How do you make really great photographs?

[black_bird_blue]

A different, yet related approach to the one espoused earlier, is advocated here.

It basically boils down to "shoot lots, work out what you like, get better, repeat".

The debate about whether to get it right "in-camera" or not will run and run. It feels to me like a false dichotomy. It never does any harm to get the picture "as right as possible" in camera, but really, can the viewer tell whether a photograph was taken level or levelled slightly in post? I think not, unless the film border is included in the image.

That seems like a generic test to me - "can the viewer tell?" Of course another question is "does the viewer care?" For horizons, they need to be either properly level or dramatically tilted - timid tilting just looks like the error it is. So for horizons, they need to be right but it doesn't matter whether they were right in camera or not - to me at least. One can examine other errors - composition, focus, exposure, colour - on the same basis.

I take Gary's comments as urging me not to settle for mediocrity when I could do better, and bravo - it's well said.

[black_bird_blue]

...to become a better photographer stay away from forums and their convenient opinions and do it your own way...

I believe this is genuinely an error of thought.

We as humans are different form other animals mainly because each human has a store of knowledge that is greater than one lifetime's learning. To insist on learning everything for oneself from scratch is to run out of time in life.

Internet fora are notorious for their poor signal-to-noise ratio, so perhaps better advice is to think critically about the content. And sometimes entering a discussion is a good way to work out what one really thinks.

[Fons Baerken]

to some

[Gary]

Gary, I find your points very compelling.

Shooting slides for projection was a very good training in the olden days!

I am interested in your comment that you printed only the full frame "for a time".  What were the factors that caused you to move away from this approach?

Anthony-

I didn't move away from the approach, the approach moved away from me.  When I married and had children, I sorta hung up my cameras and my skill level diminished significantly. My children have all left the nest and I am working to get my skill level (consistency) back to my pro level.  Back in 2006, when I purchased a 20D, my passion for photography re-ignited, I am working toward attaining my old skill level.  For me, it is all about Time Behind the Viewfinder.

Getting it right in the camera, again for me, took a serious and conscience effort and a ton of wasted film. Then and now I shoot a lot. Film was free and my cameras had motors ... so I wasted a lot of film. My keeper rate was 1:36. This wasn't landscape, where you had time to setup your tripod or commercial work, where you can take a test shot with Polaroid film and readjust your lighting.  Consequently, my framing required all the mental power I could muster as often framing/composition was on the fly. For me, for how I shoot and what I shoot, speed is essential (which is why news photogs often shoot with two cameras). As I approach the scene/subject I am previsualizing the final photo and making decisions on lens and camera position before looking through the viewfinder. Back then, when the camera was up to my eye, the camera settings were adjusted ... sorta in the background, semi-conscientiously and I focused all my conscientious mental power on the subject (composition, lighting, anticipation of action).  Harmonizing with your equipment, being able to instantly and semi-automatically adjust your settings and lens to reflect a previsualized image, is an essential skill for a photojournalist.  That all come down to time behind the viewfinder.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Due to the characteristics of my eye sight, I always end up with horizon tilted -1.5 degrees. Most occasions don't necessitate any correction, but for the ones which do, I never hesitate performing the required adjustment. In the days of film, that entailed tilting the slide inside the mount or printing with the negative twisted slightly to correct. Now, I have a PS Action to arrive at the same solution.

[Ron Scubadiver]

In the beginning one should learn the rules and follow them.  Greatness requires the rules be broken, but gracefully.  I believe many truly great photographers have done things their own way.

[Gary]

Gary, you are insulting a lot of photographers with the "crutches" analogy.  You said your bit about not cropping, and I disagreed.  What you wrote above adds nothing to the discussion and leaves a bad taste.  As for training wheels, they are not used anymore.  If everyone followed your advice a lot of great photography would have been pitched and most photographers would have given up in frustration.  I know a retired commercial photographer of some note who advocates shooting wider than necessary to allow fine tuning later.  There are many different schools of thought.  You don't have to act like yours is the only one and you don't have to exaggerate to make a point.

You are taking things personal.  I attempted to qualify my statements with phrases of "we all learn differently" and "we all see differently". I am direct, I am competitive that is how I approach life and photography. I think shooting for post processing as opposed to shooting for the capture of a previsualized image seriously limits the photographers growth. Yes, there are many schools of thought, which is why I qualify my statements with "for me" and with "for how I shoot and what I shoot". 

"If everyone followed your advice a lot of great photography would have been pitched and most photographers would have given up in frustration." I don't believe this to be true at all. I additionally think that if others were to follow my advise, and challenge themselves to work harder and get it right in the camera ... I think we'd have significantly better photographs in this world. I think more photographers would metaphorically be running with their photography, breaking the four minute mile, than hobbling along on crutches.

I never said, nor would I ever say that my way is the only way.

I do apologize for insulting you, I never realized that your title of "How do you make really great photographs?" had a caveat restricting my experiences.

[Gary]

....
I take Gary's comments as urging me not to settle for mediocrity when I could do better, and bravo - it's well said.

^^^^ This is the primary intent and thrust of my remarks.

