Poll of the Day > Honestly, photography doesn't appear to be that much of a skill

(+) Yeah! (+)

Clicking a button and fiddling with the settings here and there honestly doesn't seem that much of a big deal. Anyone who's familiar with today's technology and is even slightly interested in taking photos can do it.

So, can anyone explain me why a good chunk of photographers act like they doing something ultra-hard activity, say something like thinking 50 moves ahead in Chess and claim they're doing some super-legendary stuff which normal people can't do or comprehend?
---

It's one thing to take a perfect picture because the settings on your camera are all auto-set. It's another to understand the ins and outs of all the variables that create a photograph and manipulating them to create desired results.
---

Zangulus posted...

Also I consider photography different from a photoshop artist.

Though photography these days involves a significant amount of Photoshop it seems.
---

A friend's husband is a professional photographer specializing in dance photography.

Action photos require angle, composition and timing, with an understanding of the type of dance. To get one good photo of, say ballet, he takes hundreds of shots.

I've run a camera for him for archival cinematography of major dance concerts. My job is mainly riding the brightness level and field of view of a single camera, but his skill is in setting up the cameras for the best angles and in editing the footage from the various cameras afterward to make a professional record of the show.

Certainly a lot of knowledge, effort, and art involved.
---

Photography does require skill. Anyone can hold a camera and press a button. But to capture as you intend, to compose well, and to actually create a pleasing image is not just pushing a button. You need an eye and a feel for it all.

I have spent years photographing animals now and I can tell my skills have grown substantially. My technique has changed in time.
---

Zangulus posted...

Which is why I said I consider a photographer and photoshop artist separate.

There are still purists to photography. Or do minor touch ups.

I don't rely on post processing beyond correcting color balance (bad indoor lighting yellowing things) or the occasional heal brush to remove an unsightly booger.
---

With the Advent of prosumer cameras everyone feels like a pro. But time and study will definitely yield skill
---

Try taking a nice picture of a cat. You can't. Animal photos require angle, composition and timing, with an understanding of the type of animal behavior.

Anisoptera posted...

Try taking a nice picture of a cat. You can't. Animal photos require angle, composition and timing, with an understanding of the type of animal behavior.

Seriously

I'll post a few cat photos here when I round them up
---

FellWolf posted...

With the Advent of prosumer cameras everyone feels like a pro. But time and study will definitely yield skill

I had a college adjunct professor who was very salty about the rise of amateurism among photographers. He implied it's a dying art. I'd say I don't have the critical eye for his art, but if it's anything like what's gone on in the music industry, I understand where he's coming from to an extent.

I know it's different but I use to work as a cameraman at a big sports center, probably had 100,000 people watching my live footage at any given time...but yeah once you learn the camera settings etc it's pretty simple imo
---

BobToxsick posted...

I know it's different but I use to work as a cameraman at a big sports center, probably had 100,000 people watching my live footage at any given time...but yeah once you learn the camera settings etc it's pretty simple imo

Video is a bit different from stills in my experience. I have a lot more experience with still photography (film and digital) but a fair amount with video. I don't think that a videographer and a photographer necessarily have the same skills though there is a large overlap with each having their unique refining qualities.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Anisoptera posted...

Try taking a nice picture of a cat. You can't. Animal photos require angle, composition and timing, with an understanding of the type of animal behavior.

Seriously

I'll post a few cat photos here when I round them up

Animal photos require angle and other things don't? Obviously angle matters HEAVILY in LITERALLY every photo.


And please do post the photos of the cats, not only I love cats but I wanna see and understand how different a photographer's photos are.

very salty about the rise of amateurism among photographers

Something which pisses me off too.
---

It is all about knowing your timing, using proper settings, and knowing your subject. Those are all handheld shots in indoor lighting with my fixed prime lens. Anyone photographing black animals in low light should feel some pain.

Dogs have their own challenges.


---

Yeah for some reason the dog's photo - while a nice photo, but something isn't quite right as the cat photos.

Good pics Doctor Foxx (The 3rd and 4th images of cats really stand out, at least to me)
---

spooky96 posted...

Animal photos require angle and other things don't? Obviously angle matters HEAVILY in LITERALLY every photo.


And please do post the photos of the cats, not only I love cats but I wanna see and understand how different a photographer's photos are.

