can express myself in French it would be great, but not everyone will understand me. I didn't mean to be insulting to artist. It is just some of times I see works from persons who call themselves artists, but their vision is simplistic and their works bad and how they qualify their works or the price they ask for it is just arrogance.
literiter
06-29-2008, 05:02
One also doesn't have to be good at a particular craft in order to judge talent. That's fallacious thinking.
A "genius" is also very rarely good as a teacher or mentor.
Well, this gets you off the hook.
I also value the comments of people I regard as my peers ... that's important to me. It's good though to have a realist like my friend Lubi who wouldn't hesitate to tell me if she thought I was on the wrong track photographically for the talents, or not, that I have naturally at my disposal. She points out to me what are the strengths in my work and what are the weaknesses.
It sounds like you've gotten yourself into a bit of a good position. Good for you.
jan normandale
06-30-2008, 11:18
I agree, but a fortuitous accident is not the same as consistently producing work commiserate with one's unique vision.
After reading this thread and noting some of the malapropisms this one is either a covert test of the readers or it's a 'T-shirt worthy' phrase for all photographers. Perhaps it's a Freudian slip?
I believe the phrase is "commensurate with... " but Valdemar's is much better, and accurately describes the state of many photographers.
crawdiddy
06-30-2008, 11:40
I like fire trucks!
I don't watch nearly as much MTV, now that there's no music....
Bike Tourist
07-16-2008, 12:46
Outside of the professional realm, where if you are "good" people pay you to shoot photos, or the art world where people buy your prints or attend your gallery shows, I'm not really sure by what criteria an amateur can know what "good" is. Good on RF Forum may not be considered so on another forum with different photographic interests. Without a yardstick, I'm not sure you can measure it.
I agree, except for the professional part. There is so much non-photographic stuff going on in and around professional and fine art photography that these people don't know either. The only thing the successful shooters can say with absolute certainty is that they are really good salesmen or that they are really lucky.
I think you are good when you are almost satisfied with an image you have made.
I agree with everyone who said that you must like your pictures, or words to that effect. Unless you want to turn pro, nothing else matters.
Vic
Interesting topic - a couple of points from my perspective.
How does "good" have any meaning if you just interpret it as "you yourself like what you do"? To me the whole concept of "good" implies comparison with other people. And the trap there, I think, is that the better you get at any activity the more you raise the bar for yourself.
I think I'm a "good" photographer in that I can probably take better, more interesting photographs than 999 people out of 1000 - but 998 of those 1000 probably have no interest in or competence at photography so they're a meaningless yardstick. Compared to a lot of of people posting on the internet, lat alone "real" photographers, I'm no good at all :(.
Being a natural pessimist and prone to self-laceration I'll look at the people I'm worse than in any given field and get annoyed about it - some people would bask in the self-satisfaction of being better than the 999. Who's right?
I think the post about "flickr syndrome" is very interesting too - I used to post a lot on Pbase, and went through a phase when (for whatever reason) almost everything I posted would get a lot of comments and a few votes - which is great for the ego. But after a while I found that my self-esteem was getting unhealthily attached to the strength of response to whatever I posted that day, and also that what I posted was starting to be directly influenced by what I thought would be popular rather than what I actually liked.
That said, if nobody ever commented at all on what I posted on Pbase or here I probably would give up!
I also think the internet has an interesting effect on what people do because of "thumbnail syndrome" - i.e. the need for an image to look good as a thumbnail for anyone to notice it in the sea of new imagery uploaded every day on any of the popular sites. That works in favour of bright, oversaturated, graphic images that jump off a page of 25 other thumbnails, and against anything quieter, more complex, or in black and white.
There's a fantastic (IMHO) photographer on Pbase called Oliver Dienst (well worth a look if don't know his stuff - http://www.pbase.com/oliverdienst/root). He does work firmly in the rangefinder tradition, all black and white and shot with Leicas, and his work always seem to get way less attention than it deserves. Is it because he doesn't spend time commenting on other people's shots? Because his shots are black and white? Because people don't "get" them? I have no idea, but it's certainly not because his photos aren't "good".
Conclusions - good is a relative concept and good and popular aren't the same thing!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.