Can anyone take a good photograph?

Following on from "What should the serious amateur concern himself with?"...

A good photograph is one that most people can look at and say, "hey,
that's a good photograph".
The 'rules' of photography are based on what people like the look of.
This means that everyone must have the rules of photography built-in.

So, my questions a

Is the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer how
in touch they are with their in-built rules?
Is it possible for anyone to learn this or can some people really not
tell what looks good from what doesn't?
If this is the case, how can they tell if a photo looks good? Can they
just not apply it to the things they see around them?

Tom

Even a four year-old. I have the proof.

Tom Hudson wrote:

Is the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer how
in touch they are with their in-built rules?

When you learn photography you learn a lot of technical things that are useful
for the recording of an image. These can be bent to a good degree. You learn a
lot of differnet ways of seeing, composing, perceiving, etc. This is the art
and it is an individual journey. You do learn all sorts of 'rules' regarding
the artistic side, and they are reasonable at getting you to nice images.
Fantastic images come from individuals who have their own vision and can express
it without relying on other people's success formulas. Some say it is best to
learn and master the rules prior to breaking them, some say it is best to
develop ones own style from the ground up without being tainted by the rules.
To each his own... IMO, the "rules" never hurt anyone nor hindered them from
developing their own unique vision. What you choose to do has to be what *you*
choose to do.

Is it possible for anyone to learn this or can some people really not
tell what looks good from what doesn't?

Just about anyone can learn a set of static rules and apply them. But to
generate fantastic images demands 'seeing' in a way that is beyond all rules.
At some point you realize that the subject is no longer the made up of the
attributes of the subject, but the subject is part of a visual message that
includes the surroundings and the light.

If this is the case, how can they tell if a photo looks good? Can they
just not apply it to the things they see around them?

Go through the galleries at www.photo.net of the most popular images. You don't
need any rules to see what is good about the many great photos there. You might
not like many of them, for reasons all your own, but many of them, without
thought to a rule or a convention are automatically pleasing to your eye. When
you see a photo that is particularly appealing, spend a lot of time studying it
for form, relationship, light, perspective, movement, ...etc... and all this
before you give a thought to the technical approach that the photographer took.

You learn as much from studying other people's work as from practicing your own.

Take risks. It's only film.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Marcel wrote:
Hi Tom!

In my view, part of photography is science, part is art.
Science - knowing the basic elements of photo composition, lighting, lenses,
etc.
Art - such as capturing the moment, exceptionally transgressing the habitual
photo composition...

I guess it's a bit short and simple ;-)

Sometimes that's best, I'm finding I ramble on too much in the name of
clarity (and still don't achieve it :-)

What I'm getting at is that the basic elements of composition are built
in to everyone, and the ability to instinctively recognise them when you
see them.

Tom

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:37:45 GMT, "Tony" wrote:

If the ability to come up with a good composition is built in, an awful
lot of people are doing their best to avoid it. Anyone can take a good
photograph. Very few can take a lot of good photographs. An art class or two
would help a lot of photographers but most of them are so hung up on
technical bull (the stuff the camera can do for you anyway) they never think
about composition.

People also get stuck in a genre, and need to occasionally review
those areas of photography that they might enjoy but haven't tried.

The other big one is lost opportunity. Many people are too shy to use
a camera when certain situations arise:

Two people are yelling at each other through their open car windows,
do you grab the camera?

At an air show, do you turn around and photograph the crowd's
expressions?

It's getting dark outside; turn on the TV or grab a tripod?

It's raining outside; hit the internet, or grab a coat?

Sitting outside a Starbucks, are you just getting fat or doing some
slow-shutter shots across the street?

A group of bikers invade your local IHOP dressed as Santa. Do you ask
if your daughter can borrow a chopper seat for some photos, or quietly
eat your breakfast? *

* Now why the hell would I take my camera to IHOP? This is why.

You are going out for a walk - anywhere. Is your camera going with
you?


BTW, there are some dangers involved in taking candid shots in cities.
A pal of mine who lives in London nearly lost his camera and nose
because a nearby drug dealer thought he was the subject of the photos.

--
Owamanga!

Tom Hudson wrote:
Following on from "What should the serious amateur concern himself
with?"...

A good photograph is one that most people can look at and say, "hey,
that's a good photograph".
The 'rules' of photography are based on what people like the look of.
This means that everyone must have the rules of photography built-in.

So, my questions a

Is the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer how
in touch they are with their in-built rules?
Is it possible for anyone to learn this or can some people really not
tell what looks good from what doesn't?
If this is the case, how can they tell if a photo looks good? Can they
just not apply it to the things they see around them?

Tom

IMHO: Good or Bad pictures (like beauty) is totally in the eye of the
beholder.
I seen many photo competitions where the viewers get to pick "Viewers
Choice". Many, if not most of the times, the VC did not even earn an
honorable mention from the judges.
Different judges like different things and "never the twain shall meet".
If the image makes you say, WOW, it is by definition a great photo to
you. And who are you trying to please anyway?
Bob Williams

I think that just anybody can take a good photograph. One lucky shot or from
time to time.
Of course, having better equipment and experience help. But they are no
guarantee.
One can learn all the technical aspects of photography but there are other
aspects that cannot be learned.
Photogrpahy is an art and one has to have a talent for it. Being able to see
things the way others don't.

It's the seeing things part I'm looking at, the choosing what to take
photographs of and how to compose them. I've always thought that anyone
can do anything if they're just interested enough to spend the time on
it. I suppose if you don't have a good sense of taste you'll be useless
as a chef, if you don't have a good visual awareness you won't make a
good photographer.

Tom

(Owamanga) wrote:
BTW, there are some dangers involved in taking candid shots in cities. A
pal of mine who lives in London nearly lost his camera and nose because
a nearby drug dealer thought he was the subject of the photos.
=================================

Here in the United States, if a drug dealer or crackhead thought you
were taking his picture, he would probably shoot you. The USA has the
highest homicide rate of any nation on the face of the earth. I
occasionally do street photography, but not much any more, since I was
almost murdered. I am mostly a nature/scenic photographer, although I do
have a passion for photojournalism and I like to photograph people. You
got to be careful about who you point your camera at. Some folks will
shoot you for shooting them.



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

"me" wrote in :

Rules and art make uneasy bed fellows so my answer is not necessarily.
Unless of course you dismiss the concept that photography is an art
form in which case you may apply as many rules as you like.

Ahhh ... but there are lots of rules in art.
Just saying that you are making art en a genre
is setting lost of rules.

Most artists are following more rules than they
are breaking.


/Roland

"Paul Bielec" wrote in
:

I think that just anybody can take a good photograph. One lucky shot
or from time to time.
Of course, having better equipment and experience help. But they are
no guarantee.


I know some good musicians. They can take the cheapest instrument
and make wonderful music. I need much better instruments, and I
still make rather ordinary music.


/Roland