Quote:
Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA
I can't believe how long this thread has been going and how some try so hard to defend their position. I have read this thread with a certain degree of entertainment, I must admit, but wasn't going to weigh into the debate, until now.
Some here seem to think that photography is so easy. If so, why do I find it so hard to take quality images? As far as I can determine, it takes considerable talent and technical knowledge to take decent photographs, something I have tried to attain for 30 years and still haven't done so. And frankly, I know I am no dummy! I just don't have the necessary photographic talent, but I keep trying.
I spend my working hours trying to build student confidence in themselves and to value their knowledge and skills, so it pains me to see people who devalue their skills so easily. Having said that, yes, I do realise that many people find things come to them very easily (natural talent), however, many do not find it so easy; and some find it downright hard.
Nothing has come easily to me and I have had to work hard to attain the considerable skills that I have, which is why I value them, probably? I have never had much faith in myself, but I have never doubted my abilities; and I value them accordingly.
I have just moved to a digital SLR (Canon 60D) about six months ago and it is taking me a long time just to work out how to use this camera, let alone learning to use the processing software (Corel Photoshop). I use Photoshop as it came with the CorelDraw suite of programs, which I have used for years.
It does take talent to take decent photographs and that talent should be valued accordingly. If taking photos was so easy, why aren't we all capable of taking photos of the same quality and subject matter as Ansel Adams?
Cheers Peter
|
Very well said.
OK, we're away from the original subject of this thread BUT it has generated some interesting debate.
At the end of the day, if a person is content with the photos they've taken and someone else is prepared to pay for those photos, then so be it. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the person with the camera has the "talent" or ability to "qualify" as a photographer any more than it means
the person forking out $$$ knows what a "good" photograph really is and whether they're really getting value for money...............this is where I believe a lot of the problem begins...........people's standards have degenerated as we've become a "throw away" society.
A few weeks ago we attended the wedding of a girl my wife works "above". I had met the bride only once before so she didn't initially recognise me walking around with camera bag over the shoulder wielding my 40D, there were two young guys looking as though they'd just walked in off the street who were they "official" photographers. All of a sudden, she realised that I was one of her bosses' husbands and her comment was "Oh sh*t, I thought you were another photographer"................all because I had an DSLR. God knows what she would have thought if I'd still been using medium format gear
.
The fact is that these days it's all too easy to.......1) buy a camera that produces good quality images, 2) manipulate images on a PC to (hopefully) bring them up to a standard and 3) call yourself a photographer just because you have a DSLR, software and a facebook page or website. None of these things make a good photographer any more that having experience in a studio or darkroom and I've seen little (written or illustrated) in this thread to convince me otherwise.
Regardless of what experience (or equipment) I've had, I don't regard myself as a photographer and I sure as hell wouldn't consider taking money from someone, especially for taking candid style snaps.