Jacks of all trades...

[5T3R30TYP3]

...are masters of none.

I'm not really in a position to criticise other people's work cos I don't do any, but fucking hell, some people really make me laugh.

Chumps with DSLRs who pretend to be 'pro' and can apparently do every kind of photography from fashion to press to weddings to everything else

They might be able to do it all, but just one *slight* problem, they can't do it well... at all


every one of their pics looks like it was taken by a 12 year old novice who accidentally stumbled across his daddy's expensive Canon plaything

Reminds me of those articles about citizen journalism being "image pollution", i.e. all the good photos being diluted by shitloads of crap photos on the internet


</rant>


sorry. maybe I'm just jealous or something, at least they're trying.

 

[Delphian Sibyl]

"A man has got to know his limitations" - Harry Callahan, 1973.

 

[Robster970]

"A man has got to know his limitations" - Harry Callahan, 1973.

That was me, but the mrs was logged in and I dint notice.

 

[zenie]

sorry. maybe I'm just jealous or something, at least they're trying.

Links????

Some people can do some things equally well.

My best mate is a photgrapher and a bloody good one - she does portraiture and editorials mainly but has been given the chance to do architecture and why not?

Is there anyone particular who you think is shit or just any multi-subject photgrapher?

 

[5T3R30TYP3]

It's someone in particular. It wouldn't be fair to link to them, so I'm not gonna.

It's not just this one person though; seeing their website reminded me of quite a few other terrible ones I've seen in the past too.

I'm not saying multi-subject photographers are shit, far from it. I know there are loads of photographers who don't just specialise in one or two subjects and are still better than I will ever be at a single subject.

But I have to wonder when I see photographers websites claiming
- that they can do EVERY type of photography
- that they've had their work printed in various high profile magazines (but surprise surprise they don't say which issue or what page this work was printed on, and there are no examples of the published work on their website)

but the work on their website is absolutely mediocre. No individual style, nothing stands out and none of it is done particularly well.

They're all talk and no substance!

It's pretty common to see this kind of thing. People make the mistake of advertising that they can do everything, because they think it's going to get them more work. The fact is that, as with any trade, if you're a master of one type of photography or excellent at a few types, rather than mediocre at everything, you're gonna be more attractive to a potential client and you're going to get hired more.

 

[Firky]

One of my mates was a war photographer. Its odd because up until he got his leg blown off and metal pins in his leg, he was a war photographer and just photographed moving things, and people, scenes of carnage etc. But now he's out of action and restores austin healy's for a living, and in his spare time still does a bit of photography, but only of fine art and 'things that don't move much'

he did a lot of stuff for the indie and he's the bloke that taught me the best lesson of photography... "take away from the scene until you're left with the essential"

So.... yeah not sure what the point of this post is

sadly i lost touch with him a couple of years ago and i'm a bit annoyed that i allowed it to happen. he was a top bloke.

 

[maomao]

That was me, but the mrs was logged in and I dint notice.

Your mrs is called Harry Callahan?

 

[Robster970]

Your mrs is called Harry Callahan?

Nah, she's called dirty harriet....

 

[mauvais]

I think for most people it doesn't hold water. You wouldn't get drivers saying 'oh I can only drive on B-roads in the rain', pilots who only know how to takeoff but not land, chefs who can only cook beef etc etc. In the same way there's nothing to stop anyone who understands composition, shape, lighting etc taking a great photo of anything.

However it depends on the qualities needed for a certain genre; war photography, still life and arranging your own scenes, photos of people where you really need a rapport with the subject - these all require specialist characteristis not always to do with photography but more about personality.

Having said that, I think it's largely bollocks to pigeonhole even these people to some area they do well at. A war photographer inherently learns by doing and by the end of their role they might well have come to appreciate what makes a scene. To me it's the enthusiasm and willingness to learn that makes someone good at a particular style, not some present-at-birth mysterious gift.

I know what you mean though - loads of people who've bought an expensive piece of kit and think that makes the image, any image. You get these people everywhere - they're the people that cock everything up or move onto another hobby, ruing the money they've wasted. I think that's the point here, and a different thread - it's that accessibility of modern photography has made more jacks than masters, and not the ability of any one photographer to do a diverse range of stuff.