peterm1
Mentor
I have pretty uncompromising views on this subject. So heres a view that will no doubt stir people up.
Most photographers are just technicians. An excellent photographer is creative. In short a really good photographer is an artist!
Yes the "rules" (composition etc) can be learned and that will improve an ordinary photographer's output. But it will not necessarily make them a master of the art. Some people have it instinctively and can become outstanding photgraphers without much effort. They have what I think of as a photographer's "eye" for an image. Others can learn it from years of practice and interpretation - and by studying great photographers' work to learn from that. Others never get it no matter how much they try.
I think of musicians. Many musicians can hit the right notes in the right order. Only the very best can hit the note AND intepret them in a way that makes the music really special. I have heard this many times when listening to a merely competent symphony orchestra and comparing it with really a masterful one. The moment you hear the difference you will understand the difference. Same with photographers.
A good photographer in short, has an artist's soul.
But also some photographers supplement this with other capabilities. Look at Alfred Eisenstadt for example. His great skill was his ease with people and abilty to make friends. As a result he was able to take many great photos of people simply because he could put them at ease and gian thier confidence. He could not have done this if he did not have a great eye. But equally he could not have done this if he did not have those people skills. Apparently people loved Eisie and would happily let him into their life because they enjoyed his company and most of all trusted him.
Most photographers are just technicians. An excellent photographer is creative. In short a really good photographer is an artist!
Yes the "rules" (composition etc) can be learned and that will improve an ordinary photographer's output. But it will not necessarily make them a master of the art. Some people have it instinctively and can become outstanding photgraphers without much effort. They have what I think of as a photographer's "eye" for an image. Others can learn it from years of practice and interpretation - and by studying great photographers' work to learn from that. Others never get it no matter how much they try.
I think of musicians. Many musicians can hit the right notes in the right order. Only the very best can hit the note AND intepret them in a way that makes the music really special. I have heard this many times when listening to a merely competent symphony orchestra and comparing it with really a masterful one. The moment you hear the difference you will understand the difference. Same with photographers.
A good photographer in short, has an artist's soul.
But also some photographers supplement this with other capabilities. Look at Alfred Eisenstadt for example. His great skill was his ease with people and abilty to make friends. As a result he was able to take many great photos of people simply because he could put them at ease and gian thier confidence. He could not have done this if he did not have a great eye. But equally he could not have done this if he did not have those people skills. Apparently people loved Eisie and would happily let him into their life because they enjoyed his company and most of all trusted him.