Why Were the Best Photographers So Good?

Relating back to why particular photographers were so good - this is how I think of it. In truth, they're not gods or born with a 'gift' of any kind - physically and mentally they had the same structures and processes and you and me. Every single person that lives or has ever lived on this earth is just a brain sitting on top of a skeleton. For this reason, you gotta say that they can create such impressive and layered/complex images simply through honing their art - most likely to the point of absolute obsession, and thus you and me could achieve that level of imagery if we persued it to the point of absolute obsession too.

One of my favorite quotes is 'Obsessed is just a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated', and I think this is the real difference between the good and the best.
 
Last edited:
I like Gavin's take and that fits with notion of genius being the capacity to take infinite pains. But then there's Lartigue. And the whole product is what allows us ever to see the photographs of the best—how they pushed themselves forward, got a break, got noticed etc. It's the same in all the arts. Even on the forum here we see some amazing stuff, with some consistently good performers. A colleague of mine who is a known poet says that there are thousands of fine poets out there we will never read. Same for photographers.
 
A lot of today's younger generation of photographers mistaken photography as a technical pursuits whereas photography in its very core a form of visual arts. As all other art-form, a God-given talent is a defining factor in one's success or failure. We do not seem to doubt the 'talent factor' in musicians, painters or actors but we all are seemed to be reluctant to admit this factor does influence a photographers work as well.
 
The Sistine Chapel is in fact not art but illustration 🙂 The sistine Chapel was not created as a piece of Art, today we see it as such. The definition of what art is in a constant flux. Marcel Duchamps Urinal/Pissoir is for me one of the greates pieces of Art not because Duchamps took 2 years, (in reality probably a few seconds) to build it but because of the idea and the concept behind the work.HCB whom I consider a good photographer and even better salesman, definetely produced art so did Friedlander, art isn't defined by the lenght it takes to be created but by the act of the creation be it in less than a second or then years. BTW Famous artists are mostly famous because of luck lots of it and to a much lesser extent because of talent.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, why are they good....?

Late in the warm afternoon, I stand, tamp out the Lucky, finish my campari and tuck the paper under my arm, and cross the piazza to my pension. Time to get to work.

I grab the Leica M6 TTL, mount the 50mm ASPH Summilux-M and slip the 21mm f2.8 ASPH Elmarit-M and a couple rolls of Tri-X into my jacket pocket. As I step into traffic, lighting a Lucky, a beautiful young girl winks from her Vespa as she trims my toes.

I stroll out of town into a still, golden afternoon along a narrow country road. Tosca is playing from a distant window as I come upon the perfect scene, I raise the Leica, focus, compose and capture. I mount the 21mm and finish the roll on the way back and develop in my room tonight with a bottle of scotch and a dangling Lucky.

That's how I do it. Ciao.

.
 
Last edited:
Richard G said:
I like Gavin's take and that fits with notion of genius being the capacity to take infinite pains. But then there's Lartigue. And the whole product is what allows us ever to see the photographs of the best—how they pushed themselves forward, got a break, got noticed etc. It's the same in all the arts. Even on the forum here we see some amazing stuff, with some consistently good performers. A colleague of mine who is a known poet says that there are thousands of fine poets out there we will never read. Same for photographers.
Click to expand...


Lartigue came from a wealthy family. He did all his amazing work as a child.
 
The Dark said:
A lot of today's younger generation of photographers mistaken photography as a technical pursuits whereas photography in its very core a form of visual arts. As all other art-form, a God-given talent is a defining factor in one's success or failure. We do not seem to doubt the 'talent factor' in musicians, painters or actors but we all are seemed to be reluctant to admit this factor does influence a photographers work as well.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with the 'god given gift' thing. You use the talent factor example of a musician - many people think exactly what you're stating is true with vocalists - that they can either sing or they can't, but I have had many friends in the music scene that absolutely could not hit a note to save their lives in their youth, but through training and practice have turned out to be fantastic vocalists. And why shouldn't this work - the vocal chords are muscles after all, and all muscles react directly to what you use them for. In the same way, the brain is also highly trainable, and as we learn more about the nature of neuroplasticity we are starting to understand that the brain can physically remodel itself internally AND EVEN structurally based on environmental stimulus, experiences and the power of the mind.

