As I continue my road down photography lane, I find that I am torn between different types of photography - landscape, avian, fauna and travel. The more I learn about avian photography, the more I realize how different it is from landscape photography - from the equipment you need, the settings on your equipment, flash, DOF, etc. - in many ways it is very opposite from landscape photography. As I look at the many wonderful photos on NPN, I've noticed that the photographers that I most admire and who are the most incredible photographers IMO, all seem to focus on one area of photograhy. They are not trying to be excellent at landscape and avian and fauna, etc., but seem to have focused most all of their energy in one area. Of course there will be exceptions where they may cross over, such as Steve Sieren's snake image which is the May cover shot. It is one of the very most amazing images I have ever seen, but Steve did not set out to take a fauna image - it was by chance that the snake appeared in his landscape image. So I'm just wondering, do you think that to be a really good photographer one must concentrate their efforts in one area?
I think to be a "really good photographer" one has to find the time to dedicate to the craft. If I were to critique my own photography I'd say my biggest problem is that I don't shoot enough. If someone uses their time more efficiently by concentrating on and perfecting one particular subject, I suppose having a specialty and being good could go hand in hand. Otherwise, I usually assume that folks who specialize in landscape/avian/wildlife do so simply because that's what they enjoy shooting most.
Good question, Carol. Speaking just for myself, my natural skills really aren't that high. I've done best when I focus on my first love, birds. Partly it's my interest area. Partly it seems to be what I am best at. And it's an inexhaustible subject.
Here are my thoughts, and like many of us, I'm still feeling my way into the process.
Yes, many folks do seem to specialize in one given area and there are many folks who cross over from one subject to another even though the equipment may be different.
But the more I photograph subjects, the more I think there's a specific style we use in both photographing a given scene as well as processing that scene. I think that takes time to evolve. And that; i.e., the style, is what creates the good photographer/artist. This was really brought home to me today when I viewed a small gallery at the Bellagio today containing impressionistic landscapes created by artists and photographers--some like Monet and Chagall, well known, others less so, but all had a specific style to their work.
I do agree with Max. No matter what tasks we take on in life, it does take time to perfect skills, whether in the field of artistic endeavors or some other fields such as medicine, education, computer science. Time and the desire to aim for perfection ...
Hank's right. You can eventually learn to do several types of photographs well. But when you learn you need to focus on one at a time. Eventually, many things are similar regardless of which area you study: f-stop, shutter speed, iso, hyperfocal, color balance, light quality and so on are universal and apply to all types of photography.
What's the most important for me in regards to learning is passion. Focus on the subject you are most passionate about. If you have a passion for the subject you will be successful.
Some categories you list like avian and fauna are fairly similar in terms of the technique and equipment used. I think you can become excellent at photographing both of these at the same time. I mostly post bird photos (partly because I am a moderator) but I also enjoy photographing mammals and other wildlife and have sold just as many of those images. Whereas in landscape photography the techniques and equipment used are very different than photographing birds and wildlife so I would think it would be difficult to become excellent at both that and landscape photography at the same time. But as Hank said you can master one area and then move on.
To answer this, I'll refer you to Ronnie Gaubert's portfolio:
exquisite images of trees, fauna, flora, birds.
http://www.photoportfolios.net/portfolio/pf.cgi?a=up&ns=1&pi=RONNIE
I don't believe one has to choose only 1 or 2 areas to concentrate on, but, of course, mastering any takes time and practice.
Sandy
Although most photographers do indeed specialize in one area, there are several who do wildlife and landscapes. Take Marsel van Oosten for example (www.squiver.com). What he and others do is work in cycles, some years they do more landscapes, and some years more wildlife. It's definitly possible to do more then one subject, the most important thing is you do what feels right and where you are having fun, and when you get the urge to shift from one to the other just do so
Whenever I hear the 'specialization' question, I'm reminded of this quote from Robert Heinlein:
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
The short answer is no. Just look at the work of Art Wolfe, Jim Brandenburg, Frans Lanting or John Shaw. Alain gave some great advice,,,,,,shoot your passion. The rest will fall into place.
To me, that's like saying must one specialize to be a really good doctor? I say no. Talent is talent, regardless of specialization. Shoot what your heart tells you to shoot and you'll be much happier.
I believe gone are the days, when 'jack of all trades' used to be success mantra, if one needs to master something, he is to move step by step, without any focusing problems and it's a long road. How quick you achieve results, also depends upon degree of passion, besides other things. One can move on to different subject after mastering one, but I wonder if you could risk calling your self a beginner again.
If one tries to shoot mammals with birds, it's a reasonable gamble.
I like David's view, but if I have to become, say Art Wolf, I just can't do it by attempting all the subjects together. I may try mammals first and then birds and then close ups.
