What makes a great photographer?

Iron enough to make a nail
Lime enough to paint a wall
Water enough to drown a dog
Sulphur enough to stop the fleas
Potash enough to wash a shirt
Gold enough to buy a bean
Silver enough to coat a pin
Lead enough to ballast a bird
Phosphor enough to light the town
Poison enough to kill a cow
You have
Iron enough to make a nail
And lime enough to paint a wall
But that just isn't enough to make you a man

The making of a man -Terry Prachett

In astrophysics  there is a famous equation which is used to estimate the number of communicating civilizations in the cosmos, or more simply put, the odds of finding intelligent life in the universe.

The Drake equation  is simply a set of terms that when multiplied together generates a probability value. Its beauty, apart from its simplicity is that it is a game anyone can play. You just have to decide a value for each of the terms based on your feelings, experience, and prejudice. Multiply them together and you have your figure. However the real power is that it allows you to delegate relative values or importance to the outcome.

All well and good you are saying, but what the hell has that to do with photography?

Well after a recent tweet, I wondered whether there is a similar equation which can define the probability of becoming successful in photography?

So I have come up with the Duck (Geddit!) equation and I believe these are the components that go to make up becoming a great photographer. All you have to decide is the relative value or weighting of each one.

The equation is as follows

N=O •P •E •N •Eq •A •Or•L•T

and the terms are defined as these

(O)pportunity

You can't be a successful photographer unless you take photos. In theory you could be successful if you are a agoraphobic locked in windowless cell, but it is unlikely. The more and varied places you go and take photos, the higher us the probability that you will get better shots.

(P)ractice

We all hear those stories of people who pick up a camera for the 1st time and instantly become be new Ansel Adams. It may well happen, but for the vast majority, becoming good at something requires practice, and practice requires repetition, review and continual feedback. This is not a story many want to hear, and would prefer to believe that they can be that instant genius, but even if you are lucky enough to be that person, it does not mean that practice cannot take you to another level.

(E)ffort

Some believe that great photographers just turn up on a location, take some shots and go home. In my experience one of the things that distinguishes a great photographer, is the effort they go too to get that shot. That effort may take the form of camping for a week on rain-sodden hillside after a 5 hour hike, in the hope that the perfect photographic conditions will appear. They may do this continually for years, until they achieve the photo they want. This is something  definitely to mull over when you are in your warm bed at 6 a.m. with the sheets over head because it looks a little damp outside

(N)etworking

There is an image of a photographer as a lone wolf, heading into the wilderness, assiduously guarding their secret techniques and locations. In practice most photographers rely on others for feedback, inspiration and moral support.  Not only that, but successful networking makes it easier to be noticed, provides a method to publicise your work. There is also a belief again that great photographers just gets noticed, when in fact they spend years building up their connections and accumulating karma photography credits.

 (Eq)uipment

Yes, a photographer needs a camera. The importance of the quality of that camera is one of the more contentious debates you can have. Some will argue that you cannot achieve your full potential unless you have the best of everything, while other will point to great photographers who use old but trusted kit. In my view understanding how the camera works and how to use its functionality is more important than the kit itself, but that still doesn't make me immune from gear aquisition syndrome.

(A)wareness 

Awareness is the value of being not only aware of you surroundings and the  photographic opportunities they present, but also the potential of your photo. Put two photographers in the  same location and one will make better use of the location than the other. Similarly some recognize the potential in a shot that others will disregard. In short its the ability to frame a narrative from a scene or see something in a image others have missed

(Or)ganisation

Organization is the discipline that goes with the art. Have you planned where you will go? Do you know where your kit is? If someone wants one of your photos as a print, can you locate it? Organization feels like the antithesis  of art, but the best photographers combine both these aspects of their work.

(L)uck

Ahh,  the L word. How much does luck play in becoming a great photographer? Not as much as many believe I feel. It is a easy crutch to fall back on when someone else creates a great image from a location you were also at. Also there is a correlation between luck, effort and practice. However luck may still be a factor when the elements combine to allow you to capture that once in a lifetime shot. Yes luck is there, however unlike the other components it is something you have little control over, so it is best just to accept it happens and move on.

(T)alent 


You have the best kit, practice continually and have given up your day job to concentrate exclusively on becoming a kick ass photographer and it is still not happening for you. You may just have to face facts that have no talent for photography. Talent is the X factor in photography. It separates the true greats from the journeyman pro. It cannot be bought, acquired or learnt. Some have it in boatloads and some less so. However  even if your talents are more limited by your compatriots, that does not mean that you cannot become a great photographer. It just means you will need to compensate with greater effort and practice.



So these are my components and I would love to know whether you agree/disagree and whether there is anything else you would add/take away. The other question is what is relative weighting you would place on each component. Is luck more important than talent, equipment the equalizer of effort? I have my one thoughts but that ultimately is something you need to decide.