aizan
Veteran
they do say that 80% of an athlete's performance is psychological, and only 20% physical.
peterm1
Veteran
Personally I think that much of it can be. The basics such as an understanding of composition - rule of thirds etc and an understanding of technical issues such as exposure will help tremendously. After that I would recommend (a) studying the giants of photography and try to emulate some of their shots - I have done this and it works greatly to understand how to compose a good shot. (b) PRACTICE!. This is one of the great benefits of digital photography if you ask me. It allows you to take thousands of photos at no real expense AND you get the immediate feedback that comes from being able to view your images immediately. So you learn. These things may not make you another Cartier Bresson but they will turn someone who otherwise is just a happy snapper into a good photographer. I almost always have a camera with me but I also find that I mainly get good photos on days when I go out on my own to take photos rather than on days when I am with someone else and just have the camera in the hope o something turning up. I think you can (maybe must) put yourself in an artistic frame of mind and be willing to experiment. The latter - which can take 5-10 minutes per shot when being serious is hard to achieve when you have awife clamoring for your attention.
Gid
Well-known
A very good question. The short answer is no. The longer answer is more complex.
Let's start with innate ability. I believe we are all born with differing levels of ability for just about anything you can think of - from running to intellectual capacity - this may just be down to genetics. It is not unusual to see the son/daughter of a "great" end up doing very well in the same field - sometimes better, sometimes not quite so good. This may well be down to gene degradation (other parent's genes dilute) or in the opposite case, gene enhancement. Let's now give some arbitrary measure to ability - score it on a scale of one to ten, one being low. Let's also assume that you can develop innate ability though nurture, training, encouragement etc. and improve your ability score. Where you end up depends upon how much we believe is innate and how much can be brought on. However, if we accept this argument, then, if you start off at one on the scale I doubt you'll ever get to ten, but if you start at seven .................
The above is very simplistic, but we are all different - just look around you or consider your own experiences. I used to play in a casual jazz band - a group of guys who liked music would meet up for a jam once a fortnight. The host loved to play the saxophone and put a lot of effort into mastering his instrument. However, he could not improvize. He had the technical ability (learned) but he just didn't hear it (innate?).
As I said at the start, the long answer is more complex and there are many other factors which or may not result in an innate ability being discovered. Which begs an interesting follow up question - how many of us have innate abilities that we have not yet tapped into
Let's start with innate ability. I believe we are all born with differing levels of ability for just about anything you can think of - from running to intellectual capacity - this may just be down to genetics. It is not unusual to see the son/daughter of a "great" end up doing very well in the same field - sometimes better, sometimes not quite so good. This may well be down to gene degradation (other parent's genes dilute) or in the opposite case, gene enhancement. Let's now give some arbitrary measure to ability - score it on a scale of one to ten, one being low. Let's also assume that you can develop innate ability though nurture, training, encouragement etc. and improve your ability score. Where you end up depends upon how much we believe is innate and how much can be brought on. However, if we accept this argument, then, if you start off at one on the scale I doubt you'll ever get to ten, but if you start at seven .................
The above is very simplistic, but we are all different - just look around you or consider your own experiences. I used to play in a casual jazz band - a group of guys who liked music would meet up for a jam once a fortnight. The host loved to play the saxophone and put a lot of effort into mastering his instrument. However, he could not improvize. He had the technical ability (learned) but he just didn't hear it (innate?).
As I said at the start, the long answer is more complex and there are many other factors which or may not result in an innate ability being discovered. Which begs an interesting follow up question - how many of us have innate abilities that we have not yet tapped into
ebolton
Number 7614
We've all seen pictures that violate the rule of thirds, or were taken with 'nonstandard' exposure, yet are great works of art.
Could it be innate that some artists understand why such rules work, and when they are better off bent or broken, while lesser folks just learn and follow them?
Could it be innate that some artists understand why such rules work, and when they are better off bent or broken, while lesser folks just learn and follow them?
tomasis
Well-known
Shoot and shoot. it is a zen. if you think how come to better or you're not good or talking such BS, it is not a Zen.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I'm a competent photographer who is never going to be a great photographer. Once in a while, I'll get a nice shot, once in a very great while, I'll get something pretty good.
This is not comparable to a visual genius, who, without study or emulation of other photographers, can get a stunning look with no effort.
Again, you can learn to make something craftsmanlike with a lot of effort and determination, but you don't ever get the "eye" with practice.
One sign of having intelligence and perception is having the ability to recognize your own limitations.
One of my skills is recognizing genius and talent in others, which is why I was a successful editor and publisher for 20 years.
