Lacking knowledge about photography

Example: My sister directed me to a website and asked if I could quote "Take pictures like that?". After giving them a look over I could tell that the lady who took them had a multi-light setup and told my sis that. I then was asked what did I mean and I went in to detail about lighting, or as much as I know.

Turns out that I know the lady but I digress.

Example 2: My cousins husband and I were chatting about photography and I told him what I wanted to do for a living as a photog (sports) and he said that with my camera I could do rodeos and whatnot. I then replied I certainly could but would need a longer lens, which got the puzzled look. Again I explained that not only would I need the zoom, but would also need the lens to be fast.

Here are my q's

1: Given the right equipement could you not recreate just about any photo you see in a magazine? Excluding the "in the right place at the right time" aspect.

2: Do you ever look at a photo you like and say to yourself you could take one like that. NOT THAT YOU COULD TAKE ONE BETTER, just that you know you have a good grasp of what it would take to recreate that particular photo?

What can one tell from looking at another's photo about how it was taken? That's a very interesting question. Some clues are more obvious than others. For example one can often tell that a flash was used from shadows or color balance. Motion blur and shallow depth of field may indicate slower shutter speeds and lower f/ stops. Compressed spacial relationships may mean a longer lens was used. But, in the end, it's really better to look at the Exif data.

Good point, one can recreate alot with photoshop. And very true about EXIF data but I dont think you can do that from a mag cover. Im simply stating that alot of people think because you have a "fancy" camera you can do any kind of photography you want. they dont realize that there is alot more to it.

Im not sure how to look at exif data but does it show all the things a person does to a photo, as far as color adjustments and whatnot?

I know Ive had some shots that after Im done with adjusments and level, will look like the shutter/exposure/light​ing was completely different than what it originally was.

thekid24 wrote in post #3086169
Im not sure how to look at exif data but does it show all the things a person does to a photo, as far as color adjustments and whatnot?

Most photo editing programs have an EXIF view function, you just have to find it. You can download free EXIF viewers to work in conjunction with various internet browsers, IE, Firefox, etc. With them, you simply right click on the photo, and select the EXIF viewer from menu box. I use Exif Viewer 1.15, a Firefox extension by Alan Raskin.

My answers to OP's questions (let's use National Geogeographic as an example):

1. Could I recreate just about any photo I see in NG magazine (given the same opportunity)? Yes - if I was really extremely lucky, and the stars were aligned absolutely perfectly, and I made no mistakes whatsoever, and if I had half the knowledge that the photographer has, but once would be pushing it.

2. Do I look at a NG photo and think "I could do that too?" No, I look at those photos and say, "Gee I wish I could do that", or, "how in hell did he do that?"

Seriously, the guys that are really good are really good for the same reasons that really good musicians are good - they have tons of talent and work very hard.

I don't have the qualifications and never will, but I keep trying. That's what life is all about.

Glenn NK wrote in post #3088104
My answers to OP's questions (let's use National Geogeographic as an example):

1. Could I recreate just about any photo I see in NG magazine (given the same opportunity)? Yes - if I was really extremely lucky, and the stars were aligned absolutely perfectly, and I made no mistakes whatsoever, and if I had half the knowledge that the photographer has, but once would be pushing it.

2. Do I look at a NG photo and think "I could do that too?" No, I look at those photos and say, "Gee I wish I could do that", or, "how in hell did he do that?"

Seriously, the guys that are really good are really good for the same reasons that really good musicians are good - they have tons of talent and work very hard.

I don't have the qualifications and never will, but I keep trying. That's what life is all about.

Thank you for your honesty and straight forward answer. Thats what I look for when I ask questions.

1: Given the right equipement could you not recreate just about any photo you see in a magazine? Excluding the "in the right place at the right time" aspect.

I typically think that yeah, but most of the pictures that really amaze me are the right place, right time shots. I'm not saying it could be done quickly, but it could be done yeah.

2: Do you ever look at a photo you like and say to yourself you could take one like that. NOT THAT YOU COULD TAKE ONE BETTER, just that you know you have a good grasp of what it would take to recreate that particular photo?

sometimes I'll find pictures that I really like so first I try to recreate that shot to learn the way it was shot. Then I look into jazzing it up or taking the knowledge I gained and doing something that's more my style.

deadpass wrote in post #3094383
1: Given the right equipement could you not recreate just about any photo you see in a magazine? Excluding the "in the right place at the right time" aspect.

I typically think that yeah, but most of the pictures that really amaze me are the right place, right time shots. I'm not saying it could be done quickly, but it could be done yeah.

