I really love photography and most of my friends say that I have a good "eye". But how can you really know if you are good in photography? Are there any sort of online tests, assignments or competition sort of things? Or any other method to know it?
Answer
How does one know if they are a 'good' singer? A 'good' guitar player? A 'good' accordion player? Okay, I admit, there's no such thing as that last one (not really - it was a joke).
Like any art, part of the definition of 'good' is in the eye or ear or taste buds (think culinary arts) of the beholder. But there are also accepted norms that describe why some works are more appealing to most people than other works are.
The acid test for most visual artists is the answer to the question, "Does it invoke an emotional or intellectual response in the viewer?" There are 'rules' of composition and color and exposure and... but in the end it is about what does seeing your work do to your viewer?
That's not to say one shouldn't be familiar with 'the rules.' One most definitely should. By doing so it can help one avoid some of the most common pitfalls that make an image less than what it could be. Learning 'the rules' also helps us know what questions to ask ourselves when evaluating our own work. It can give a better understanding of when to choose to break those 'rules' and why they should be broken (i.e. when the typical emotional or intellectual response of the viewer to a specific 'rule' being broken is the response the photographer wishes to invoke).
The next step is to learn to look at your work critically. For some of us this is fairly easy, but for most of us it is more difficult. We are either tempted to see every single flaw and blow each one all out of proportion or we go to the other extreme and think just because I did that it has to be great! We must try, however, to develop an ability to look at our work as it is: How does the composition and color lead the eye around the frame? What does the image say to the viewer? Is that what we intended to say when we made the photo? Are the edges clean? Are the proper parts in focus? Is the exposure correct? If not, do those variations from the norm help accomplish the purpose of the photograph, or do they hinder it?
Next, we should compare our own work to that of others. Start by comparing your own work to other photographers whose work you like and admire.
Say you are into sports. Study the work of the masters such as Walter Iooss, Jr. and Neil Leifer who were pioneers at Sports Illustrated. What sets their best images apart from the crowd? How did they do it? What kinds of planning, technical skills, knowledge of the game they were covering, etc. were required for them to get that shot? Also look at the work of the guy who covers local sports for your hometown newspaper or the guys who shoot for the wire services covering your favorite sports teams. Pay attention to the bylines under the images so that you know who shot what images.
What similarities do you see between the work of one great photographer, the other pros, and yours? What differences? As you grow in your knowledge and understanding of what separates a good from a great sports/fashion/landscape/portrait/documentary/etc. photo from an average one, you'll be surprised to find that you'll see things in images that you might have done differently than even the acknowledged greats in a particular field.
Ultimately you must also get out and practice what you've learned. But practice alone isn't enough. Repeating the wrong way to do something over and over doesn't make you any better at doing it right, it just makes you better at doing it wrong. You need to practice correctly. If you don't understand the correct way to do something, find a book or online article or teacher that can show you. Then work on being able to do it that way consistently.
Then you've got to tie it all together. Does your work have the intended impact on those who view it? Why or why not? What can you do differently that will give it that impact? Do you know the 'rules' and understand when breaking them will contribute, rather than detract, from what you want to do with the image? Are you limited by your technical skills? How do your images compare to those of others whose work is acknowledged as 'good?'
No comments:
Post a Comment