1. Fuji GF 670

2. Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1 Leica M Mount Lens

my humble wishes What do you yearn for the holidays?

Oooooo, that Fuji looks to be a honey!

If Santa was a spendthrift I'd plead for a Leica S9 system. Fat chance.

Yessss, now you are talking!

A job.

Photo equipment-wise, I'm actually pretty happy with what I have.

If I had to ask for something, I think I would choose a Leica M9 and 35mm Summilux.

Whoa, I hope you get a nice job Mister Bean.

Indeed! Hard to get by, let alone prosper without income.

Yes, things have been tight recently with my wife looking for one too. Much recent good news though. I got a call about some consulting work, a request for a resume, and a company I'm working on with a friend looks like it is about to make its first big sale.

Talent.

Patience

Paulhodson I define talent as hard work and persistency.
If there was a pill for it, I too would purchase it.

Kaden K. wrote:
Paulhodson I define talent as hard work and persistency.
If there was a pill for it, I too would purchase it.



Disagree - some level of innate skill is necessary too - otherwise, to paraphrase an example, turn a hard working, persistent monkey loose in Yosemite with a DSLR, infinite battery, and memory card and at some point he'd replicate one of the more praise worthy images of Half Dome...

I am the perfect example for music - I love music but lack the talent required to perform music that others might appreciate - my wife says I have a genetic deficiency - missing the 'rhythm' gene

Bob

...well Bob, I beg to disagree. This genetic predisposition thingy is crappola.

It is also the basis for eugenics and we all know where that leads. That said, I
must tell you that a monkey performed as well or better than a stockbroker at
picking stocks and making $. I would highly advise you to also purchase a book
of photography done by blind kids/adults. I have seen a few and I would say their
compositions are better than many posted here, including my own! Ask yourself
what does that mean?

So, I respectfully disagree. (The Jewish guy who thinks eugenics is a dangerous
preposition and not to mention that it presupposes a static view of humanity and
we all know that to be bull feathers!).

PS. There is also this very funny story about Sir Francis Galton, one of the foggy
proponents of eugenics who went to see a ballet performed by a gorgeous ballerina.
At the end he met her and told her that he would love to marry her. The potential as
he put it was that their kids would be brilliant as he was and as beautiful as she was.
She replied - ...and what if by some freak natural accident they wind up having your
beauty and my brains?

And I have to disagree with you, Kaden.

I'm just not a natural computer programmer, and no matter how much effort I put into it, I'm not going to be one. Given enough time and effort I could be a competent one, but I'll never reach that level of mastery that comes to people who are more disposed to it. Drawing and painting both come to me really easily, and with not too much effort I was always one of the best in all of the art classes I took.

I had a good friend in high school that played the euphonium. He had natural talent, and put in many hours of work, and got very good at it. However, at some point in college he reached a plateau and no matter how much practice time he put in, and which teachers he worked with, he just couldn't improve any further. After struggling for a while one of this teachers suggested that he switch instruments, and he found another one on which he was able to improve further.

Anyway, it could be genetics, it could be the environment in which one is raised; I think it's both. Whatever it is, people have aptitudes for different things.

Aptitudes simply means that they had been exposed to something before you did
or spent more time at it and/or are more single minded than you are. If you want it
bad enough and work at it bad enough your chances of succeeding are much higher.
I have an aversion to many tasks or even develop a mental block or lack desire or
loose interest at some point in doing a task and often plateau (in dieting it is common).
Yet I never think I am un-talented or incapable of excelling.

On reverse, look at the theory of quantum and the definition of infinite possibilities. It
really opens the field for boundless creativity. As a photographer I think my creativity
is limitless and so is yours if you only accept it as such and seek to fulfill your full
potential. Otherwise, you and only you have limited yourself.

Think of your first image vs. where you are today. Would you call that talent or
hard work? Even if you were so-called "talented" would you remain static or
evolve? So what makes you go further than someone else?

Still this is not a genetic predisposition and the world isn't static either. Genetics
and talents as defined are the basis of Hitlerianism. Check out eugenics and its
evolution into natural selection theories, including social theories (social Darwinism).
We (humanity) have been there done that with disastrous consequences. In the
case of my family, being decimated for being Jewish. Go figure what that means.

I would proffer that this is not just a theoretical conversation for me. It is an issue
that I am personally all too familiar with.

Check out the experiments in morphic fields done in London with human beings and
puzzles in newspapers. Do some search. You will be surprised.

Here is another term to become familiar with, "Social Determinism". Check it out.

PS. Here is a film I highly advise you, which I believe will improve your photographic
creativity/skills/talent: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/plotsummary

I'm enjoying this discussion. Even if, in the end, we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I understand your sensitivity towards the idea of eugenics. However, I am not convinced that the concept of natural aptitude has to end in eugenics. I think diversity of aptitude is something to be celebrated and am glad there are people out there that intuitively understand things I don't.

I'm familiar with the concept of social determinism, and even mentioned it when I said that it could be the environment in which one is raised. I agree, it is almost certainly a factor in determining someone's aptitude in a certain area, and so are genetics.

Lets use IQ as an example. Would you disagree that some people have a higher or lower IQ than others? We could say IQ is an aptitude for the ability to reason, plan, solve problems or think abstractly. It's a controversial subject, and the ability to do well on the test is going to depend in large part on familiarity with the subjects of the test (be they math, language, or symbols) and the language in which they are delivered, however, it is scientifically testable. On a range of 0 to 1, where 0 means that genetics have no influence on a trait, and 1 where all variation of a trait is dependent on genetics, correlation between genetics and IQ has been estimated to be between .4 and .8. No matter which end of the spectrum you look at, a certain percentage of that aptitude is attributable to social determination and a certain percentage is attributable to genetics.

I have no idea where the first photographs I took are, probably in the bag of undeveloped film laying on the floor of my mother's closet. Surely the ones that I take now are better. The improvement in quality comes from practice, interest in the subject, studying other forms of art like drawing and painting, lots of reading, and aptitude. In photography I feel that I have an average level of aptitude and my level of aptitude has remained the same while my talent has improved. Of course if I hadn't put forth all that effort to improve, my photography wouldn't be any better than it was then. I'm not saying the opposite at all. Only that if two people with the same level of photographic skill wanted to improve their photography, and both put forth the same level of effort, using the same resources to learn, the one with greater aptitude would improve more quickly.

I just did some quick reading about the research done by Sheldrake on morphic fields. I admit, I probably haven't read enough to really be sure, but from what I have seen so far, it appears to fall into the same category of pseudo-science as things like The Secret (the law of attraction) and What The Bleep Do We Know (quantum physics and consciousness). They all put forth arguments that appear to be scientifically based, but disregard fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Having a BA in Biology with a Chemistry minor, I tend to get especially frustrated with this sort of stuff.

I really want to get back to the photos themselves, but I'll throw in this link for those who are interested.
The Myth of Talent, Craig Tanner
http://www.tmelive.com/index.php/articles/view/28/24.html

Scott

Mister Bean I think we are going to have to agree to disagree indeed.

I am actually glad that you mentioned "IQ". That is a classic term that played a huge
role in the beginning of last century in the development of eugenics and ultimately in
the development of Hitlerianism and every other nasty theory you may think of in
between. Just read Hitler's buddy by the name of Oswald Spengler where he refutes
theories of racial superiority (mostly based on concepts of IQ and intellect) and what
ultimately happened to him. Check also out the theories of Sir Francis Galton and
the role it played in England.

Did you know that many countries in Europe in the beginning of last century had laws
that openly discriminated against the poor, women, people of color based on the same
theory of IQ you just advanced? This included preventing these groups from voting due
to their so-called "mental deficiency" and intellectual defenses for slavery.

What you stated here is old thinking. Very old and tired thinking. I could just link you
up with a variety of information that will prove to you that IQ can be improved and
that these so-called aptitudes and so-called talents are a myth. Just an excuse for
someone to restrict themselves or feel superior towards others... you get the idea of
what I am saying.

sbeme wrote:
I really want to get back to the photos themselves, but I'll throw in this link for those who are interested.
The Myth of Talent, Craig Tanner
http://www.tmelive.com/index.php/articles/view/28/24.html

Scott

Very inspiring.
That would go nicely with the camera and lens above.

Kaden K. wrote:
.. must tell you that a monkey performed as well or better than a stockbroker at
picking stocks and making $. I would highly advise you to also purchase a book
of photography done by blind kids/adults. I have seen a few and I would say their
compositions are better than many posted here, including my own! Ask yourself
what does that mean?



That means the monkey, blind photographers, etc. do not bring predispositions and motives to the table when making decisions as do stockbrokers: history, risk, profit, self-service, and as most recently evidenced nationally, greed - earn a commission going up or down. Photographers: notions of composition - good, bad - subject biases, and audience. The analogy is fundamentally flawed.

There are too many intangibles to reduce talent to a function of work and persistence. Both are necessary, but not sufficient.

All I, you, or anyone else can do is play the hand we are dealt best we can...I'm in MisterBean's camp - agree to disagree, but as Scott indicated, time to move on. And TMELive has some very informative tutorials (more of an artsy nature but good NTL) and thoughtful articles...recommend visiting there.

regards,

Bob

Bob you can be wherever you want on this issue. Avoiding understanding the
consequences is one thing. Demanding that I or anyone else move on is another.
Do we understand each other? If not allow me to spell it out:

Free speech does not end at your or Scott's demands to move on.