The ability to self-edit and to have a clear perception of what one's own ability level is, is a valuable skill that most people lack.
A very true comment is that the internet lacks "editors". The internet encourages homogenization so that everything becomes one big Burger King Whopper.
This is not comparable to a visual genius, who, without study or emulation of other photographers, can get a stunning look with no effort.
Again, you can learn to make something craftsmanlike with a lot of effort and determination, but you don't ever get the "eye" with practice.
One sign of having intelligence and perception is having the ability to recognize your own limitations.
One of my skills is recognizing genius and talent in others, which is why I was a successful editor and publisher for 20 years.
The ability to self-edit and to have a clear perception of what one's own ability level is, is a valuable skill that most people lack.
A very true comment is that the internet lacks "editors". The internet encourages homogenization so that everything becomes one big Burger King Whopper.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
PS: In another thread, I was asked to evaluate some photographs by some other people here.
I gave a couple of very neutral, non-malicious opinions about the photographs that they had posted. (mind you, they ASKED me to do it)
When my opinion turned out not to be what one person wanted to hear (ie, that he was a genius), he got bitter, upset, and demanded that I not post anymore in any of his threads.
He then mentioned what I said numerous times in other posts of his, very offended and unhappy that he had not heard what he wanted to hear.
Which is a good lesson which has been learned by almost everybody who wishes to be "harmonious"; "Never tell the truth about someone who has no talent."
I gave a couple of very neutral, non-malicious opinions about the photographs that they had posted. (mind you, they ASKED me to do it)
When my opinion turned out not to be what one person wanted to hear (ie, that he was a genius), he got bitter, upset, and demanded that I not post anymore in any of his threads.
He then mentioned what I said numerous times in other posts of his, very offended and unhappy that he had not heard what he wanted to hear.
Which is a good lesson which has been learned by almost everybody who wishes to be "harmonious"; "Never tell the truth about someone who has no talent."
M. Valdemar
Well-known
PPS: I'll use my father as an example.
He used to own a camera store. He was an avid photographer in the 1950's and 1960's. He was very knowledgeable about cameras.
He could NEVER learn to frame a shot.
EVERY ONE of his pictures would have the tiny person's head smack in the middle of the print. The same angle, the same shot, thousands of times.
If you explained to him to "move in for a close-up", or "don't put the head right in the middle of the photo", or "change the angle", he was incapable of doing it or learning it.
He just couldn't "see" any other way to take a picture.
He took tens of thousands of photos of my mother, all EXACTLY THE SAME SHOT. She would be looking rigidly at the camera, in the middle of the frame, the same distance from the camera.
If they were in Europe, she would stand in front of a building, staring at him rigidly, head exactly in the middle of the frame. At the beach, same shot, exactly the same distance from the camera, head in the middle of the frame.
All his photos looked alike. I would physically move him and his camera to try to make him take a close-up with the head in a place other than smack in the middle of the frame......he would then move the head back to the middle and snap the photo.
Maybe that's an extreme, but it's a good analogy.
(A photo of me taken by my father, where, miraculously, he moved in a little closer)
He used to own a camera store. He was an avid photographer in the 1950's and 1960's. He was very knowledgeable about cameras.
He could NEVER learn to frame a shot.
EVERY ONE of his pictures would have the tiny person's head smack in the middle of the print. The same angle, the same shot, thousands of times.
If you explained to him to "move in for a close-up", or "don't put the head right in the middle of the photo", or "change the angle", he was incapable of doing it or learning it.
He just couldn't "see" any other way to take a picture.
He took tens of thousands of photos of my mother, all EXACTLY THE SAME SHOT. She would be looking rigidly at the camera, in the middle of the frame, the same distance from the camera.
If they were in Europe, she would stand in front of a building, staring at him rigidly, head exactly in the middle of the frame. At the beach, same shot, exactly the same distance from the camera, head in the middle of the frame.
All his photos looked alike. I would physically move him and his camera to try to make him take a close-up with the head in a place other than smack in the middle of the frame......he would then move the head back to the middle and snap the photo.
Maybe that's an extreme, but it's a good analogy.
(A photo of me taken by my father, where, miraculously, he moved in a little closer)
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Hi Steve,
what can I say, I'm an optimist, and believe that people can change.
In this thread, we first spoke about arts and music, and a good "eye". Now we speak about creativity and genius; generalizing the original question and taking it to extremes.
Of course there is talent, and there is genius, but even for a genius, hard work is involved to be successful in her/his lifetime. Photography is primarily a language, and without being "heard", a photographer won't be successful. Which means "selling" is involved. The true genius works on both sides, the creation and the communication. On the other hand, whoever buys the artist's output, must like it, must have an "eye", too. There must be resonance.
There are no home-runs.
IMO, being creative with pictures or with music is not so different from creativity in math or science. Not a surprise that most genius mathematicians were good musicians, too, or vice versa.
Saying that its only nature and no nurture is involved must depress because you give up on learning.
I like Raid's answer. Like everything else in life it's not black and white ....
Roland.
Last edited:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
2XLX2
Established
what a depressing thread!
ugghh oblivion......:bang:
ugghh oblivion...
...:bang:laughingbuddha
Member
I have to agree that this is a pretty depressing thread that hasn't produced much insightful thought regarding photography or anything else for that matter. So many converging elements play immensely important roles in what one chooses to photograph and why that to be so sure about any of this is sort of silly. If one has not taken the time to explore why they take photographs or what the aim is of what they do then it is easy enough to figure out they will be shooting a lot of material that does point towards any specific goal. And this is not a criticism of that way of working as a means of determining why one is making photographs. Cameras are tools. Wrapping a box around something and thereby declaring that moment to be special is the right of everyone who owns a camera but if you cannot help me or anyone else to understand why the content of the frame is important to you and maybe to me then it shows that a little self exploration may be ion order if you want to communicate something.
To wrap this up I am opposed to the idea that anyone knows what is good and what is not .... life is much too long and holds too many surprises to be so sure about what has value and what does not......
To wrap this up I am opposed to the idea that anyone knows what is good and what is not .... life is much too long and holds too many surprises to be so sure about what has value and what does not......
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Why is it depressing?
Is reality depressing?
Is reality depressing?
mknawabi
photographeur
Of course it can be learned...if someone can step their foot in a certain rhythm, so can another, it just takes practice.
2XLX2
Established
what’s the cure for disillusionment, charley brown? :bang:
okay, when i grow up, i'll be a free-will-nazi
3js
Established
I don´t call you romantic but very naive. As a former atlete I know that the quoted 80% don´t come from the atletes mind but from doping. And I believe Armstrong has his own issues in this field to settle. Mental my ass, it comes from pills and ampulls. Wake up idiots.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
So does a lot of modern "creativity". I think it also influences the urge to get tattooed.
Anyone remember Frank Zappa's song "Cocaine Decisions?"
Chop a line now. . .
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a person with a snow-job
You got a fancy gotta go job
Where the cocaine decision that you make today
Will mean that millions somewhere else
Will do it your way
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a person who is high class
You are a person not in my class
And the cocaine decision that you make today
Will mean nothing later on
When you get nose decay
I don't wanna know
'Bout the things that you pull
Outta your nose
Or where they goes
But if you are wasted
From the stuff you're stickin' in it
I get madder every day
'Cause what you do 'n' what you say
Affects my life in such a way
I learn to hate it every minute!
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a doctor or a lawyer
You got an office with a foyer
And the cocaine decisions that you make today
Will not be discovered till it's over 'n' done
By the customers you hold at bay
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a movie business guy
You got accountants who supply
The necessary figures
To determine when you fly
To Acapulco
Where all your friends go
Cocaine decisions . . .
We must watch the stuff you make
You have let us eat the cake
While your accountants tell you Yes Yes Yes
You make EXPENSIVE UGLINESS
(How do you do it? - let me guess . . .)
Cocaine decisions . . .
Cocaine decisions . . .
Cocaine decisions . . .
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Actually, 3js, I was using competitive cycling as a metaphor for photography. If you assert Armstrong's success was due to doping, then what are you implying about photographers? There may be performance enhancing drugs for visual artists. Many painters and photographers have used recreational drugs of various types. Our culture discourages drug use on moral grounds, but I've not heard the argument that drug use by an artist illegitimizes his work.
jwhitley
Established
mhv, your response resonates with me. During my life, I've been both student and teacher in varied disciplines, academic, athletic, and artistic. The biggest lesson learned from myself and from my students is that the old saw of "X cannot be learned, it must be an inborn gift" is false. I feel that it leads people away from exporing their potential, finding good mentors, and discovering the joy of learning.
That said, I agree that talent exists and can be profound. Some of the talented even become famous. Far more of them are left behind in a tortoise-vs-hare fashion by the people who strive endlessly to improve their work.
3js
Established
No, it´s not only Armstrong, but the whole top level sports i´m so bored of.
Now that´s a very interesting question. Should an artist gain of illegal drug use? I don´t know.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.