When I started photography, my initial teacher used to say,"if you want to master something, don't even attempt second thing". Although, I didn't follow the advice strictly.
I believe, if I can master one subject, will consider myself blessed one and then may or may not attempt second subject, depending upon mental, physical, creative and financial resources.
Jagdeep Rajput
Hey Carol - I agree with the versatility of practicing the basics and shooting at every chance you get. When you are proficient with your equipment every subject is a possible "wall hanger". I prefer shooting landscapes because I enjoy being out in nature and away from the hustle and crowds of the cities, however, we were in Old Town Quebec recently and even though I had never considered doors as a subject, I became fascinated by the many styles and colors of the doors leading off the narrow streets of the old city. I now have a collection of door shots that are very popular as note cards.
This is a great subject for open discussion - thanks for posting.
Thanks so much for all of your amazing answers so far. I guess what I am beginning to realize now is a "really good photographer" doesn't necessarily "specialize" in a certain area. Instead, they shoot what they are passionate about and the quality of their images is the result of this passion and the effort/practice they put into photography. Quite often this does mean that a photographer is passionate about one certain type of photography (i.e. landscape), but not necessarily so. I guess it is important for a photographer to determine one's passion and this may be where my conflict arises. While I feel I am clearly passionate about landscape photography, in Florida avian photography is so much more abundant than grand landscapes so I have been putting a lot of focus into that area for the last few years. My passion there does not equal my landscape passion, which is quite evidenced by the fact that my entire camera setup is a landscape setup and not an avian setup. But every year my interest in avian photography does grow and when I am ready to make a commitment to that area than I will be able to take my avian photography to the next level.
My short answert is 'no'. That said, consideration must be given to what appears to be a certain reality: Someone who focuses on a particular subject matter exclusively is likely to become a master of that particular type of image sooner than a generalist. Depending on the individual talent and drive involved, the generalist may never reach the level of the specialist - but then again they might! It depends quite a bit on talent, ability and drive.
I started out as a landscape photographer, then branched out into Man & Nature images. As my abilities improved, I could not help but notice potential shots almost everywhere I went that had nothing to do with my original interests!
The result, on one hand, is that only a very small percentage of my work is compatible with NPN. On the other, it has opened unexpected interest and markets for my work and even taught me to see different things in new ways. What interests most galleries is the broad scope of my subject matter - there is literally a potential image of interest for almost any buyer. For example, a quick click on my NPN Gallery below will give a good cross section of the work I post to NPN, including several EP's. But my work goes wel beyond NPN, for example:
As one gallery owner recently put it, I literally have my feet in two worlds! I find both equally fascinating, but in extremely different ways. I apply the same commitment and passion to both environments as the goal is always the same - to create the best possible photograph for the viewer.
Ok, this is easy then - we need to trade homes. You're in Florida - bird territory - but would prefer landscapes.
I'm in Califonia/Oregon with great landscapes, but prefer birds.
Open to dates ! How about Friday?
This is a great discussion. I seriously took up photography about 18 months ago (Always wanted to do landscapes) and have felt that I should "specialize". The problem is that I just love doing all of it (landscape, avain, wildlife, flora, macro) that I cannot decide which way to go.
These responses lead me to realize that if I am enjoying putting my effort into a subject I should keep at it. (After reading Jim's reply I may have to get into motorcycles too!). I may never become a "master" at any of them, but then it really is more of what I get out of my photography than what others think of me. Thanks for starting this thread. It is a very good read.
First, I don't sell stuff and rarely print, so I am free to follow my passion. I also don't pretend to operate in a vacuum. Feedback from this site and from family/friends...both positive and negative does influence my direction. One of my fav NPN shots, kept in my gallery, hardly received views nor comments. To this day, it remains one of my very fav. But, I don't search for comps like it, because no else seems to care nor enjoy it. That dampens my efforts.
Regarding variety....I would never limit myself. Perhaps that is my latent ADD. When I find myself bored with one area...I try something different. Lately, I have shot sporting events...college track/field, college rowing, and wild river rafting. I love capturing drama, excitement, personal moments, seeing the drive in the eyes and expressions. Occasional portraits of family, babies, and children somehow find a way into my schedule, ...mostly friends and work partners....which I enjoy. One of these days I want to shoot the flow and lines of a ballerina on stage. I am only..."OK"...not outstanding in any particular area. But, I don't have to be. And with just enough adequate positive feedback, I will keep on trying.
I agree with the statement: 'Master light ....and the world is your subject."
