So, Just How Good Are You Anyway?

Over the years I have spent way too much time worrying about whether I'm any good as a photographer and I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of you have too. It doesn't matter what recognition we might receive, we keep on worrying - ok we know we are good enough to get in a magazine, but do we have a place in the history of photography, do we add anything meaningful to the art, will anyone remember us after we're gone, just how do we compare to famous photographers we can name?

In my article on assessing your level in photography, I gave broad categorizations with the idea that they strictly be used to help you figure out what you need to work on to move forward. It certainly wasn't designed to 'rate' yourself.

Let's imagine that someone (it won't be me), took my concept of levels a whole lot further and actually developed a rating scale, zero to one hundred, rank novice to supreme almighty. All manner of questions arise, not the least of which is why bother. But you know the internet, you can rate your IQ, your personality, the kind of lover you are, who you should marry, what job you are suited for, so it isn't very far fetched to imagine someone coming up with such a scale.

Here's the problem, well actually a whole lot of problems.

1) Even assuming such a scale were 'accurate' in any fashion, so what - does it really help you or anyone else to know that you scored an 87 while some famous photographer scored only 86. It won't make you more famous, I suppose you could advertize your score in your ads in "Black and White" but can't imagine anyone using it to decide if they like your work. It doesn't tell you how to move on.

2) Any rating scale has to take on the likes and dislikes of the designer of the scale and who the hell made him God of values? Can you imagine someone who doesn't like jazz coming up with a music rating scale?

3) Perhaps the biggest concern is that even if somehow we overcame the above problems and could with reasonable accuracy tell someone "this is how good you are", is it actually helpful to know? Would it make a difference to know that you are at the 87th percentile (better than 87% of all photographers). I mean, if that included the millions of snap shooters, it would hopefully be a given, if the rating placed you on a skill rating rather than a population position, would knowing you are an 87 help?

Perhaps someone might find out they are better than they thought, and therefore might make more effort to get their work out in public, but I don't see it making them a better photographer. What if the opposite happpened and you scored lower than you thought you should - you could get defensive, or give up trying to get your work out there, but again, it won't help you improve.

The real answer is that worrying about our "place" in photography is a chumps game - completely unproductive - really, we are only as good as the next image we take, and our limited energies should be brought to bear on making that image every bit as good as possible.

A photographer might have only one or two really good images in him, the rest being quite mediocre and he doesn't know how he managed those two images. But the fact is, he did manage those and presumably can therefore do it again, sooner or later, and if he can learn from his successes, is likely to produce strong images at an ever increasing rate.

A photographer might have several portfolios of great images, but that's no guarantee the next one is going to be even passable.

No, it's time to stop worrying about how good we are, open our eyes to the world and get looking for interesting possibilities.