What do you think is the most challenging style of photography? Any good stories behind getting the shot?
I've been able to dabble in all of the listed ones above except wildlife. But what actually prompted this question was how crazy wildlife photography can get. This year one of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year finalists took a picture of bats in a pitch dark cave. In their description they talk about manual focusing in the dark to get an estimation of where the bats would be, all the while being pooped on from all directions.
I can't seem to get the poll to do more than 5 options. But I think I would also like to include photo journalism (war and activism journalism being on the extreme end). Feel free to propose other categories as well.
Take the criteria of challenging to be whatever you like (technical, artistic, etc).
I don’t think photography can be divided into something that is fundamentally “easier” or “harder.”
I photograph almost everything.
Astro photography, or deep-sky photography, naturally requires solid technical knowledge. But even that is not something I personally consider inherently more difficult than other genres.
High-speed splash photography is a good example: when you want to create two or three distinct shapes, the timing becomes extremely demanding. You can spend weeks or months fine-tuning millisecond-precise timing, viscosity, droplet size, and drop height until the droplets meet exactly the way you intend.
For me, all the categories mentioned are equally easy. Therefore, I do not take part in the poll.
Regardless of the genre, photography becomes increasingly demanding the less the camera can do, the less electronic image processing is involved, and the higher the photographer's own expectations are.
Assuming the lighting is good—without this assumption, the exercise becomes pointless because good light is more than half of a photo. Anyway, for me personally, because it's a subjective question:
Easiest: a naturally pretty subject isolated against blrurred background. Hardest: unusual takes on everyday life.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Regardless of the genre, photography becomes increasingly demanding the less the camera can do, the less electronic image processing is involved, and the higher the photographer's own expectations are.
I see where you're going with this and I agree. But also somehow my best work has been on film, using manual focus cameras that don't even have a meter. There's some kind of positive connection between constraints and creativity.
So yeah, agree and disagree at the same time, I know it sounds weird!
I'd say street, for a reason similar to @old-gregg 's point--it is very hard to get a compelling spontaneous shot of a relatively undefined subject that is moving rapidly and that is generally unprecitable. The other categories involve well-defined subjects that are more or less where you expect them to be and that are easy to anticipate. I think this is even tru of wildlife, e.g., settting up a blind or going on a safari. But with the street you don't know what you are looking for.
chiron wrote:
I'd say street, for a reason similar to @old-gregg@ 's point--it is very hard to get a compelling spontaneous shot of a relatively undefined subject that is moving rapidly and that is generally unprecitable. The other categories involve well-defined subjects that are more or less where you expect them to be and that are easy to anticipate. I think this is even tru of wildlife, e.g., settting up a blind or going on a safari. But with the street you don't know what you are looking for.
Street for me, as well - for the reason that the success is 95% due to the skills (photographer's eye) and, perhaps, only 5% due to the camera system specs.
I think once you are trying to produce images at the highest levels of any of the usual genres it is not about equipment or techniques. You can put together the equipment and learn to operate it for pretty much any genre except the most exotic. The real difficulty comes from having a vision to create something meaningful and expressive of a personal point of view. In that regard I feel all genres are similarly challenging.
It's 5:00 in the morning on one of the coldest days in Minnesota.
You grab your gear and drive for an hour on icy roads to get to the river where there is open water
because of the power plants up stream putting warm water back into the river after using it to cool down the equipment.
Because of the warm water and cold air above it, there's a fog/mist over the river.
You head to the shore line before the sun comes up and wait for the trumpeter swans to float by.
Shortly after sunrise, you start shooting. It's cold, -5 to -20 degrees cold.
Hands are froze, face is froze, the screen on the back of the camera is full of frost and in slow motion.
The batteries last about 150 shots, then you swap it out with a warm battery that's in your pocket.
Hands get more cold.
You spend maybe an hour out there, after that the light is getting harsh.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think once you are trying to produce images at the highest levels of any of the usual genres it is not about equipment or techniques. You can put together the equipment and learn to operate it for pretty much any genre except the most exotic. The real difficulty come from having the vision to create something meaningful and expressive of a personal point of view. In that regard I feel all genres are similarly challenging.
