Can an "eye" for photography be learned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since my brother started taking pictures (~8 months ago) - in my opinion he has taken much better pictures than I have, with the fairly simple film camera set up that I gave him.

If I start explaining technical things to him, he groans and says 'I just like playing with the settings', so I leave him to it! He is an autodidact who simply experiments, whereas I tend to read about (technical, gear) things on forums and stuff too, as well as surf flickr too much.

He has a general grasp of - bigger f number = bigger depth of field, and then just goes with it. And he just really likes taking pictures, and picks out and shoots things he finds interesting - and doesn't obsess over it! I'm not sure if he has an intrinsic 'eye', but he has a laid back attitude that tends to free up his vision, lets say.

He does make mistakes, but doesn't get annoyed and tends to learn from them, and usually gets a number of great shots per roll.

I have been shooting for an extra year ish, and have learnt a few more technical things and spent more money - but perhaps things were better when I just worked around the very basic controls. Perhaps I could unlearn what I have learned! And learn from my wee brother! The weekend should be fun!
 
I like that analysis Will. The only area of difference I might have with it, is your conclusion. I am fortunate enough to have a 'day job' that I both enjoy, and that allows me sufficient free time to pursue my artistic endeavors. Thus I don't feel the need to achieve recognition or greatness.

And I think that is essential for art - that the activity of doing it, is the payoff. I think that having success as the goal leads to the number one cause of art-death: copying (one's own) successful formula.
 
Some thoughts

Some thoughts

In the present day, a person who isn't informed visually is rare; we're surrounded by pictures. A person need only open their eyes to be trained in the culture of visual language, and photography informs that culture and interprets that culture. So, the "new" photographer starts out at a better advantage than someone who isn't, or wasn't, hooked into the media (TV, internet, print). There's a rich stock of information to rely on, to draw on, to emulate.
In the present day, a digital camera/DSLR will make revising a photo immediate and the learning process is greatly improved and enhanced.
In the present day, what "eye" are you talking about? Photographic styles and their corresponding "eye" are wide and the way photos are received and interpreted has a big, wide continuum.
 
I don't agree with most of the comments about "learning" how to be creative. I think it's an inherent trait.

It might be politically correct to feel that everyone has something to contribute, but I don't agree with this egalitarian concept.

Everybody doesn't have an equal amount of talent or refined perceptions. Visual brilliance can't be learned by rote.

I think there are "naturals" and there are the others. One can painstakingly practice to emulate the look of a master, but one can't learn to be the master.



aizan said:
a person's aesthetic sense is learned just like anything else.
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe I said any such thing or made any judgements. And it's "Hefner".

But for people like me, it's "Hef".

Gabriel M.A. said:
And, some of them, like, whoah, fight against the machine, man. Fight it. Like, just do it, man.

Or others are short of wearing a Hugh Heffner robe and get on their high horse and declare anybody who doesn't think like them utterly hopeless. Or brain-challenged, depending on their choice of words (if they have such choice) 🙂
Click to expand...
 
assuming that genes only go so far, the rest is developmental. learning isn't confined to the classroom; i was using it in a general sense.
 
Whether people have the ability to learn about visual arts, perception, composition, etc., has nothing to do with egalitarianism or political correctness, unless you arbitrarily frame the discussion that way. The fact is that people do learn those skills. Saying we're either born with it or not is absurd. It's like saying you're either born with language skills or not. If you grew up with no one around you using written or spoken language, how would your language skills be?
 
crawdiddy said:
If you grew up with no one around you using written or spoken language, how would your language skills be?
Click to expand...

As the Internets have shown us, written language is overrated. What with possessives and plurals exchanged abhorrently in the "its it's their they're there" arena can show 🙄
 
M. Valdemar said:
Then you have people who study photography, buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, debate characteristics of lenses, cameras, ad infinitum, and they never take anything more than pedestrian, uninspired images, totally without any interest to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Could it be that those are the same people that buy the stuff that artists with an "eye" create ?

Truly, if you don't think creativity (whatever that means) can be "learned" you are either:

- lazy or
- too full of yourself or
- heavily depressed.

Roland.
 
There is genius and there is proficiency.
The first is nearly impossible to learn without having the seeds already, whereas the second can be learned.
 
Exactly.

You can drum language into a person, but when he grows up he won't write Jabberwocky.

raid said:
There is genius and there is proficiency.
The first is nearly impossible to learn without having the seeds already, whereas the second can be learned.
Click to expand...
 
there are any number of ways to drastically reduce the likelihood of "being a genius", a misleading phrase to begin with. that only applies after the fact.

i should probably add that there are many things that are out of your control, which is probably what the "you either have it or you don't" folks are zoning in on.
 
Last edited:
Some things can be learned - how to use a camera or 'rules' of composition. Sometimes teachers can bring out ability. But you can not learn the 'photographic eye'. You have it or not.

Roland, I do not believe that creativity can be learned. And that does not mean you are lazy, egotistical or depressed (I am a bit surprised you even wrote that).

Steve
 
Last edited:
An "eye" fpr photography

An "eye" fpr photography

A fine question. I did not start photography intending to be a great photographer and just as well but I did try and do better at something I loved. The meaning for me was in the effort, which I enjoy, even with its frustrations. Am I better? Ask others, not me.

I imagine few musicians start out out determined to be Mozart but they can be taught to be better at what they love doing.

Regards to all,

Gary Haigh
 
I tend to disagree with the notion that creativity is something that is not inherent in everyone. I believe the problem lies in what one is taught to value about themselves and the world around them. If spontaneity and curiosity are nurtured then one will grow up with the ability to imagine and think abstractly intact and functioning then the creative potential will be there. The only question left is to what use the creative urge will lend itself.

People who are struggling to uncover their creativity are doing just that and that alone and the progress they make is determined by how much they value the recovery of their birthright and are willing to work for it.
 
The real problem with this question is it begs for a binary solution, when reality is analog, and lies somewhere between the two extremes.

Like many interesting problems in the real world, it's messy and complicated. It's not black or white, although some want to simplify it to that degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom