bobbytan wrote:
Mark, I beg to differ slightly. Being a pilot or a rocket scientist is quite different to being an artist, photographer or a singer. The later is born with an inherent talent or skill. If God decided that you will be born w/o the ability to sing, no amount of training is going to make you a singing sensation. And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don't have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that the top athletes are born with a natural talent, and given the proper training and equipment/tools to work with, they will become world-class champions. FWIW I am the epitome of a stunted photographer ... in case you think that I think I belong to the later group. ...Show more →
It is complex.
I think that we each have different skills and attributes and strengths and weaknesses - though the extent to which they are "born" vs. the extent to which they are nurtured (from a very early age) is open to discussion. But in the same way that some are taller/shorter, have better/worse vision, possess a stronger/weaker sense of smell, can hear higher/lower frequencies, are more/less sensitive to things like facial expressions, and all the rest... I think we do start at different places when it comes to our abilities to "see" photographically or in other visual arts.
I'm convinced that almost anyone can move themselves from where they start to a different place, given time and effort and training and thought. But I'm equally convinced that not everyone starts in exactly the same place. Whether you call it "talent" or "nature" or something else, one aspect of the package that makes people what they are in creative work seems to be something that is inborn. (Notice that I wrote "one aspect.")
I have taught in the arts for many years, so I've had lots of opportunities to encounter this and think about it. I would virtually never tell anyone that "you don't have talent so don't pursue this." (Though I do confess to thinking it on occasion! ;-) I can never tell for sure where such things will lead. But I can tell you for certain that some people come along who just seem to have a "something" that lets them see and understand in a different way. I could tell stories...
Please also be clear that I'm most certainly not implying that it is an either-or proposition. Even those with some special in-born talent or vision must work hard to realize its full potential. And those who we might think have less of this natural ability may have more than we know (I have some personal experience here, too) and many can move a significant distance along the path towards realizing their ability to think and act expressively.
I would disagree that one has to be born with photography talent. We are all capable of seeing light. Practice and repetition makes it easier to see patterns that meet our aesthetic and use the technology we have to achieve that goal. For me this means today I can walk down the street and see dozens of potential images I would not have visualized a few years ago.
The new technology also stimulates thought. These days the new technologies has me thinking in term of moving images in addition to still images, and in levels of lighting that would have previously caused me to put away my gear.
Great, now this has led to the discussion on nature vs. nurture.
At least, camera manufactures have not implemented talent requirements on purchasing their gears yet, so I can still derive some pleasure in photography from getting nice equipments even though I am lacking talent in this area.
Would it make a difference if I called it "a good eye" instead of talent? Picture this scenario - you have a group of say 10 technically-competent photographers - by that I mean every single one understand good lighting and exposure, etc. But invariably there will be 1 or 2 who really stand out and they keep delivering images with that WOW factor. Why? Because they have this inherent ability to see images that most of us do not see - at the same location and at the same time.
My wife's photos are often much stronger than mine in terms of content and composition ... although her photographs may be weak technically i.e. in terms of sharpness, exposure, etc. I may be stronger than her technically but she has a better eye or have a more artistic vision ... and she makes a point of reminding me (each time I tell her that her photos are poorly exposed or lack sharpness) that if she makes an effort to improve on her photography skills, and have the equipment or tools that I have, she will be a better photographer than me as my images are just so-so to her, content-wise.
jerrykur wrote:
I would disagree that one has to be born with photography talent. We are all capable of seeing light. Practice and repetition makes it easier to see patterns that meet our aesthetic and use the technology we have to achieve that goal. For me this means today I can walk down the street and see dozens of potential images I would not have visualized a few years ago.
The new technology also stimulates thought. These days the new technologies has me thinking in term of moving images in addition to still images, and in levels of lighting that would have previously caused me to put away my gear.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Each person should ask himself or herself this question from time to time.
Right. And each person should also consider that his/her own answers to this question are not necessarily better than someone else's.
Each person should ask himself or herself this question from time to time.
That's an easy question. The individual himself is the one to judge. He can *delegate* this power to someone (parent/mentor/priest/spouse/etc. :-D) but ultimately it's his.
Talent or not, more expensive gear is certainly nicer to use. So you don't have to be a master photographer to also appreciate the nicer feel and operation of a 1-series camera vs an entry level camera. The viewfinder on the 1 cameras is worth most of the price difference on its own, if you ask me...