Many good points have been brought up in this thread. I think there is one obvious point that hasn't been discussed (or I missed it). Most of this discussion has been about developing the artistic and technical skills to produce compelling images of a given subject matter. By specializing one simply gets more practice therefore develops skills more quickly in a given area. But as the old saying goes, "you can't make a purse out of a sow's ear". In other words, you can't force all of the variables to come together which offer a chance for a truly compelling image. So the more time you spend on a given topic, the higher the probability that the opportunity will present itself to create a "really good" photo. This demonstrates itself in that fact that many of the best landscape images of iconic locations are produced by local photographers. By spending hours in the field they both gain a familiarity with the subject and statistically increase the probability of being "in the right place at the right time". It's not impossible, but chances are pretty low that I'm going to show up in Zion NP for a week and come away with images as good as those of another similarly skilled photographer who lives there.
So I guess in direct response to the question in the OP, no it's not necessary to concentrate on one area of photography to get really good at it. But chances are higher that you'll create those truly amazing photos if you do. Simply because there's no getting around spending time in the field to encounter those magical moments that we're all after. After all, it's all about the light.
As a matter of full disclosure, I personally am all over the map, avian, floral, mammals, lanscape.... and lay no claims to being "really good" at any of them
A lot depends on how you plan to use and promote your work. A narrow focus is prized by critics and collectors and helps identify you with your work but ultimately you need to be satisfied with what you do.
This is a great topic Carol. I started out shooting city scapes because that is where I lived, 5 miles from NYC, many, many years ago. Today I photograph mainly seascapes, landscapes, abstracts in the New England and Atlantic Canada areas. So that is my passion for now but I would not call it a specialization. I know those areas well with respect to good light. I can look out the window and know if I should rush out or wait a while. While I also love to travel, every new place has it challenges to overcome.... like when is the light best, good vantage points.... I have shot many iconic areas but don't really like that since everyone else has. I have traveled a lot all over the US and Canada through the years, but my best work always seems to be those shots in New England and Atlantic Canada (IMO and based on response and the few images I actually sold or have been asked to show at the Boothbay Harbor Library, Maine). Maybe just because I knew when to fly out the door with my camera equipment. I know I do not have a real knack for photographing people, animals.... wildlife or domestic..... even my dog sleeping on the couch is difficult for me to photograph well..... a different twist on this topic.
Posted by Sarah Marino on May 13, 2011 at 12:29 AM
I think this is going to vary dramatically by the individual, since there are cases on each extreme and at various points in the middle (many good examples given above). In my profession, I have mastered a few different specialties and the variety keeps me motivated. With photography, however, I am only interested in landscapes. At this point, I can't image trying to master another field of photography since I still have so much to learn within the landscape genre. So even for me, my approach to mastering something varies even within my personal pursuits. I agree those who stated that following your interests will help things fall in place, with the result looking different for each of us because of our different skills, talents, and interests. Great topic for discussion.
I was asked once "which subject should I learn to photograph well first?" I answered "whichever you are most passionate about." If you are passionate about what you do, then you will find the resources to do what you want. Your passion will also attract an audience that is equally passionate about the subject you photograph.
However, there are definitely time limitations: the more subjects you photograph, the more time you need. So ask yourself how much time you have available to do this, then use your time wisely.
For me success is largely the result of careful planning. I plan a lot. Not everything -- I don't plan to create art for example-- but I do plan how I use my resources in regards to time and money. And, I am more careful of how I use my time because while I can make more money, I cannot make more time. Regardless of who we are, we all have 24hrs in a day.
In the end what the chopping stone is often a wise, or not so wise, allocation of our resources. While we can do 'everything' it is rarely feasible to do so. At least not all at once!
Alain and Dan R hit the nail on the head--it's all about time. Unless you have some amazing innate ability that no one else has (and im not sure that's even possible with photographers) it will take time to become 'really good'. Ansel A shot plenty of portraits, but he's still known for his landscapes. He was also a very good musician--but focused more on his photography which evidently was the correct focus for him The advice of following one's passion is a good one, but if you have multiple passions then focusing on one or the other may be both necessary and desirable.
Discussion
26 repliesMax
Here are my thoughts, and like many of us, I'm still feeling my way into the process.
Yes, many folks do seem to specialize in one given area and there are many folks who cross over from one subject to another even though the equipment may be different.
But the more I photograph subjects, the more I think there's a specific style we use in both photographing a given scene as well as processing that scene. I think that takes time to evolve. And that; i.e., the style, is what creates the good photographer/artist. This was really brought home to me today when I viewed a small gallery at the Bellagio today containing impressionistic landscapes created by artists and photographers--some like Monet and Chagall, well known, others less so, but all had a specific style to their work.
I do agree with Max. No matter what tasks we take on in life, it does take time to perfect skills, whether in the field of artistic endeavors or some other fields such as medicine, education, computer science. Time and the desire to aim for perfection ...
My 2-cents ...
Regards,
Carol
What's the most important for me in regards to learning is passion. Focus on the subject you are most passionate about. If you have a passion for the subject you will be successful.
