Photography, for me, is about seeing. Seeing things differently, with all the senses involved. But as was kindly pointed out to me in the comments of my last post, “seeing” as I’ve described it in the past, is not a prerequisite to making photographs. Practice on the other hand is a prerequisite; at least if you want to enjoy the results. I’ve been practising photography for a little over 40 years now. In my case practice hasn’t turned me into a master class photographer but then again I never took the craft too seriously or perhaps I should say, seriously enough. In any case the practice has helped me improve my success rate of making shots I enjoy. And that’s saying a lot since I do photography as a source of enjoyment.
~Cedric
The quote above is from Cedric’s post, The promise of happiness. Quite frankly, I love to read Cedric’s posts when he writes them because they are always so thought provoking.
In the above quote, when I ran into the words: I’ve been practising photography for a little over 40 years now. In my case practice hasn’t turned me into a master class photographer …
I thought: Interesting! What makes a master class photographer? I thought on that for a while then came up with an idea that it’s probably advertising and who you know, or more over, who knows you. Certainly, there are some good photographers out there who have put in their 10,000+ hours and have become experts. Notice I didn’t say talented because I’m not so sold on that concept. I believe to become very good you have to work at it regardless of where you started. Talent might give you a head start, but the Kung Fu, or hard work of it, makes the difference.
I would imagine that every ‘master’ level photographer has thousands, of not hundreds of thousands of rejected photographs. It’s bound to happen. Mind you, this doesn’t mean that some yahoo with a camera can go out take thousands of photos and become ‘good’. You can develop an eye, but you have to put some effort into it to by viewing the work of others, talking to other photographers, looking at art work, etc. There is no right or idea path, but you have to work at it.
The work of it, if you love it, doesn’t exist. It’s never been work for me and I’ve honed my skill to where I like it. I wouldn’t say that I’m a master class photographer because that is not a label that you bestow upon yourself. It’s something that is given.
I like the words of our Grandmaster on how to become a Grandmaster: Just keep practicing and stay alive and you’ll become a Grandmaster. Simple!
Now, this is coming from a guy who has a passion for martial arts. He’s always reading, learning, getting instruction from other masters, grandmasters, etc. He learned magic so that he could practice deceptive moves and add to his art. He’s been practicing it for nearly 60 years on a DAILY basis! It is no wonder that he has attained the rank of Grandmaster.
So, I would say that Cedric is a master level photographer after 40 years of training. 
Related Posts :
My friend Robert asked that I write more so that he could keep up with me and know what I'm do ...
Who are the so-called Masters of Photography? What makes a photographer a master? So, were ...
I really dislike this word. I've been told on a number of occasions by friends, relatives, an ...
Paul, My opinion, another important ingredient of what-ever makes a “master class photographer” is their body of work. It sounds obvious but if you think about it, what’s a photographer but the sum of their work or photos. Someone could be skilled, well practiced with their 10000+ hours and give all the noble titles but if they haven’t produced a impressive body of work their right to be considered a “master class photographer” would be in doubt in my eyes — “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
Certainly, it has to do with their body of work, yet, it all comes down to labels, doesn’t it and who bestows said label. I wonder if there was a photographer who had a large body of work that you found unappealing, but that someone else, or committee, found appealing, would she be a master class photographer. So, who says whether or not the body of work is impressive? Who gets to place the label?
In the end, it’s all labels and subjective. I will consider myself an accomplished photographer, sans rewards and accolades, if I have gone out and expressed myself photographically as many times as possible.
Well, personally, viewing a body of work I can dislike someones style or subject matter while recognizing their skill and ability at creating their own vision — impressive popular. But yes, my opinion. Yet if a photographer has only a small body of work that shows little or no cohesion…even getting an arbitrary label of “master” to stick is going to be impossible.
Now, if we’re being honest, we all use and apply labels every day for almost everything. I just did a search for “best of” on Google and got 333 million hits….all subjective…and this is different, how?
Oh certainly, we use labels. There would be mass confusion if we didn’t. We like to categorize things and put them into little buckets. However, I do think that sometimes popular does become impressive. Good point about “best of”: There are innumerable lists, or maybe 333,000,000 of them, each with a different opinion of what is best.
Humm…strange, it stripped out my not equal sign. Should be “Impressive is not equal to popular.”
Interesting post, Paul. We do feel compelled to label everything and everyone, but I thing a lot of it is marketing. If it’s possible to overuse expressions like “master” or “best of” or “one of the best” (my personal favorite), we have. They become opinions and are not trustworthy. So those terms are useless unless you trust the source.
Wow Paul, I’m most appreciative and grateful for your praise but I am not sure it’s warranted. I get lucky with some photographs and each time I’m caught by surprise, flummoxed that such images should be created at my hand. But their numbers are entirely too few and random to put me in any kind of class much less a Master class. Earl and Ken make good points in this respect and I would add one other thing to consider; my intent for making photographs has little to do with the photographs themselves, or for that matter with photography itself. I use photography purely as a means to an end, namely the understanding of self (as useless as that endeavour may be). In light of this I would say that this lack of artistic intent puts me out of the Master class league. I would be more accurately described as some confused dude who uses photography the way others use their belly-button as an object of contemplation.
But hey, you’ve definitely earned yourself a few beers when you come down-under