There’s always that one photographer who says they’ve got 40 years of experience, and their photos are at the high school photography level. Truth is, this happens quite often. Assuming they are telling the truth, how come someone’s pictures with so much experience look so much like a beginner's? Let’s dive deep.
What Is Photographic Experience?
The first concept that we must get our head around is experience. What is it? Experience in photography can come in various flavors: from starting your first business to simply buying a camera. The second one is more prevalent, as most photographers consider starting whenever they bought their first camera. However, buying a camera rarely makes you a photographer right off the bat. What is more, if that camera just sits on your shelf without much action, it doesn't make you any better than you were the day you bought that camera.
Photographic experience is therefore a measure of not for how long you have had a camera, but of something else. Measuring experience in years owned is, therefore, a measure of nothing beyond possession, not use.
How Do We Measure Photographic Experience?
There are several ways: in years, clients, technical images, so on. The best way is generally in years, as not every great image is technically complex or for a big client. But a year in professional photography isn't just a year of having a camera and occasionally taking pictures. We need to make an effort to define what a year of experience means.
A year in professional photography means doing it full-time or dedicating a large portion of your time to it. This not only includes taking pictures but also marketing, accounting, networking, and more. Above all, a year in photography is often marked by how much you learn.
For example, if you’ve gone to university you know that learning large portions of information in short periods of time is a fair description of what you do. Pursuing a master's degree in anything will lead you to become proficient in that topic. While engineers might learn physics full-time, you need to learn photography full-time. This means learning like it’s a university: from morning to evening. In a recent interview with Albert Watson, he suggested learning from 7 in the morning to 10 in the evening and going through the slog that is learning for some.
If I were to start from scratch now, it would probably take me under a year to get the technical knowledge of basic lighting, camera settings, and more, that is if I studied and practiced from dawn to dusk.
How to Gain Experience?
In order to claim that you are an experienced photographer with X years behind you, you must gain experience and probably will end up doing some of the following items:
1. Creating Images With Clear Goals in Mind
There is nothing more useless than a 365 photo project. Not only is it akin to hustle culture, but it is also largely pointless. Feel free to debate and share your 365 experiences in the comments.
What is more useful, however, is to create work that has meaning and goals behind it. If you’re a beginner, this might be the correct exposure. A more seasoned pro might look into expanding their knowledge of unusual light modifiers if that is what they need to move forward.
Before every test shoot, I would recommend having a few sentences about the project: what’s the idea, how you will achieve it, and what will be the outcome.
Here is an example of one of mine:
The idea is to capture an older model and highlight the importance of fashion for everyone. The first image will be low key with moderately soft octa box lighting, which will highlight both clothing texture and jewelry while keeping skin smooth. The outcome will be a very sophisticated portrait-style fashion image.
2. Immerse Yourself In Art
This comes also from advice Rankin, Albert Watson, and pretty much any successful photographer give. Immersion into art is a great way to learn what looks good. Art is a broad term; some define art as everything while others consider certain paintings as non-art.
The best way to go about learning art is to become one with great artists. Start off by listing any that you know, and see what Phaidon or Taschen will have on them. The two publishers are household names when it comes to art-related print.
If you’re a fashion photographer, you must be subscribed to the print version of Vogue. If you’re a portraitist, Time magazine or Vanity Fair are your best options.
3. Learn Everything About Your Genre
Sure enough, you can't know everything, but being knowledgeable about your subject will do wonders to how your work looks. In fact, this deserves an article, which I will be writing in the near future.
A wildlife photographer must have intricately detailed knowledge of the species they’re photographing, while an automotive photographer will know what details to show, how to convey the lines in the car, how low the car should sit on the ground, and so on. For example, an F1 racing car will be most effective with hard, directional light, as it has a lot of streamlining, while a Fiat Cinquecento will benefit from a softer, more even light. The same applies to fashion, where Chiffon will be very different from velvet, so different that it would dictate different makeup, mood, and lighting.
Closing Thoughts
Naturally, owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer. This is pretty clear. What does is practice, perfecting your skill, and really learning the art. Bad technique can be helped to an extent, but it can't be cured. Therefore, experience in photography should be measured in terms of years spent professionally, not just owning a camera and taking holiday photos. This is why we get some people who claim to have decades of experience but in reality, rarely shoot above high-school level. If some of this resonated with you, no worries! It is never too late to start, as long as you’re honest with yourself and give photography all you have. After all, great output requires decent targeted input.
Lead Image: Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels.
I would hope that most people, no matter their profession dive into the deep end and truly immerse themselves in their career. Whether they're a photographer, salesman, lawyer or Medical Professional, every job has it's own nuances.
Only the images matter. Are they good? Maybe even great? Or are they insipid or lackluster. Experience will show, as will lack of same.
Whether "Good", "great" or "lackluster" depends on the tastes and mood of the viewer which can change over time. I know my tastes have evolved.
Well, if you look too bad on the passport photo you may be denied a visa…
Some people have found that look or style and are not gonna change even if it's a copy of a copy of a copy form 30 years ago....but it pays the bills
The more I learn about photography the more I draw parallels to writing. Both are widely used by the majority of the population. Both have a large number of genres and application. After reading this article I wondered how people would laugh at me if I said, "I'm an experienced writer because I have been doing it for 30 years".
Call yourself an editor instead of a writer...it sounds fancier.
Experience in photography should be measured in years spent professionally?
So all Amateur photographers are cast aside then? Seems pretty snobby to me, I can guarantee there are countless Amateur’s who produce world class images, I follow plenty on the various media sites.
I don't think that's what the author is saying. The reality is that if an amateur photographer keeps putting out "world class" images, they're going to turn professional. Know any photographer who consistently gives away their cover worthy "world class" images for free to a magazine ? Being a professional photographer, especially making a career out of it, both requires a lot of experience and by itself is another level of experience entirely.
What about an Amateur who already has a good job and just doesn't want to turn pro? its not a given that you have to, regardless of your images.
Im far from putting anything out considered world class, but I also get paid very well in my job, with an excellent pension and company benefits... I would never give that up to pursue a career in photography, its just not worth it, I have 23 years service and with that, 23 years worth of pension saved up.
Also that first line of my comment was a direct quote from the article, so if that's not what he meant, he shouldn't have worded it like that.
I was referring to your line "So all Amateur photographers are cast aside then?"
Experience is not all or nothing. But until you've gotten paid for your photography you won't know how much experience is required to get to that level.
But what is ‘that level’? To be honest the comment you have just typed is nonsense. An Amateur photographer can reach levels of a top level pro, there is no ceiling on skill based on your source of income.
There are Amateurs winning international photography competitions all the time, there are amateurs producing images that rival any professionals all the time. If you don’t think so then you should probably start opening your eyes.
The mere fact you think getting paid is a benchmark for a person knowing they are good enough or not says it all really. Embarrassing.
I must have hit a nerve because now you're throwing out insults.
Insults, can you specify which part of my comment is remotely insulting?
Not worth my time.
Lol ok then, typical response from someone who has lost.
This "pro" vs. "amateur" thing is really a joke when comparing the virtues of making art. Photography is one of my greatest creative passions, but sure as hell *not* the way I want to make a living. I love my life too much to starve, first, and second, who is going to pay me for my obscure crazy niche stuff that only I really enjoy making?
Sure. You're entitled to make your choices. But that's not the point. The point is that it requires additional experience to make it to the professional level. Apparently your niche isn't enough, you would need to know how, and would need to want to shoot other subjects really well. There are some really good unpaid photographers. There are also many, many really mediocre ones who think they have what it takes but don't. Are all professional photographers better than all amateurs ? No. But as a collective group, professional photographers are more experienced than amateurs. And all professional photographers have one experience which amateurs don't have...getting paid for their photography. And I personally know many who are making a living at it and several who are getting paid $100k+. (Yes, really)
Crazy. Not a single word about learning or feedback from a mentor or teacher.
Wait, what? Time Magazine is still being published?
I have never done a 365 project (but I did something similar) but I don't think that you understand what the purpose is of such a project. It's to make you think, try new things do something every day sort of like exercise.
Most pics in a 365 project will suck or be cliches or repeats of what one usually does, but as you run out of ideas you are forced to do something different or new, it really doesn't matter because it just for one day. Try something new, look forward to the next day's photo with "oh man I need to shoot SOMETHING! or I can't wait til tomorrows photo.
On the other hand IMO the self portrait every day is just narcissistic and annoying. I don't care that you grew a beard then shaved....
Curious about your choice of the stock photo of the "experienced" guy on the laptop as your lead illustration.
Is that Albert Watson? You seem to refer to him a lot lately. : -)
Photography as a craft or as an art? Its a big difference... Probably same as painter of rooms and artistic painter or truck driver with F1 driver? It is the same when calling 15 years old DSLR "professional camera"... Why will you even bother... Next page please 😉
In North American wildlife photography, experience is often spoken of according to how many years one has seriously photographed a species, or how many years one has photographed at a given place for a given species.
For instance:
"Ken's been shooting Whitetails here since the film days" would be understood to mean that Ken has vast experience with photographing Whitetail Deer, particularly at the venue being spoken of.
Or,
"Marcia has never photographed Elk in Yellowstone before - this is her first time here for Elk." Would be taken to mean that Marcia is a rookie who is learning the ropes and figuring out the venue and its subjects for the first time, regardless of how much experience she has photographing wildlife in other places, or species other than Elk.
I have been photographing wildlife very seriously for 15 years, and have had my photos published countless thousands of times. But I visited southern Arizona for the first time in my life this past April, for my first serious attempt at reptile photography ... targeting mostly Rattlesnakes and lizards. Serious reptile & amphibian photographers, and those who have photographed extensively in southern Arizona, considered me to be a rookie, because I had little to no experience with the species we were photographing, nor any experience photographing in the environs that we were photographing in.
So, in wildlife photography circles here in the lower 48 states, experience is usually considered on the basis of experience with a particular species or group of similar species, and on the basis of time spent in a particular locale or venue. Experience with other species or in other areas just doesn't count very much.
1. Photography as a craft
2. Photography as an art