2: Do you ever look at a photo you like and say to yourself you could take one like that. NOT THAT YOU COULD TAKE ONE BETTER, just that you know you have a good grasp of what it would take to recreate that particular photo?

sometimes I'll find pictures that I really like so first I try to recreate that shot to learn the way it was shot. Then I look into jazzing it up or taking the knowledge I gained and doing something that's more my style.

Thank you for your honesty. I do the same as well. I never said that I could do it better, in fact I made that boldy clear. I feel I have a better grasp over the regular Joe as to what it would take. Those who get in magazines are either really really good, or know the right people. Thats business though.

Here is my feeling:

1: Given the right equipement could you not recreate just about any photo you see in a magazine?
Composition, lighting, and portraying emotion are the skills that seperate the top photographers from the good ones, in my opinion. Perhaps with enough attempts I could get a result very very similar to a shot in almost any magazine. Some photos would take less time than others - oftentimes I see photos in magazinesthat I think I could recreate easily. However, some of the great photographs would be hard to. I mean... looking at the picture and recreating it yes I could probably. But if I was in the same position and had any gear I wanted I don't know if I could recreate the picture without seeing it first. What I am trying to say is that recreating a photo is possible, but getting the photo to have the impact that the original did would be difficult without seeing it first.

2: Do you ever look at a photo you like and say to yourself you could take one like that. NOT THAT YOU COULD TAKE ONE BETTER, just that you know you have a good grasp of what it would take to recreate that particular photo?
Yes. There are a lot of photos I think I could recreate, but then again there are a number of photos that I don't know if I could or not.

The thing that seperates the good pro photographers from the great ones is the ability to consistently perform well. A photographer for national geographic will have to go on an expedition and he has to get amazing photos. He has to do this repeatedly. The magazine knows that when this guy goes out he will come back with results. Some other photographer might produce a quality image once in a while but he can't consistently put out stunning results.

Like sports illustrated - a lot of the photographers must get "the shot". Sure, an amateur might get a better one once in a while, but on the whole the images that the SI photographer returns will be better than the one the amateur does, and that is why he has the job.

(This is all speculation, but I think it should be correct. Maybe SI photographers actually don't get very many good images... I dunno.)

Good question by the way.

P.S. Although you could recreate the photo, if you were stuck in that situation where the photographer was, would you have a good enough grasp of all the key elements of photography to produce a stunning image? What if you only had a few seconds to get the shot?

1. Yes, you could. Though, that does not mean that the person assuming they could take that picture quite deserves to be in the same place as the orig. photog. These photographers images are in there for a reason. They have all been able to consistently prove them selves in scenarios and situations. Its good that you asked this question because a very good example that comes to mind with me is recipes and cooking. Sure almost anyone can take that lasagna recipe and recreate this 'masterpiece' but in the end the reason that chef is up there and not the other person is because of the complete understanding, willingness, dedication, education, and proof of professional ability.

And it is much harder to create an original that a duplicate.

2. I often hear myself saying that. But I keep in mind, just like I said in question #1; these photogs. have proven themselves in someway to have their image up there.


So with that said, two words to sum this up could be originality and consistency. These images are up there because of their unique, un-duplicated (is that a word?) , for the most part, characteristics. And these pro's stay up there because that can consistently dish it out.


But regarding you Kid, Ive seen your work. from my point of view, you could do it...though time will tell.

cskn0125 wrote in post #3099980
1. Yes, you could. Though, that does not mean that the person assuming they could take that picture quite deserves to be in the same place as the orig. photog. These photographers images are in there for a reason. They have all been able to consistently prove them selves in scenarios and situations. Its good that you asked this question because a very good example that comes to mind with me is recipes and cooking. Sure almost anyone can take that lasagna recipe and recreate this 'masterpiece' but in the end the reason that chef is up there and not the other person is because of the complete understanding, willingness, dedication, education, and proof of professional ability.

And it is much harder to create an original that a duplicate.

2. I often hear myself saying that. But I keep in mind, just like I said in question #1; these photogs. have proven themselves in someway to have their image up there.

So with that said, two words to sum this up could be originality and consistency. These images are up there because of their unique, un-duplicated (is that a word?) , for the most part, characteristics. And these pro's stay up there because that can consistently dish it out.

But regarding you Kid, Ive seen your work. from my point of view, you could do it...though time will tell.

My point exactly. Some can recreate it but doesnt quite have the right to be in the same level as the original photog. And the reason its put on a cover or in a mag is because I feel that photog can consitantly take amazing shots. They have the permenant "artistic eye" when they look at things. Even if they dont admit it.

Im not famous or even that good by any stretch but find myself looking for different angles and compositions. I think over time Ill start to see alot more in that light.

But thank you for your kind compliment on my work, I honestly dont see it all that impressive and thats probably why I strive to get to that level. I dont think my stuff could hold a candle to those on here.