If left
to the marketing people from various camera manufacturers, the key to
making great photographs is to buy the latest cameras they have to
offer. Sure, you may have done that a couple of years ago, but that
camera no longer produces photos as good as its replacement. They
even have lab test data and professional endorsements to back up that
claim.
The
situation isn't helped any by the thousands of “experts” on
various photography websites who claim they must have certain camera
features to produce the best photos they can. Certainly better high
ISO performance can help produce clearer low light photos. There's no
doubt that better auto focus speed and accuracy can help with sports
or wildlife photos. The question is whether these make for better
images.
By
that I mean: does the image you are viewing strike a chord with you?
Does it resonate in some way that evokes certain emotions or
thoughts? Does it leave you thinking about what you viewed
even after you have stopped viewing it?
These
are important questions to ask yourself when considering what a
“good” photograph is. Granted, for most situations, what people
are really looking for is an in-focus, pleasantly-composed image that
captures the moment for future viewing. The fact is that today,
smartphones can do that for about 75% of situations. For those times
when things like long lenses or high frame rate or high ISO
performance are needed, even 5 year old dslrs and milcs can do more
than most people really need.
A
visit to any photography websites with public forums (such as
dpreview.com) will demonstrate that many of the expert hobbiests and
enthusiasts who take great pride in the quality of their bleeding
edge gear are taking photos that could be done just as well with
cameras 5 or even 10 years old. For that matter, when it comes down
to showing on the internet or average sized prints, smartphones from
the past couple of years have more than enough output.
There
are a lot of average, even mediocre photos being taken with the
latest, top quality camera gear. So why aren't these photos really
good, or even great, given the cameras used are supposed to give that
level of result?
Because
the people using the cameras are looking to the wrong source of real
“goodness” of their photos.
“It's
not the camera, it's the photographer” is a common phrase, and
fundamentally it is the great truth behind producing the best photos.
Laying aside certain obvious technical limitations or requirements,
it's the mind behind the making of an image that counts the most.
This involves both the technical understanding of how cameras work in
conjunction with light and shadow, color and form, but also the
creative spark that drives a person to produce photos to begin with.
There's
no secret to learning to produce good, or even great photos. Having
suitable gear and learning to use it well is the easy part. The
thousands of technically great, but aesthetically uninspiring photos
out there prove this. What is often overlooked is inspiration.
By that I mean having a sort of photographic muse, a reference point
from which you assess your own efforts at achieving the best,
most-satisfying photos you can.
That
inspiration comes from other photographers (or even painters). Any
photography instructor worth his/her salt will tell you to look at
the work of as many notable photographers as you can. Study their
images. Pick the ones you find most inspiring, those images that make
you think “I wish I could take a photo like that” and find out
how it was done. Pick a few favorite photographers and learn about
them: their lives, their techniques, why they produced the sort of
images they did.
I
say this because in a recent discussion on photography, I cited two
well known sports photographers. Someone replied that he had no idea
who they were as though they must not be that good if he didn't know
about them. Granted, he may simply not have enough of an interest in
sports photography to know of any
famous sports photographers, but his ignorance is only one of many
examples.
This
ignorance of past masters a problem I see a lot among photographers
today. I see people talking about how they can't produce certain
images because their gear doesn't focus fast enough, or doesn't have
a high enough burst frame rate, or the high ISO performance isn't
clean enough, etc. The fact is that in the past none of
these technical limitations prevented photographers from producing
classic, iconic images.
That's
why I say the “secret” to producing the best photos is to study
past masters. Immerse yourself in their images. Let the thoughts and
emotions you experience looking at them dominate your thinking. Bask
in the emotional, aesthetic aspect of the photos for a while. After
you gain some understanding of what the photograph makes you think
and feel and why it does, then start considering the technical
aspects of the photo.
The
average person relates to an image based on the emotional impact it
has on them. Most people don't look at an image and immediately think
about what lens was used or whether it's suitably sharp or how bad
the high ISO noise level is. They judge a photo by an emotional
response that occurs within about 3 seconds of viewing it. It's
mostly the gear-oriented enthusiasts who first think in terms of
technical qualities of a photo.
My
own “first inspiration” came from W. Eugene Smith. Since then
I've added many photographers to the list of those I study, but he
was the first whose photos made me really stop and think about how,
and why, I wanted to produce images similar to his.
I
can guarantee that if you spend more time studying the photos of
great photographers than you do visiting “how to” websites or
forums populated by self-proclaimed experts, your photos will
improve. This is because you have to know what great photos look like
in order to try to accomplish the same thing. Here's a good website
to get you started:
(Normally
I would recommend the Masters of Photography website, but it appears
that no one is maintaining it lately and so a lot of the images don't
even load).
No comments:
Post a Comment