bwield wrote:
It would be foolish to say that anyone can achieve the same level of success as those elite athletes buy "trying lots"
HOWEVER...
As opposed to the NFL, NBA etc, I do not think that success as a wedding photographer is causally linked with innate talent (It).
Does it make it easier to be successful.... maybe....but not having "it" does not stop people from being successful.
Of course it doesn't. But some people just have more natural ability in whatever profession it is that they pursue.
In the "art" world, being able to have a vision that others don't have is unique and sets those apart from the crowd. Otherwise, everyone would be at the top of the food chain.
Aren't we "artists" ? We aren't plumbers, mechanics or electricians. Our job is to create "art" that people like and want to purchase. Ours is wedding "art" photography. The level of art that we produce causes some clients to value one's work over another. Having the "business" skills to sell that is another critical part of the puzzle.
bwield wrote:
I do not disagree. BUT does not having that innate ability limit success in professional wedding photography?
I would suspect that in a few very rare cases there are individuals who are successful in this field just because they are vastly skilled in both the creative AND business (I will not concede it only takes innate creative skill to succeed), BUT I think they are the exception rather than the rule.
The vast majority of successful photographers have gotten there through hard work, not relying on some special "it".
To believe anything else, IMO, is a disservice to those "higher end shooters"...Show more →
No one ever said that those with that special talent don't work hard. it's just assumed that those that work hard and ALSO have that special talent rise to the top of the food chain.
TRReichman wrote:
As an educator and a practitioner it is absolutely no benefit to me to believe in "IT."
And yes, I am utterly dismissive of the idea of talent, which is irrelevant without work. Work without talent will get you pretty far. So talent seems to be a waste of attention.
- trr
I don;t think it is an either or situation. Where did you get the idea that any one said success only takes talent and no work It takes both, working hard with not much talent is the same as not working with a lot of talent.
If 10 people work equally hard on the exact same project, I think that eight will come up with good work, one will not succeed and one will end up with something new/different/better. And that's because he/she is more talented, or smarter or takes one more chance.
Most of us are in the 80% and sometimes we (at least I do) get into the 10% on either end.
If all it took was "working harder, or longer hours" all of us would be alot more successful than we are
You can't teach certain things like speed or height. You're just born with that. But to sit here and say that you, as a photographer, cannot learn to "see" differently or learn to pose/direct people or learn to see light or use your 50mm at under f/2... that's just plain hogwash.
I'm a perfect example. My work looks ok now, but if you saw what it looked like 6 years ago, you'd probably have told me to get out of the business because I sucked.
Saying things like, "I'm too old" or "This is all I know" or "I'm set in my ways" - all excuses. Force yourself to think differently and to try to see differently. Be uncomfortable when you shoot - force yourself out of your comfort zone.
I've often said that I grew more in six months with my first DSLR than I did in six years with my bridge camera, simply because I attached a prime lens to the former and started doing fancy things like shooting in manual and obsessively reading photography blogs.
TRReichman wrote:
As an educator and a practitioner it is absolutely no benefit to me to believe in "IT."
And yes, I am utterly dismissive of the idea of talent, which is irrelevant without work. Work without talent will get you pretty far. So talent seems to be a waste of attention.
- trr
i think you need to pull it in a little.
Talent is every sector of our society.
Much talent is unrealized.
If you do not have talent, yes you can still be successful.
talent in the photography world ... specifically the wedding world allows someone to create images of meaning and impact that transcends the personal families involved and the generation they were created.
Talent is the ability to see other possibilities, in a given moment, that most people do not see or even realize the possibility is possible.
and as an educator ... i hope you have the ability to marry talent with business acumen.
Micky Bill wrote:
I don;t think it is an either or situation. Where did you get the idea that any one said success only takes talent and no work It takes both, working hard with not much talent is the same as not working with a lot of talent.
If 10 people work equally hard on the exact same project, I think that eight will come up with good work, one will not succeed and one will end up with something new/different/better. And that's because he/she is more talented, or smarter or takes one more chance.
Most of us are in the 80% and sometimes we (at least I do) get into the 10% on either end.
If all it took was "working harder, or longer hours" all of us would be alot more successful than we are
The difference between hard work and no talent and no work and talent is this - work + no talent generates results and talent without work sits in mom's basement. The secret to generating work is not having talent, it is going out and generating a lot of work. And it isn't just about hard work, it is about learning what the right work is.
- trr
Sergio Mottola wrote:
how could you make money off of AMTF if you said that some people can't do it? it's not befitting to a workshop model to say that they simply can't. but i've met these people, people who are fitting a square peg into a round hole. so no, its of no financial benefit to tell somebody that they do or don't have it.
your logic is not rooted in reality, it's in selling assistance to the amateur. i know you can't handle this, but nobody can do what you do todd. sorry. you can't teach me how to run AMTF, your business, or make your wife happy.
Hey man, you know we're cool but this comment bums me out a little. I'll tell you the honest truth - I've worked with people that I didn't think had "IT" before and they have always proven me wrong. I truly believe that I see the best in people and want the best for people and that's why I think anyone can learn it and do it and I've never been proven wrong yet. That isn't hyperbole or marketing bullshit, that is the honest truth. Doesn't matter what small sum I make off of it. I'm somewhat shocked that so many people are opposed to the idea that anyone can learn to be successful and kick ass. I'm sure believing the opposite makes us feel better about ourselves but it is BS in my opinion.
I'm somewhat shocked that so many people are opposed to the idea that anyone can learn to be successful and kick ass.
- trr
I think that you're just reading it a different way than some of the others here. I think that everyone would agree with the above statement. I think that most people here would even agree that they fall somewhere close to the person you're talking about.
I think everyone else is saying that there are some people who's talent transcends that a bit. Not that they don't work, just that when they work to the exact same level of hardness as another dude, they're more successful because they're innately more talented.
I don't think anyone disagrees that what you're saying happens all the time.
I don't doubt that there are innate differences between people, but I submit that those innate differences are infinitesimally small compared to the similarities between people.
I'd argue that very few folks here have maxed out their working potential, and that very few people in life ever do in any field, and that until that potential is maxed out, the innate differences don't matter.
And the innate differences at that level (the level of maxed working potential) are still dwarfed by the infinitely larger vagaries of chance that impact whether those differences will even have an opportunity to present themselves, nevermind whether or not those people will ever get the time, environment, and sustained effort necessary to maximize their working potentials.
To put it another way, how many people would be crowing about Bill Gates having "it" if he'd been born to a poor family in Bolivia rather than a wealthy family in the United States? "It" is irrelevant without the perfect storm of environmental supports.
This doesn't even begin to go into the hopelessness of defining "it" as something that people can gain and lose (as was mentioned in the Tiger Woods et al references above). It increasingly seems that "it" is really just a shorthand method of praising people who happen to be at the forefront of their respective fields for a brief moment of time while people are watching. It's lazy deification at best.
Inku Yo wrote:
You can't teach certain things like speed or height. You're just born with that. But to sit here and say that you, as a photographer, cannot learn to "see" differently or learn to pose/direct people or learn to see light or use your 50mm at under f/2... that's just plain hogwash.
snip
You are also born with talent. Everyone has talent for something. And for a lot of people who dismiss their talent often have a lot more talent than they give themselves credit for.
You are talking about learning new techniques. Classes and workshops or utoob behind the scenes are all great for adding another arrow to your quiver and learning from others success.
This reminds of the 1947 Three Stooges short "Half Wits Holiday" where there is an argument over which molds a person...heredity or environment. Two rich guys make a bet on if they can turn Larry, Moe and Curly into gentlemen...hilarity and a pie fight ensues.
tobicus wrote:
I don't doubt that there are innate differences between people, but I submit that those innate differences are infinitesimally small compared to the similarities between people.
I'd argue that very few folks here have maxed out their working potential, and that very few people in life ever do in any field, and that until that potential is maxed out, the innate differences don't matter.
And the innate differences at that level (the level of maxed working potential) are still dwarfed by the infinitely larger vagaries of chance that impact whether those differences will even have an opportunity to present themselves, nevermind whether or not those people will ever get the time, environment, and sustained effort necessary to maximize their working potentials.
To put it another way, how many people would be crowing about Bill Gates having "it" if he'd been born to a poor family in Bolivia rather than a wealthy family in the United States? "It" is irrelevant without the perfect storm of environmental supports.
This doesn't even begin to go into the hopelessness of defining "it" as something that people can gain and lose (as was mentioned in the Tiger Woods et al references above). It increasingly seems that "it" is really just a shorthand method of praising people who happen to be at the forefront of their respective fields for a brief moment of time while people are watching. It's lazy deification at best....Show more →
Wow.....take such a simple thing, turn it, twist it and make it something complicated.
Wow every time you open your mouth a socialist marxist emerges. People are vastly different. This is a wonderful thing. Being drones of each other (which even at birth we are not) would make a hideously boring world. Here's a point in myself: My dad really wanted me to be a math smart person who would make an excellent scientist or engineer. Despite his attempts throughout my childhood, I turned out to be a bad mathematician and a great artist. I gravitated toward what I was good at and understood. My father also encouraged me with art but despite pushing me in the other direction I did what came naturally to me. I wish those initial influences in my life had been successful because I'd probably be a lot wealthier had I been a chemical engineer
tobicus wrote:
I don't doubt that there are innate differences between people, but I submit that those innate differences are infinitesimally small compared to the similarities between people.
I'd argue that very few folks here have maxed out their working potential, and that very few people in life ever do in any field, and that until that potential is maxed out, the innate differences don't matter.
And the innate differences at that level (the level of maxed working potential) are still dwarfed by the infinitely larger vagaries of chance that impact whether those differences will even have an opportunity to present themselves, nevermind whether or not those people will ever get the time, environment, and sustained effort necessary to maximize their working potentials.
To put it another way, how many people would be crowing about Bill Gates having "it" if he'd been born to a poor family in Bolivia rather than a wealthy family in the United States? "It" is irrelevant without the perfect storm of environmental supports.
This doesn't even begin to go into the hopelessness of defining "it" as something that people can gain and lose (as was mentioned in the Tiger Woods et al references above). It increasingly seems that "it" is really just a shorthand method of praising people who happen to be at the forefront of their respective fields for a brief moment of time while people are watching. It's lazy deification at best....Show more →
But obviously you had a natural talent in art. You probably would have failed as a mathematician or engineer.
I am horrible at math. Couldn't add two plus two to save my life. But I had a natural talent in art. I used to paint, charcoal draw portraits from sight, maps, and loved anything artsy. Oils, watercolors, pencil, ink drawings and I had a natural talent without any training.
I then gravitated towards photography where I stayed. I never looked at it as a profession. I had another excellent career which got cut short. I was then forced to look to something else to pay the bills so I gave photography a shot. I was technically excellent, had my own vision and style and loved it. I had the equipment and years of practical experience photographing sports, news and people.
So that was my natural talent. If I had sucked at photography, I would not have pursued it as a career once my other career ended.
cineski wrote:
Wow every time you open your mouth a socialist marxist emerges.
I sure hope you made those cameras you use for your wedding photography, because otherwise it probably took a big socialist system of trade and currency agreements and regulations to ship your Canons over from Japan.
tobicus wrote:
... it probably took a big socialist system of trade and currency agreements and regulations to ship your Canons over from Japan.
I'm struggling here to understand how Canon (a for-profit corporation) employing private citizens (for a market wage) to produce cameras (from designs that are privately developed, privately owned intellectual property) ... and selling those cameras to (commercial) resellers in the US at rates determined by the market for said cameras and the foreign exchange market (a vast, highly competitive, free-market investment system) ... and shipping them using, say, FedEx or UPS (for-profit corporations) ... and then those resellers turning around and selling the same cameras to cineski for use in his private business at rates determined by the market for said cameras... is a good example of "a big socialist system." Pray tell, what is your definition of socialism?
More on topic, I've discovered that I am wildly talented... at pretty much anything I study obsessively and work my butt off at for a really long period of time, like a decade or so. I know a lot of other folks who are the same way. It's amazing how that happens. Of course, the things that reward me early on with pretty good results are a lot easier to get obsessive about.
It takes both, working hard with not much talent is the same as not working with a lot of talent.