[Gary]

A different, yet related approach to the one espoused earlier, is advocated here.

It basically boils down to "shoot lots, work out what you like, get better, repeat".

The debate about whether to get it right "in-camera" or not will run and run. It feels to me like a false dichotomy. It never does any harm to get the picture "as right as possible" in camera, but really, can the viewer tell whether a photograph was taken level or levelled slightly in post? I think not, unless the film border is included in the image.

That seems like a generic test to me - "can the viewer tell?" Of course another question is "does the viewer care?" For horizons, they need to be either properly level or dramatically tilted - timid tilting just looks like the error it is. So for horizons, they need to be right but it doesn't matter whether they were right in camera or not - to me at least. One can examine other errors - composition, focus, exposure, colour - on the same basis.

I take Gary's comments as urging me not to settle for mediocrity when I could do better, and bravo - it's well said.

Damien, for me (qualifier), it not about how others view my images or what they think ... it is about me knowing/caring about how I ended up with the final image. (I've been removing the black, filed out negative carrier, Henri Cartier-Bresson, borders from my posted old photographs because I now find the borders self-aggrandizing and pompous.  For me, I realize that in the bottom line isn't telling/showing others that I got it right in he camera, the bottom line is just to get it right in he camera and that only I need to know that.)

[Gary]

Due to the characteristics of my eye sight, I always end up with horizon tilted -1.5 degrees. Most occasions don't necessitate any correction, but for the ones which do, I never hesitate performing the required adjustment. In the days of film, that entailed tilting the slide inside the mount or printing with the negative twisted slightly to correct. Now, I have a PS Action to arrive at the same solution.

There are always exceptions.

[Ron Scubadiver]

I do apologize for insulting you, I never realized that your title of "How do you make really great photographs?" had a caveat restricting my experiences.

I am not wasting any more time arguing with you because you enjoy creating arguments too much. 

[Frank Fremerey]

Gray. Confess: you raise the bar very high for yourself and for others.

Ambition is a good thing.

Interesting noone tried to answer my questions, although they are really tough and philosophically sound.

It is a scientifically proven fact that the skills required to masterly judge a work are nearly the same skills
required to create such a work. Same goes for the other questions.

pls reconsider.

[Frank Fremerey]

It certainly was. I only shot slides for many years, first Kondachrome, later Velvia, before I lost my interest in photography some 15 years ago. Now, that I started again, I find I still prefer to find a framing where I don't have to crop. Not using zooms if possible actually helps me, I find. It means I have to use my feet to find the best angle anyway ... :-)
Hermann

Welcome Hermann. I was a slide shooter from 1983 till 2004. First Agfa then Sensia.

Framing is still my goal and the perfect JPEG.

BUT. As I got better in Post Production I found the calibrated RAW gives me so much better tones
that I prefer the RAW currently.

Framing is always my goal but I do not always succeed.

Frank

[Anthony]

Anthony-

I didn't move away from the approach, the approach moved away from me.  When I married and had children, I sorta hung up my cameras and my skill level diminished significantly. My children have all left the nest and I am working to get my skill level (consistency) back to my pro level.  Back in 2006, when I purchased a 20D, my passion for photography re-ignited, I am working toward attaining my old skill level.  For me, it is all about Time Behind the Viewfinder.

Getting it right in the camera, again for me, took a serious and conscience effort and a ton of wasted film. Then and now I shoot a lot. Film was free and my cameras had motors ... so I wasted a lot of film. My keeper rate was 1:36. This wasn't landscape, where you had time to setup your tripod or commercial work, where you can take a test shot with Polaroid film and readjust your lighting.  Consequently, my framing required all the mental power I could muster as often framing/composition was on the fly. For me, for how I shoot and what I shoot, speed is essential (which is why news photogs often shoot with two cameras). As I approach the scene/subject I am previsualizing the final photo and making decisions on lens and camera position before looking through the viewfinder. Back then, when the camera was up to my eye, the camera settings were adjusted ... sorta in the background, semi-conscientiously and I focused all my conscientious mental power on the subject (composition, lighting, anticipation of action).  Harmonizing with your equipment, being able to instantly and semi-automatically adjust your settings and lens to reflect a previsualized image, is an essential skill for a photojournalist.  That all come down to time behind the viewfinder.

Thanks, Gary, all this makes sense.

I respect a photographer who does the most he or she can to get the image right in camera, rather than shooting lazily and thinking "I will sort it out on the computer".  Not only is this a higher level of craft, it also tends to achieve a better overall result.

In the digital era, getting the image right in camera is in some ways more difficult, it becomes more of a matter of envisioning the result to be achieved by a combination of camera and computer.  This is a long way from fixing a substandard capture in pp.

[Anthony]

Due to the characteristics of my eye sight, I always end up with horizon tilted -1.5 degrees. Most occasions don't necessitate any correction, but for the ones which do, I never hesitate performing the required adjustment. In the days of film, that entailed tilting the slide inside the mount or printing with the negative twisted slightly to correct. Now, I have a PS Action to arrive at the same solution.

Bjørn, being aware of this problem, can't you fix it by aiming off?