The Next Level

[johnastovall]

Luminous Landscape has a very fine essay, "Taking Your Photography to the Next Level."

"Photographers go through stages of development, and while we don’t all follow the same path, an understanding of our current level of skill, creativity and artisty is, I think, an important exercise. If we know where we are and we have an idea of where we want to be, it becomes a lot easier to determine the path from here to there and to take steps to get us there. Most of us have never given much thought to where we are in terms of skill, creativity and artistry, and even if we did, are not necessarily good judges of our own skills and levels so this is not a trivial process. While gradually and continuously striving to improve does in the end result in progress, I propose that we find a better and perhaps more direct route to becoming better photographic artists.

So, how do you assess your current level? What are the levels? Do all photographers go through the same levels in the same sequence? Is it a sequential process or can you skip steps and go back to a previous level? All good questions!"

[Wes]

I don't know if we all go through things in the same sequence, but I think we all have similar experiences.

As for how I measure where I'm at, I guess I look at where I've been by reviewing work that I've done in the past (oldest work first), look at the things that could have been done differently, and then gradually review newer and newer work. I can see the progression of improving skills over time. As for where I want to go, I look at the work of some of you around here and on places like photo.net. I try to figure out what it will take me to get to the point where I'm taking similar shots. If it's someone here I'll ask questions and try to learn. If it's photo.net, I don't talk to those people. IMHO, they're usually a bunch of snobs. However, you cannot deny the quality of their work.

BTW - I do ask for critical review of my work from people in person, and here. The problem with TPF is that critiques can be hard to come by. You can post and see dozens of views, but people don't always take the time to respond. Sometimes.

[hayasin]

In order for a person to guage your true level of growth you have to have a goal to strive towards. If you say well perfection then no that is a goal that you will never achieve. Is it something you want to get better at shooting? Maybe your goal is to increase your bookings by a X% or even learn how to shoot with a particular technique.

I propose that we find a better and perhaps more direct route to becoming better photographic artists.

There is no more direct way to becoming better artists than just plain old hard work. Look at a magazine, look at an image in there that intrigues you, go find a model and practice.

When you ask for critiques, look at what the person critiquing has said and then look at their own work. Look at your source of critisim and see what they have done and are they really qualified to be a judge of good photography?

[venchka]

A corollary I have seen stated over and over, paraphrased and simplified by me:

It ain't about your equipment.

[Wes]

Originally Posted by venchka

It ain't about your equipment.

Which is why my comments on the OP didn't mention equipment.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by xmenporsche

Which is why my comments on the OP didn't mention equipment.

I knew you knew that. My statement wasn't directed to anyone in particular.

[vibhav]

Nice Article...

I try to...not always...but try to leave constructive criticism when I am commenting on some one's picture...I leave most comments on the PBASE site where I host my pictures but here also, of and on, I leave comments...

To me, I really do not care too much about comments like - they look nice, well done etc... I am looking for that extra line of comment that says - did you try to take another similar shot with a different perspective that has this or that? Or, A tighter crop would help move the picture more...Or, Try converting it to B&W and it may look even better and so one...Something that will help me think about the picture more and force me to consider those comments next time I am taking a picture...That is what will help us grow...

Of course, I care a lot if a professional photographer leaves a comment on my picture but I will not discount comments but anyone else either...I do not judge people on whether they are qualified to give comments or not...If you like the comment and it makes you a better photographer, then it does not matter who leaves a comment....

No doubt, everyone loves occasional praise...But of and on, people should comment on pictures with what they really feel about it and how they think, in their mind, this could have been made better...That is what I think will take us to the next level....

-Vibhav.
http://www.pbase.com/avsphotos

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by venchka

A corollary I have seen stated over and over, paraphrased and simplified by me:

It ain't about your equipment.

There are great masters that have used "primitive equipment" compared to what we have available today to acheive legendary results.

However, that cliche paints with a broad brush. While the creative genious who knows a lot about lighting and composition has an advantage, if you put two identically skilled photographers on a shoot, I'll hire the one with better gear.

Sometimes, there's just no substitute for the right equipment for the job. There's a reason why you see all of those big ivory lenses on sidelines, for example. Better cameras and lenses can make better pictures if used by the right photographer.

Having said that, it's wrong for someone to say they're a better photographer just because they spent $20k + on their gear.

Would you agree?

[Gordon]

its an interesting article, but it seems a bit too logical/ categorical to be much use. I might be able to pin myself or a particular picture down to one 'level' or another, but that mostly tells me what craft skills to work on.

I don't really believe that art fits in little boxes like this.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

There are great masters that have used "primitive equipment" compared to what we have available today to acheive legendary results.

However, that cliche paints with a broad brush. While the creative genious who knows a lot about lighting and composition has an advantage, if you put two identically skilled photographers on a shoot, I'll hire the one with better gear.

Sometimes, there's just no substitute for the right equipment for the job. There's a reason why you see all of those big ivory lenses on sidelines, for example. Better cameras and lenses can make better pictures if used by the right photographer.

Having said that, it's wrong for someone to say they're a better photographer just because they spent $20k + on their gear.

Would you agree?

I would ignore the gear and look at their artistic vision as shown in their portfolio and talk to them about their philosophy of the image to see which was closer to what I want them the render. I just might go with the guy with the Holga rather than the 1DsMkII and the big white lenses.

It's not just skill but aesthetic vision. Skill and gear without vision is hollow.

[Wes]

Originally Posted by venchka

I knew you knew that. My statement wasn't directed to anyone in particular.

I knew that you knew that I knew that. I was simply, in my own twisted way, agreeing with what you said.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I would ignore the gear and look at their artistic vision as show in their portfolio and talk to them about their philosophy of the image to see which was closer to what I want them the render. I just might go with the guy with the Holga rather than the 1DsMkII and the big white lenses.

It's not just skill but aesthetic vision. Skill and gear without vision is hollow.

If you re-read my comments, I tried to state as clearly as I could that amoung equal skillsets, better gear makes better photos. I don't argue the point you made above.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

...There's a reason why you see all of those big ivory lenses on sidelines, for example
....
Having said that, it's wrong for someone to say they're a better photographer just because they spent $20k + on their gear.

Would you agree?

Subject specific specialized gear for commercial reasons aside, I do agree.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

If you re-read my comments, I tried to state as clearly as I could that amoung equal skillsets, better gear makes better photos. I don't argue the point you made above.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Ah, but the petard here is "better photos" and what is a better photo? I don't think equal skill sets and better gear would make better photos. This would reduce the photographic art to a mechanical act rather than a communicative one.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Ah, but the petard here is "better photos" and what is a better photo? I don't think equal skill sets and better gear would make better photos. This would reduce the photographic art to a mechanical act rather than a communicative one.

I didn't realize you were talking exclusively about "art". I'm not going to comment on that; it's far too subjective for a hack like me. I aspire to create art, but sometimes have to settle for customer satisfaction.

I'll keep throwing my money away on good gear (when I can afford it and see the ROI), anyhow.