Originally posted by Fenwoodian How could I have ever have thought that in a few days in Hawaii (for example), I could capture better images than the many photographers who actually live in Hawaii and shoot images there 24/7, 365 days a year there? I couldn't hope to capture images in a few short days that rival the images these local photographers (many of whom have photo equipment at least as good, or better, than mine) take.
Really interesting post; thanks for sharing. I live on Oahu (Hawaii). Every other year, I travel to my schoolʻs yearbook printing plant in Manitoba south of Winnipeg and north of North Dakota in the dead of winter. None of the locals are out shooting because it is so colorless and barren. For me, itʻs an awesome change of scenery.
Yes, local artists and photographers have the advantage of 24/7 familiarity, timing for best weather, insider info on the special or lesser known places and things. A
few thrive, sometime for a couple years, a couple decades, and in very, very rare instances a lifetime. From what Iʻve seen, "it takes a village" that is not just the photographer, but a loving and supportive family, business partners, and engagement within the culture and art community. The lone wolf may think of themselves as that, but if they are thriving, they are interdependent of others.
On the other hand, some of the best images Iʻve seen are taken by "outsiders". As a local, that which is special becomes familiar and mundane and it feels like your best work comes from travel and seeing and discovering new vistas. So in many ways, although at a disadvantage in many ways, the tourist or travel photographer appreciates and sees with the eyes of a child the wonder and sights that a local will ignore from desensitization.
Photography as a business, or "Show Business", requires among many things, the photographerʻs ability to efficiently have exclusivity as long as possible to a specific market of images. I think we all know the life and work of Ansel Adams and the extraordinary efforts he took in the field and in the darkroom to create his signature monochrome landscapes. But he came from a well-to-do family, and most of his life supplemented his art with income generating school photography, industrial/corporate color jobs, and teaching. In reality, he probably spent more time doing commercial photography than he did his niche of western landscapes.
And you mention equipment, and in most instances I think that is the least important factor. Clark Little is a local that loves photography and body surfing and would risk life and limb with his DSLR and waterproof housing to shoot in the shore break. One day, one of his photos went viral and he found himself on the national television that launched two galleries, books, and at the moment, enough income to raise his family. But now there are packs of wannabe surf photographers with GoPros to Red cameras eating away at Clarkʻs niche...with his advantage as having the legacy of being the pioneer.
I know youʻre not asking or looking for advice, but I just wanted to share that when it comes to selling art or photography, Iʻve found that "theme" and the photographerʻs identity needs to somehow standout as a specialization, iconic, a brand. Enjoy your time in Hawaii...but keep in mind that youʻll notice all the lenses are pointing in one direction for that postcard profile screensaver sunset, but very few 180 degrees at the cast shadows on the sand or the Brocken Spectre in the grey cloud behind you.