How to identify a good photographer?

This question grows from a discussion in another thread. A point that I made is that you can't look at a photographer's gear as an indicator of how good they are. There are excellent photographers who use Rebels, maybe even [gasp!] a point-and-shoot. Others who sport $5000 bodies and L glass may be posers.

Let's assume that you must decide without seeing the portfolio. If the gear doesn't tell you how good somebody is, what does?

Let me throw out one thought: Ask them how many they have in their "one that got away" file. Every experienced photographer whom I know has a list. And they can speak at great length and in great detail about the precise circumstances that caused them to lose it.

Your thoughts?

It's all about the images. Plain and simple.

I really like photowalks and social photography.

I'm happy to shoot with anyone, but I like to watch how they take photos.

Less talking, or at least very distracted talking is a good sign.
Also, less chimping is good and usually a very good sign if they keep looking at the subject when they're lowering the camera and they don't look at where the buttons are, etc.

Overall, it's confidence and fluency with their gear.
Also seems to be that the try-hards make a wide range of funny mouth movements and hanging out tongues that continuously changes and they try to convince you of how 'into the scene' they are.

I never actually thought of what you said Joe, that's a very good point seeing as that shows just how a photographer looks at a scene.

The two main things for me that makes a BAD photographer (Which are almost the same) are...

1. RAW Advocates. For full shoots I shoot in RAW for the additional control and freedom, however I have met people, and one person in particular who quite literarly said "Don't worry about the exposure man, just shoot it in RAW". If you rely on RAW processing that much, you are immediately a bad photographer since photography is the art of capturing light.

2. If they rely on post processing too much, as in they just take photo and then "make it into a good photo" in photoshop with over the top cliche editting.

Mainly I think the best way to judge a photographer without seeing there work is to get to know their attitude towards their art, the way they look at things, and their technical ability (however I know people who are all technique and no art, and therefore don't really consider them photographers)

thetathink wrote in post #12138227
It's all about the images. Plain and simple.

Ditto on this - I'm not quite sure why other arguments would have more validity.

After all, it's really about the results. This is a visual craft....... discussion for educational purposes and technique is certainly valid, but you don't see aesthetic "words" hanging in an exhibition or museum. I'm not trying to be sarcastic; this is simply how I view it .

Joe, was somebody in the other thread actually making the argument that it was the gear that made the photographer? - Stu

Lots of people can talk the talk.
It is all about the final image. Consistent quality.

You have to look at their work- period.

If people are saying (honestly) you have good photos - you are good photographer.

I think it is completely subjective. It depends on who you are trying to please. Are you trying to please other photographers with your work? Or are you trying to please the average consumer?

Can two almost identical, good quality images look pretty much the same- one done primarily by using the camera with minimal post processing, and another with much more post processing, like the guy above "dont worry about the exposure man, just shoot in RAW"?

I would think then the one who knows how to create more of the image with their camera is a "better" photographer, and the other is a Photoshop expert... any truth to this? Im not an expert in either one...

sapearl wrote in post #12138387
Joe, was somebody in the other thread actually making the argument that it was the gear that made the photographer? - Stu

Not quite. There was a lot of bandying about the edges.

It was this thread https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1019910

Regarding the current thread, I framed it so that we weren't talking about the images. Think of it this way: "You're at a party and someone announces that he is a pro photographer. How can you tell if it's true?"

To judge skills by the gear they carry will not be possible. Posers are easily spotted out there and there are sadly many of them with very expensive gear.
That includes Leica users who although carry tiny cameras which costs more than a small car but pose as if they were pro's, but when you actually look at their pics they suck.

/ Magnus

Why would you want to bother with such a foolish and inevitably unsuccesful exercise?

Just to reiterate the premise of my question: you do not have access to the person's images. Of course that's the bottom line. Think of being at a party and someone announces to you that he is a pro photographer. What can he say to you that will will convince you that it's true? Or what can you ask him, the answer to which will reveal the truth?

It's a very subjective thing. Personally; I don't care. If somebody wants to buy $10 000 in gear and not know how to use it; that's their business and money. If they're trying to make a business out of it, they'll be identified quickly. If somebody has great gear and a willingness to learn how to use it, as well as aptitude and patience then that's fine with me. It all falls under attitude, but the right attitude is different for everyone.

Personally, I have some decent equipment but I'm by no means amazing or a pro. I take photos for me. If people like what they see, then that's awesome! If they don't, and would consider me a 'poser' or 'untalented' then oh well, I really don't mind.