Why are some people good at photography while others arent?

I'm interested in other people's answers, but right now, my own opinion is that ability to see visually and the ability to apply yourself are what seperates good photographers from bad ones. Nothing magic about the ability to see visually either, as for nearly all artists it is a skill they acquire and learn.
 
George Bonanno said:
Photography has nothing to do with art. It's a mechanical reproduction like a Xerox machine.
Click to expand...


Paintings have nothing to do with art. It's a physical collection of smears, like an inkjet print.

Literature has nothing to do with art. It's a premeditated arrangement of symbols often plastered onto fibers of chopped down trees, or projected onto a screen invaded by discrete signals.

Architecture is a fancy way of getting out of caves. Etc etc.




Intertoobes disclaimer: tongue-in-cheek void where prohibited; restrictions may apply.
 
koven said:
Well photography is a pretty big spectrum but Ill just say taking a picture.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? You're not narrowing anything down if you specify photography as 'taking a picture'.

As has been mentioned before, what is and isn't a good picture is very subjective. But what I think can be said is that certain kinds and styles of photography lend themselves more to 'natural talent' than others. Spontaneous 'in-the-moment' documentary style photography being one of them. But then there's also the more cerebral kind of photography, more contemplative and maybe even academic to a certain degree. It's hard to imagine how someone would just pick up a camera and do this type of photography with little prior knowledge.
 
Why are some people good at taking pictures while others aren't?
Click to expand...

I find the question questionable. A better question might be "why do people think that their opinion carries more weight than the opinions of others"?

Your liking sherry doesn't make it a better drink than beer.
 
Maybe good photographers have good spacial relationship skills, good imaginations, good powers of observation, and are creative.

At least they have a desire to be creative.

I notice that 3 of the avatars accompanying the responses so far depict left eye dominant photographers. My avatar would make it 4 if it were a self portrait..

The left eye is controlled by, or controls the more creative right side of the brain.

Texsport
 
koven said:
Well photography is a pretty big spectrum but Ill just say taking a picture.

Why are some people good at taking pictures while others aren't?

I feel like the ability to take a picture is something you have or don't have. Its something natural. I wouldn't say you are born with it but its an aesthetic eye you develop over time. I think that's the reason why some people can just pick up a camera and shoot amazing stuff.

I feel like its a sensitivity to certain things and moments.
Click to expand...

Answer, in my opinion, is twofold. First of all, technically proper picture in given situation can take almost anybody. Its just a matter of training, not all that difficult, especially with modern equipment.
The other thing is though- properrly exposed developed etc. picture worth very little in artistic world, if there is nothing behind it- idea, visual or othrwise, message and so forth.
Thats where general education in arts kicks in. There is a reason that aspiring art-photogs are adviced to go to museums, watch. Good movies and listen to good music. Thats where the inspiration should come from, rather than looking at pier,s pictures. Paintings are the source, studiying the light...
 
George Bonanno said:
Photography has nothing to do with art. It's a mechanical reproduction like a Xerox machine.
Click to expand...

I won't get into that debate; leave that for the semantic threads distinguishing "photographs" from "snapshots.".

Suffice to say, my point was that photography is (often? hopefully?) a means of aesthetic expression. It requires a willingness to put aesthetic decisions in a visible form that is open to criticism. The more you put in, the greater the potential and the deeper criticism may cut.
 
Because some people ARE superior to other people.

All people are not equal artistically, intellectually, physically, etc.

My opinion, for example, is far more valid than most people's.



I'm different and I don't care who knows it
Somethin' about me
It's not the same yeah
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play no goddamn game

Got a different way of walkin'
I got a different kind of smile
I got a different way of talkin'
Drives the women kind of wild
Kind of wild

He's different
And I don't care who knows it
Somethin' about him
It's not the same
He's different
And that's how it goes
And he's not gonna play your gosh darn game

I ain't sayin' I'm better than you are
But maybe I am
I only know that when I look in the mirror
I like the man
We like the man

I'm different and I don't care who knows it
Somethin' about me
Not the same
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play your goddamn game

When I walk down the street in the mornin'
Blue birds are singin' in the tall oak tree
They sing a little song for the people
And they sing a little song for me

He's different and he don't care who knows it
Somethin' about him
Not the same
He's different and that's how it goes
And he's not gonna play your gosh darn game

I'm different and I don't care who knows it
Somethin' about me
Is not the same
I'm different and that's how it goes
Ain't gonna play no boss man's game

Randy Newman
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
I find the question questionable. A better question might be "why do people think that their opinion carries more weight than the opinions of others"?

Your liking sherry doesn't make it a better drink than beer.
Click to expand...

While your second point is true, your first point implies that there are no bad sherries or beers for example, and any judgment on quality is only one persons opinion. There are plenty of bad examples of beers, sherry and photographs.
 
And plenty more people who can't tell the difference.

Murchu said:
While your second point is true, your first point implies that there are no bad sherries or beers for example, and any judgment on quality is only one persons opinion. There are plenty of bad examples of beers, sherry and photographs.
Click to expand...
 
For 'photography' or 'taking pictures' substitute any X.

It's a confluence of three or four things, I am being vague about how many because the boundaries and definitions can be fuzzy, but anyway—
You need some talent, that is some innate ability, mental or physical; and it dosn't really matter if you care to think of that as a matter of pure chance, the right genetics, or the grace of god.
And then you need practice which therefore requires commitment and motivation and the opportunity to do so.
And opportunity can be a matter of being born in the right place and time —how many talenteted photographers has the world missed because they were born before the nineteenth century.
And motivation can be a vocation and thus come from within, or be a matter of encouragment or even necessity imposed from without —so we are back to the chances of time and place.
And I almost forgot, Education and Training: but then self-taught is a matter of motivation, and having a good teacher can be a matter of time and place etc.
So whatever you do, to do well you need: the serendipitous fertility of talent natured in a favourable time and place.
In other worlds so do, some don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom