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 that (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.
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 that (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.
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 ... 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.
May 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Previous versions of bobbytan's message #10646545 « Gear vs Talent... »
