At least, I don't think I am.
A lot of people seem to think I am.
But personally I don't feel that way.
At best, I consider myself an "average" photographer who understands the limitations of his equipment and own skills quite well and has learnt through a lot of experience gained through trial and error (And advice from friends and other photographers) how to be creative within those limitations.
I know at this point a lot of my followers and friends and associates from the convention scene and various geek fandoms will be saying "But xahl, you take good photos! Why do you keep putting yourself down?!". Part of it is that you can be your own worst enemy. Self-criticism is often the harshest of all opinions, above all else. However, the other part of it is I genuinely don't see myself as a "good" photographer. There are plenty of other "snappers" who are technically superior to me. And this isn't just because they have more expensive equipment. Many of their shots will be better composed, have better focusing, better colour balanced. Just be plain better technically. They will have taken pictures, year on year, often professionally. I am, at best, a serious hobbyist. I cannot hope to compete with them. My pictures would not be fit to go into a magazine or newspaper as illustrations for an article. If I tried to submit some of my work for inclusion in an editorial, I would be laughed out of the senior editor-in-chief's office.
However, and this is the big "however", just because my photographs will never grace the front cover of National Geographic, just because they will never be seen as technically competent, does not mean they are completely, irredeemably awful. Because of my lack of formal training and education in photographic theory, because of the lack of budget to send on the absolute top of the line equipment, because of being thrown into the deep end and having to learn the ropes myself through experimentation, because I sometimes happen to be in the right place at the right time and hit the shutter release at the right split second, because of all of these things, they allowed me to develop my own style of photography. That slightly wonky framing, the odd colour balance because the camera didn't pick up the lighting right, that slight out of focus shot, that right moment to put the camera to my eye. It provides interesting character that may be lacking in a more technically competent shot.
Throughout my many years being an amateur photographer, there was and sometimes still is, many an occasion where I feel jealous of how other photographers have taken shots, how they seem "better" than anything I could take. I could keep trying to chase after other picture takers, trying to copy how they do things. Or I could do the more sensible thing and take pictures that are pleasing and satisfying to me. That would be a far more healthier attitude to have. I can take inspiration from others, but I do not have to outright imitate them, because if I do that, I would no longer be my own photographer. Taking pictures is not much different from painting and drawing. Van Gogh. Picasso. Monet. Warhol. Dali. Pollack. Cézanne. Rembrandt. If these artists had heard of each other, they might have taken inspiration but they would've still drawn and painted in their own way, If you asked them all to paint the same bowl of fruit, you would've probably ended up with very different interpretations.
Perhaps one of the most important messages about photography came from a photographer called Thomas Heaton, whose videos a fellow snapper suggested I watched. And the one I ended up viewing taught me the lesson that sometimes, technical perfection isn't what makes a good shot. Sometimes technical perfection harms the overall artistic nature of a shot. Below is a link to that video but the most powerful message he gave at the end resonated strongly with me.
"Don't follow the rules and don't shoot for anybody other than yourself." -Thomas Heaton (Image Quality | The Perfect Exposure)
No comments:
Post a Comment