Alain
exquisite images of trees, fauna, flora, birds.
http://www.photoportfolios.net/portfolio/pf.cgi?a=up&ns=1&pi=RONNIE
I don't believe one has to choose only 1 or 2 areas to concentrate on, but, of course, mastering any takes time and practice.
Sandy
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
If one tries to shoot mammals with birds, it's a reasonable gamble.
I like David's view, but if I have to become, say Art Wolf, I just can't do it by attempting all the subjects together. I may try mammals first and then birds and then close ups.
When I started photography, my initial teacher used to say,"if you want to master something, don't even attempt second thing". Although, I didn't follow the advice strictly.
I believe, if I can master one subject, will consider myself blessed one and then may or may not attempt second subject, depending upon mental, physical, creative and financial resources.
Jagdeep Rajput
This is a great subject for open discussion - thanks for posting.
cook
Kent in SD
I started out as a landscape photographer, then branched out into Man & Nature images. As my abilities improved, I could not help but notice potential shots almost everywhere I went that had nothing to do with my original interests!
The result, on one hand, is that only a very small percentage of my work is compatible with NPN. On the other, it has opened unexpected interest and markets for my work and even taught me to see different things in new ways. What interests most galleries is the broad scope of my subject matter - there is literally a potential image of interest for almost any buyer. For example, a quick click on my NPN Gallery below will give a good cross section of the work I post to NPN, including several EP's. But my work goes wel beyond NPN, for example:
http://www.essentiallightphotography.com/#urban/46
http://www.essentiallightphotography.com/#urban/45
http://www.essentiallightphotography.com/#urban/50
and (click on the motorcycle image near the top of the page):
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-Sabistons-Essential-Light-Photography/186347551404131
As one gallery owner recently put it, I literally have my feet in two worlds! I find both equally fascinating, but in extremely different ways. I apply the same commitment and passion to both environments as the goal is always the same - to create the best possible photograph for the viewer.
I'm in Califonia/Oregon with great landscapes, but prefer birds.
Open to dates ! How about Friday?
Sandy
These responses lead me to realize that if I am enjoying putting my effort into a subject I should keep at it. (After reading Jim's reply I may have to get into motorcycles too!). I may never become a "master" at any of them, but then it really is more of what I get out of my photography than what others think of me. Thanks for starting this thread. It is a very good read.
First, I don't sell stuff and rarely print, so I am free to follow my passion. I also don't pretend to operate in a vacuum. Feedback from this site and from family/friends...both positive and negative does influence my direction. One of my fav NPN shots, kept in my gallery, hardly received views nor comments. To this day, it remains one of my very fav. But, I don't search for comps like it, because no else seems to care nor enjoy it. That dampens my efforts.
Regarding variety....I would never limit myself. Perhaps that is my latent ADD. When I find myself bored with one area...I try something different. Lately, I have shot sporting events...college track/field, college rowing, and wild river rafting. I love capturing drama, excitement, personal moments, seeing the drive in the eyes and expressions. Occasional portraits of family, babies, and children somehow find a way into my schedule, ...mostly friends and work partners....which I enjoy. One of these days I want to shoot the flow and lines of a ballerina on stage. I am only..."OK"...not outstanding in any particular area. But, I don't have to be. And with just enough adequate positive feedback, I will keep on trying.
I agree with the statement: 'Master light ....and the world is your subject."
So I guess in direct response to the question in the OP, no it's not necessary to concentrate on one area of photography to get really good at it. But chances are higher that you'll create those truly amazing photos if you do. Simply because there's no getting around spending time in the field to encounter those magical moments that we're all after. After all, it's all about the light.
As a matter of full disclosure, I personally am all over the map, avian, floral, mammals, lanscape.... and lay no claims to being "really good" at any of them
A few more thoughts:
http://guytal.com/wordpress/2008/08/the-proverbial-body-of-work-and-the-narrow-minded-art-critic/
Guy
I was asked once "which subject should I learn to photograph well first?" I answered "whichever you are most passionate about." If you are passionate about what you do, then you will find the resources to do what you want. Your passion will also attract an audience that is equally passionate about the subject you photograph.
However, there are definitely time limitations: the more subjects you photograph, the more time you need. So ask yourself how much time you have available to do this, then use your time wisely.
For me success is largely the result of careful planning. I plan a lot. Not everything -- I don't plan to create art for example-- but I do plan how I use my resources in regards to time and money. And, I am more careful of how I use my time because while I can make more money, I cannot make more time. Regardless of who we are, we all have 24hrs in a day.
In the end what the chopping stone is often a wise, or not so wise, allocation of our resources. While we can do 'everything' it is rarely feasible to do so. At least not all at once!