That's a big distinction.

From a commercial standpoint, it's a stubborn dedication to quality, a willingness to take risks, and determination to pull others along with my vision. I'm as affable as Oprah unless someone tries to take me off course. Even then, it's not a situation that ends up in argument.

From a journalist/documentarian perspective, this article is closer to true. If every one else is zigging, you zag. if you have to put yourself in a dangerous situation, you do it.

And please, ignore those grating comments from the type of people that ask "why do you say that?" to EVERYTHING!!
I like a little anarchy with my creativity sometimes. That doesn't mean I'm a jerk.

I know some very good, Pulitzer Prize winners, who are a charm to be around. I know some that can't shoot their way out of a wet paper sack and yet have egos the size of Montana.

And for me, sometimes I'm a real PITA, other times I'm sweet and adorable.

I have to agree with all words here!!

Congratulations and thank you for so great words!

Those who defend troublemakers are right in saying that Paul's piece is really about understanding and appreciating what makes a lot of great photographers tick -- not justifying bad behavior.

Stanley is right is saying that being a troublemaker or exhibiting bad behavior does not make you a great photographer. In most cases, it just makes you a jerk.

So everybody's right. Win-win! Can you tell I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years?

As joel said, it isn't about being a pain in the ass. It's about being difficult to work with tends to be a trait that great photographers have simply because their expectations are so high - firstly of themselves, closely followed by those of others.

Yes you sure can be a great photojournalist and not be difficult to work with, but this article isn't about that either. It is a look at why if as a photographer you ARE difficult to work with - why that is.

Oh and there is a BIG difference between working for a POY magazine and being a POY photographer. And yes James Nachtwey seems to have accomplished an awful lot, well done for mentioning him.

But if you want to go that route you weren't trained by THE Photographer of the Year (NOT the Magazine Photographer of the Year but THE one and only; for his pictures from Vietnam, the war that inspired Nachtwey into photography in the first place).

I was... And from your bio you haven't worked for a national daily newspaper in over 73 countries around the world (my dad did) and he trained me (oh and I have worked for daily newspapers - national and regional myself) before even graduating from university/college).

Think I'm done now.

Even William Allard in his book talks about how when he over stepped it with National Geographic and stopped working for them for many years. His sensitivity was also there for he could not have covered the Amish or the Hutterites without being able to work with people and get their cooperation.

James Nachtwey is the top in the world and is considered also to have incredible people skills.

I can point to a lot of "pain in the ass" photographers, but I don't consider many of them in the same caliber as the two I have mentioned.

You have to know how to get the picture as a photojournalist to be the best requires great people skills.

Sam Able is another fine example of someone who has also excelled and isn't a pain in the ass.

Great photojournalists need to see the world not always in a better way, but as Dave Black puts it in a different way. We must make photos that photo editors don't expect and couldn't do themselves.

Having values and standing your ground when necessary is showing you have integrity.

Scott:

Corporations hire the finest photographers. You will find Jim Richardson, Jay Maisel, Steve McCurry and the list goes on as the finest photojournalists shooting for corporate.

Here is one corporate client speaking to this issue.
http://www.stanleyleary.com/thompson.html

However, I would say that this article mainly applies to photojournalists, news photographers those working in the moment i.e. war zones, rather than corporate head-shotters (sorry @stanleyleary) as that is a different skill entirely - more of a sucking up and playing nice skill. Know what I mean - after all you have to, to get the work - there are so many of you out there who think they can point and shoot. Real news photographers, were and still are, few and far between.

My dad was a complete bastard to work with sometimes and he was one of the best photographers out there (and yes I LOVED & ADMIRED him for it!). I believe the two went hand in hand.

He was a bastard because he wanted the best shot, the best position, the best angle etc. He wasn't a jerk and certainly didn't do it for the fun of it but his pride in his work and that never-ending drive to get the best shot, to be the best, to show the world what he was seeing, was entirely the cause.

Yes news photographers (or photo-journalists if you prefer) are some of the most difficult people to work with (trust me I KNOW) but only because they don't accept second best and they disregard anyone who doesn't have the same attitude.

News photographers are bastards because they are perfectionists - after all you have only got one chance, one second to get the shot that beats them all AND tells the story.

Here's to my late father and photographer extraordinare - Peter Stone - and all you grumpy bastard photographers out there - LOVE ya!

Best Regards Yuri Arcurs - The World's Top Selling Stock Photographer

Corporations generally don't get the highest caliber of creative work -- whether it's photography, design or writing -- because they put a premium on people who work within the "team concept," who take direction well, etc. The best creative types struggle with these things. So I think some degree of tension is often necessary to create good work.

Having a creative eye is why top photographer's are hired. My clients expect me to bring my perspective. They also have concerns which I may not be aware of when I am hired. So, I must articulate what I think might work and listen to their concerns--sometimes proprietary concerns about a process for example that prevents this type of photo. If I am truly creative I should be able to come up with another different perspective. The photographer who gets argumentative in my opinion just isn't all that creative.

people who are just plain difficult to work with might be lazy, or self-absorbed, or sociopathic liars.

don't pool everyone who is "difficult to work with" into the "jerk" stereotype that you carry around like unnecessary baggage in your repertoire of nervous expectations.

While this maybe true, I am finding that those who others can work with are doing much better. Who has time for a jerk?

Sime ( @gtvone )