Like most photographers, I'm often asked for advice by up and comers, and it's usually technical. They want to know all the details about what equipment I use, what software, you know the usual thing. What I'm starting to think is that most beginners would do better to buy a cheap manual SLR camera, and then spend what they save on the camera buying books of photographer's work and if they live in the right place, going to galleries.
Why do I think this? Because the technical side of photography has never been easier and will keep on getting easier as digital technology develops. The basic skill of creating a well exposed, in focus, professionally acceptable but creatively dull image will decrease in commercial value as the gap between competant amateur and low end professional all but vanishes.
It will become less and less time consuming to learn 'technique' and mastering the technicalities of photography will at a basic level, have no commercial value.
So as a new photographer, what skills can you develop to ensure a career in this precarious business?
The answer is as simple as it is daunting - creativity.
That's why I suggest you get yourself down the library, buy books and go to every gallery show you can, because learning the history of photography and absorbing the work of others is the first step to being more creative.
And creativity is something you can't buy with a credit card at your local camera shop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
learn the technique, if you know what you are doing, you dont need photoshop and other fantastic software tools ;)
regards Stefan
@Toby - right on! I know sooo many 'photographers' with all the kit in the world and not an ounce of ability.
@Stefan - I totally disagree. If you're going for an untouched piece, don't use it. If you are, then do. I write for DPS and someone commented on one of my articles today with this:
"And I’m very on your side when it comes to postprocessing. In digital photography it’s not optional, simple as that. What’t the thing about taken a JPG and saying “this is pure”. No it isn’t, you just left the decision about how your photo will look to a namless technican who configured the processing in the camera. No postprocessing is impossible. Either you choose, or the camera does.
Don’t get me wrong but I think this whole “you shouldn’t edit your photos” is made up by people who don’t know who to use the proper tools and want to hide this fact. Most of them were quite happy standing in the darkroom crossprocessing their negatives and the digital equivalent is a “No No”? Make me laugh.
In fact it’s like this: Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop etc. are just tools. Tools like the camera, flashes etc. Learning to master them is part of learning photography nowadays. Refusing that is like saying:”I don’t have to learn how to use my small flash. I’ll just point it straight on the subject an BAM look how cool this photo is…”
Elizabeth, you dont have to agree with me, no need. I know many more then two hand full of profesional photographers who need no lightroom and photoshop at all. the know how to use their camera, in which light ect ect.... that does not mean that LR and PS are bad tools. with these tools you can "save" crap pictures, light, contrast conditions.
I really enjoyed this post, I am still learning myself and like your way of looking at this part of things.
I have also been loving your portraits, really beautiful work. Thank you for sharing : )
Post a Comment