What makes a good photographer good?

I have often heard people referring to certain photographers as being "A good photographer" & have wondered, what is it that makes a photographer become a good photographer? Is it their ability to get a good shot consistantly rather than occassionally? Is it their ability to see a good photograph where the rest of us walk past it without noticing? Is it their mastery of their equipment? Could it even be their compositional skills? and maybe it's a combination of all of the above.
I know that it might also be our own evaluation as to what is good or bad, but I would like to hear opinions on what you think makes a good photographer.

Miki G wrote in post #15511279
I have often heard people referring to certain photographers as being "A good photographer" & have wondered, what is it that makes a photographer become a good photographer? Is it their ability to get a good shot consistantly rather than occassionally? Is it their ability to see a good photograph where the rest of us walk past it without noticing? Is it their mastery of their equipment? Could it even be their compositional skills? and maybe it's a combination of all of the above.

In my opinion, it's definitely a combination of all the above and then some.

The one really important thing you missed, though, is the ability to creatively see, use, and (when necessary) control lighting of the scene being photographed. Photography is all about lighting and getting the lighting right is crucial to "good" photography.

I agree with Skip. The thing is, it's a continuous scale, so you don't just get to a certain point and become a good photographer. We're all learning all the time. Most of us on this forum would be considered a good photographer by our friends, but we'd also be well aware of others who are much better than we are.

Much of it, at least early on, comes from attention to detail, for example noticing things in the frame that might detract from the final image, so cropping them out, or hiding them behind another element, or maybe changing the angle. Similarly, understanding what the light is doing in the image, so you don't unintentionally bleach important elements, or lose them in shadows. Composition is a key part. Often you can transform an image just by changing shooting position a little.

Obviously the technical side needs mastering, so you know when to use which lens, aperture, shutter speed, etc. That's just knowing your tools.

The greats have wonderful imagination and can bring elements together that most people wouldn't think of. This is where I personally fall short - I would call myself a "proficient photographer" - and if you wanted images to illustrate an encyclopedia I could provide them all day long. But for shots that blow you away, I would struggle to construct something from my imagination.

I beleive it is a subjective scale.
Someone with an iphone and colour effects app would be considered a good photographer to those that only snap photos on a night out.
Someone with a dslr is considered good to someone with an iphone & app.
I consider myself as good; for i produce consistent shots with minimal equipment where many will get bogged down with equipment and I have a great eye for detail.
I consider other photographer's good when the image captures my attention and holds it. All the best technical accuracy and spot on lighting means nothing if a photograph does not hold my attention and make me feel something.

The ability to sell themselves to clients.

irishman wrote in post #15511496
The ability to sell themselves to clients.

It should be, "the ability of your works to sell themselves to your clients." I know a Facebook photographer who has over 600 likes but she could hardly make a dime from her works. That's because her works suck. Your instagram photos would look a lot better than hers.

I think it is seeing the final image from what you have in front off you that inspires the taking of that photograph bfore any buttons are pressed or knobs twisted.
You then wait/ come back/ setup the lighting and equipment to achieve what you have visualized the final image to be.
If you cant wait/ come back/ setup the lighting then it's composition. Or timing for the fleeting moving image.
Having expensive equipment does not make these mental contributions come any easier, the equipment should just make the adjustments you have deemed necessary a little easier to make.
I think this also applies to post processing too.

irishman wrote in post #15511496
The ability to sell themselves to clients.

Funny. I know several excellent photographers who have never sold a single print. Not because they weren't offered money for them, but simply because they love photography and sharing their hobby.

On the other hand, I have met more than a few 'professional' photographers who do utter crap that they still manage to sell.

irishman wrote in post #15511496
The ability to sell themselves to clients.

Ah, but that does not speak only of being a good photographer - that involves being a good businessman. I do not think the OP specifically mentioned anything about being a good income-producing photographer (and nothing of the sort was implied, either).
Being a good photographer does not necessarily include the ability to produce income form one's photographic pursuits, does it?

Someone told me that what makes a good photographer is the ability to experiment with photography

irishman wrote in post #15511496
The ability to sell themselves to clients.

That would make a successful professional photographer, which would be helped by being a good photographer, but is not logically dependent upon it.

SkipD wrote in post #15511313
In my opinion, it's definitely a combination of all the above and then some.

The one really important thing you missed, though, is the ability to creatively see, use, and (when necessary) control lighting of the scene being photographed. Photography is all about lighting and getting the lighting right is crucial to "good" photography.

I must agree with SkipD. My own personal opinion is the ability of the photographer to portray their subject in the best light, regardless of the subject matter & to make it visually pleasing to the viewer. I don't think the ability to make money from photography makes the photographer good, nor do I think that the equipment will make the photographer better, even though it can help to make the desired result achieved more easily. I think the photographer must be able to visualise beforehand "in their minds eye" the end result that they desire. At the time of taking the shot, they must think about composition, lighting, shutter speeds, aperture etc etc and afterwards see in a critical way, how the image can further be improved creatively, so that it is able to draw & hold the attention of the viewer.

I'm sure that there are many other factors that I've missed, but this would be how I would see a photographer as being good.

My friend Christine doesn't know the first thing about her camera....seriously. She shoots with a rebel t3I on full auto. She just sold a collection of building landscape photos printed, framed and mounted to a downtown law firm for 10k. Her photos are beautiful. She has an amazing eye. Its not always what you know, sometimes its what you see and your ability to compose the shot.

flashpoint99 wrote in post #15511928
My friend Christine doesn't know the first thing about her camera....seriously. She shoots with a rebel t3I on full auto. She just sold a collection of building landscape photos printed, framed and mounted to a downtown law firm for 10k. Her photos are beautiful. She has an amazing eye. Its not always what you know, sometimes its what you see and your ability to compose the shot.

would love to see some of the work

consistency.