What? No. Animal photos are a moving subject that does not take directions for posing or sitting still. It requires a lot of patience and anticipation of movement to capture exactly what you want. It's significantly more tricky than human portrait photography in my experience. And I have a lot of experience.

Angle, lighting, composition apply to all subjects. Animals have their own extra difficult variables.

spooky96 posted...

Something which pisses me off too.

I think it's nice but it has really diluted and devalued the market for professional freelancing. But good photographers are still going to stand out.
---

Photography is easy to do pretty decently, especially with how much of it is handled automatically by even entry-level cameras these days, but it's extremely hard to truly do well, and there is definitely a skill and an art to it.
---

spooky96 posted...

Yeah for some reason the dog's photo - while a nice photo, but something isn't quite right as the cat photos.

Good pics Doctor Foxx (The 3rd and 4th images of cats really stand out, at least to me)

It could be that her face is all crooked. I have less dog experience. Here's one I took yesterday:



With the lens and body cropping it can feel a little off shooting the dogs in portrait orientation. It's usually what works best for them and not what I use for most cats. Sometimes I will. It changes the composition.



Cats though...

I definitely couldn't hand my camera over to someone, even with the settings calibrated properly, and expect them to shoot nearly as well. Or even to get a non-blurry photo.





When I want really nice pictures of myself I use my tripod and shoot on my own. :P
---

Fk it that post was stupid
---

Really nice kitten pics ^_^

Now be honest, out of 100, how would you split the credit between you and the camera.

80% skills 20% camera?
---

spooky96 posted...

Really nice kitten pics ^_^

Now be honest, out of 100, how would you split the credit between you and the camera.

80% skills 20% camera?

Camera? It's the lens, my friend. I could put that lens on my 10 year old camera body and still take most of the shots I do, though they'd be much grainier at higher ISO.

That said, if I tried to take the same shots with something like a cell phone camera of course it's not going to come out the same. Nor would it come out the same with even my old camera body and a different lens, or current body and different lens.

The tools are absolutely important in the overall potential for image quality--but it takes skill to really make a difference. My camera body and lens have great potential for photographs. Most people won't use it appropriately. I can't give you a % difference. A great camera will not make a bad photographer better.
---

Mad boke, bro.
---

Yeah certainly anyone can be just like Sally Mann, Cindy Sherman, Margaret Bourke-White, Walker Evans, Garry Winogrand et al (just a few of my faves).

One thing that cracks me up is the faux shutter click sound that most devices make when taking a picture.
---

TC is uniformed about actual photography.
---

Firewood18 posted...

One thing that cracks me up is the faux shutter click sound that most devices make when taking a picture.

That's actually a legal requirement in some countries, so you can't silently photograph somebody with your phone.
---

Photography is one of those things where anyone can do it, but those who have more money to dump into it are likely to be more successful.
---

Thunder_54 posted...

TC is uniformed about actual photography.

Something I specified in the OP, thanks for your insight.

Shoo away with your sophieluvstofu gimmick bs
---

spooky96 posted...

So, can anyone explain me why a good chunk of photographers act like they doing something ultra-hard activity, say something like thinking 50 moves ahead in Chess and claim they're doing some super-legendary stuff which normal people can't do or comprehend?

Most folk think what they are doing is very difficult when it's not. It's easy enough to trivialise someones job though. I mean most folk are capable of doing most jobs but that doesn't mean they will be good at doing it. With practice though they can reach the level of a professional sure.
---

spooky96 posted...

Honestly, photography doesn't appear to be that much of a skill
Clicking a button and fiddling with the settings here and there honestly doesn't seem that much of a big deal. Anyone who's familiar with today's technology and is even slightly interested in taking photos can do it.

Spoken like a true philistine. Anyone can click a button, few can take really impressive and striking photos.

So, can anyone explain me why a good chunk of photographers act like they doing something ultra-hard activity, say something like thinking 50 moves ahead in Chess and claim they're doing some super-legendary stuff which normal people can't do or comprehend?

Many of them might be a little too artsy or ponce around like fools, but then again there's always people that like to swan around like it doesn't take any skill to do something well-you know, like photography, chess, or arguing a point properly with sound, logical reasoning and related examples...
Someone that can play chess well couldn't necessarily take a decent photo and vice versa, silly person.
---