Keeping an open mind is a good thang.
I sailed and raced since I was a kid for almost 50 years.
In my early 20's after winning a major championship,I thought I was pretty damn good.
In my 30's looking back,I realized I didn't know diddly compared to what I knew then.
In my 40's looking back,I concluded I didn't know jack back then,comparatively.
In my 50's looking back,there were still subtle changes and improvements.
We should never allow ourselves to stop learning,evolving and progressing.
In my early 20's after winning a major championship,I thought I was pretty damn good. In my 30's looking back,I realized I didn't know diddly compared to what I knew then. In my 40's looking back,I concluded I didn't know jack back then,comparatively. In my 50's looking back,there were still subtle changes and improvements. We should never allow ourselves to stop learning,evolving and progressing.
Along the same line -
When someone graduates from college, he feels he knows everything;
When he receives his master's degree, he feels like he knows something;
After he receives his PhD, now he realizes he doesn't know anything.
When I looked at some of archived pictures when I started, at that time, I thought they were pretty good, now they look like crap. Of course the pictures I take now may still look like crap in the eyes of truely talented artists/photographers, but, that's ok. I am still enjoying my photography as a hobby. That's what matters to me.
Absolutely! Nice gear = high feel good factor + high entertainment value. Talent is secondary and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder i.e. totally subjective. The only thing that matters is to have lotsa eosfun.
panos.v wrote:
Talent or not, more expensive gear is certainly nicer to use. So you don't have to be a master photographer to also appreciate the nicer feel and operation of a 1-series camera vs an entry level camera. The viewfinder on the 1 cameras is worth most of the price difference on its own, if you ask me...
Jayem1 wrote:
When I looked at some of archived pictures when I started, at that time, I thought they were pretty good, now they look like crap. Of course the pictures I take now may still look like crap in the eyes of truely talented artists/photographers, but, that's ok. I am still enjoying my photography as a hobby. That's what matters to me.
bobbytan wrote:
Mark, I beg to differ slightly. Being a pilot or a rocket scientist is quite different to being an artist, photographer or a singer. The later is born with an inherent talent or skill. If God decided that you will be born w/o the ability to sing, no amount of training is going to make you a singing sensation. And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don't have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that the top athletes are born with a natural talent, and given the proper training and equipment/tools to work with, they will become world-class champions. FWIW I am the epitome of a stunted photographer ... in case you think that I think I belong to the later group. ...Show more →
I agree Bobby that some people are born with a better aptitude than others. If two people work just as hard as one another then the one with greater cognitive ability will certainly prevail. It is astounding what obstacles the person with more determination, drive, and effort can overcome.
On a serious note, I have a friend in the business who tells me that today anyone's voice can be altered digitally to sound melodious...
Which is sad in two directions, one of which is analogous to the effect of digital photography:
I did not realize Christina Aguilera and Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta) really had such awesome pipes until I heard them perform old-school style with Tony Bennett. Modern digital enhancement not only hides their true ability, it also makes the enhanced sound so common to everyone that the audience doesn't expect anyone to have such natural ability...and perhaps causes the audience not to care.
"When everyone is special, no one is special." --electronically enhanced supervillian Syndrome ("The Incredibles")
I started photographing Flamenco dance under dim light with a Nikon D70 and fast AIs MF primes 6 years ago. Now I use the D3s/4 with AF/VR zooms and the AF/VR 200 mm 2.0. The light and venues are similiar and some of the dancers are the same. But the pictures are much, MUCH better and you don't have to pixel peep to see the results even on an iPhone much less an iPad or a big print.
Yes there have been incremental improvements along the way but that's how significant progress is made-increments that aggregate for synergy. Is there some place along the way where I shoulld have "Good Enough" stopped? I subscribe to the idea that the best equipment is barely good enough. Ansel would have been excited with today's new equipment-especially the electronic darkroom.
kirry007 wrote:
On a serious note, I have a friend in the business who tells me that today anyone's voice can be altered digitally to sound melodious...
On a serious note, I have a friend in the business who tells me that today anyone's [photograph] can be altered digitally to [look flashy]...
Has there been any discussion on what constitutes "talent"?
If we eliminate skill, hard work and luck, what's left?
Can a "good eye" be learned through experience?
In photography what constitutes "creativity"?
And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don't have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that