Totally agree. Taking a photo in any of the above categories with today’s equipment is quite easy. Producing a photo that with such impact it moves the viewer is the hard part.
I’ve seen photos of gorillas that are not technically challenging at all, but when looking at them, they bring out such an emotion…almost to tears. I saw a photo of a gorilla holding his keepers dead body and the look captured will stay with me forever. That to me is the challenge…nothing to do with how technical one needs to be…nothing to do with how many miles one walked in sub zero weather…it’s the final impact that is the challenge.
It's 5:00 in the morning on one of the coldest days in Minnesota.
You grab your gear and drive for an hour on icy roads to get to the river where there is open water
because of the power plants up stream putting warm water back into the river after using it to cool down the equipment.
Because of the warm water and cold air above it, there's a fog/mist over the river.
You head to the shore line before the sun comes up and wait for the trumpeter swans to float by.
Shortly after sunrise, you start shooting. It's cold, -5 to -20 degrees cold.
Hands are froze, face is froze, the screen on the back of the camera is full of frost and in slow motion.
The batteries last about 150 shots, then you swap it out with a warm battery that's in your pocket.
Hands get more cold.
You spend maybe an hour out there, after that the light is getting harsh.
You are talking about difficult climate. Maybe a bit uncomfortable but hardly the most challenging. Anyone with proper clothing and even average gear can do it. There are genres with even harsher environments, and a high risk of destroying gear and even the photographer getting killed. I don't think I have heard that those things are common among hobby bird photographers.
Leica is doing a daily showing of its rare and unusual camera collection this month. One day they brought out cameras damaged by bullets, shrapnel, some with blood still on them. Swans don't shoot at you, or hunt you for food or to protect territory do they? You are not in the death zone in the high Himalayan mountains are you. Deep in the real bush in unstable Countries in Africa are you. I could on and name many more. Really Swans near home in the nice safe USA? I think not.
There are many genres with these levels of risk. Even with that the photographer is still required to use his vision to capture meaningful images. Courage is one thing, but vision is what separates the greats.
1bwana1 wrote:
You are talking about difficult climate. Maybe a bit uncomfortable but hardly the most challenging. Anyone with proper clothing and even average gear can do it. There are genres with even harsher environments, and a high risk of destroying gear and even the photographer getting killed. I don't think I have heard that those things are common among hobby bird photographers.
Leica is doing a daily showing of its rare and unusual camera collection this month. One day they brought out cameras damaged by bullets, shrapnel, some with blood still on them. Swans don't shoot at you, or hunt you for food or to protect territory do they? You are not in the death zone in the high Himalayan mountains are you. Deep in the real bush in unstable Countries in Africa are you. I could on and name many more. Really Swans near home in the nice safe USA? I think not.
There are many genres with these levels of risk. Even with that the photographer is still required to use his vision to capture meaningful images. Courage is one thing, but vision is what separates the greats. ...Show more →
War was in the text, but not on the list.
For that matter, I didn't see "most dangerous" on the list either.
As for nice safe USA, I walked beams for damn near 40 years, same weather conditions as above,
I don't think I need to take life and death risks doing a hobby.
My first post wouldn't allow me to add any more text to for some reason. I even tried an edit, it still wouldn't.
I was going to say that photojournalism would be the most challenging, but once again, not of the list.
I occasionally photograph shooting competitions. This necessitates placing the camera on a tripod and operating the shutter via remote. It can be challenging to place the camera in a good position to get the best image without it getting shot.
davev wrote:
War was in the text, but not on the list.
For that matter, I didn't see "most dangerous" on the list either.
As for nice safe USA, I walked beams for damn near 40 years, same weather conditions as above,
I don't think I need to take life and death risks doing a hobby.
My first post wouldn't allow me to add any more text to for some reason. I even tried an edit, it still wouldn't.
I was going to say that photojournalism would be the most challenging, but once again, not of the list.
I only included dangerous because it adds to the difficulty of making a great image. In the same way that the climate added to the difficulty of making your Swan images but more extreme.
I think I was fairly consistent in saying that the most difficult part of photography is developing the vision to make impactfull, unique, amd meaningful images. This is the same in all genres of photography so the original request to chose a genre could not be properly responded to.