No one starts off as an amazing actor or musician, or painter. They develop it through experience and practice.

Edit: I completely agree though that a strong technical emphasis is basically the best way to halt any personal artistic progress in an individual practicing photography. For sure, it's a visual art to the core.
 
Last edited:
"Edit: I completely agree though that a strong technical emphasis is basically the best way to halt any personal artistic progress in an individual practicing photography. For sure, it's a visual art to the core."

This is what makes Adams so successful and accessible to the masses. His technical ability lies under the guise of "art". Just ask his publicist and Beaumont Newhall, who both elevated Adams in this regard.
 
...they shoot lots...

There are some people that are more visual than others and have that eye for composition, etc... but it only becomes instinctive after shooting lots of frames. Who mentioned that the eye was like a muscle that needed to be exercised? Erwitt? Winogrand? ...don't remember.
 
Good grief. Why was Babe Ruth so good? Why was Mark Twain such a good writer? I fear these are answer-less questions.:angel: Grab a camera and go out and take pictures, it is better time spent...something I will do once the day gets going.

IMO, all humans have god-given talents. Personally, I can't carry a tune in a bucket or sing Mary had a little lamb! No matter how hard I work or practice, it ain't gonna happen...that's life.😉

Am I ever going to be a concert pianist? Not likely in a million years. Am I going to try to learn playing on a keyboard one day? Hopefully, about the same time I can afford Rosetta Stone and learn French but I am not delusional.

Am I working hard in photography? Absolutely and I learn everyday and continue improving as most anyone who has at least a minimum of talent.😛
 
The Dark said:
As all other art-form, a God-given talent is a defining factor in one's success or failure. We do not seem to doubt the 'talent factor' in musicians, painters or actors but we all are seemed to be reluctant to admit this factor does influence a photographers work as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's rubbish. "We" certainly do not all agree on this. Even if we let the religious aspect aside for a moment, I think you'd have a hard time finding a lot of scientific proof for your claim. Firstly we would have to agree on what 'talent' really means. Let's split 'talent' into three possible components: 1) physical predisposition, 2) motor function/sensory abilities and 3) intellectual abilities.
There are certainly a few aspects of talent that are genetically determined to a certain degree like e.g. having long fingers for playing piano, being tall for playing basketball. Basically these are predispositions that give you an edge in a certain field and if you do not have them, you may even be unable to do a certain thing (if you have very short fingers there are a few pieces you simply cannot play on the piano).
But once we stop talking about these very basic predispositions we start getting into the whole nature/nurture debate.
Let's talk about point 2. We might consider such talents as having an absolute pitch or having remarkably good or precise motor functions an innate talent but that's not proven at all. It's just as likely that they develop in early childhood.
And last but not least there's point 3. We do accept that part of our intellectual abilities has to do with genetic predispositions and/or childhood development but we also generally agree that this is an aspect we can improve by hard work and dedication. And we do know that social aspects play an enormously important role in this.

Now the argument about talent in photography (if there is one) seems to be whether it mostly comes down to 2 or 3. The people who argue that being good at photography requires having an 'eye' for it would probably want to put this in category 2 together with things like having an absolute pitch. This reasoning is highly flawed in my opinion as the visual equivalent of having an aboslute pitch would seem to be something like being able to distinguish the slightest variation in color, not being able to produce a good image.
If, however, you subscribe to the view that photography is a sort of visual language then it follows that it can be learned. I'm sure that a lot of that learning goes on in early development but that doesn't mean that one cannot make up for it later in life. A lot of young people today seem to have remarkable visual literacy (having grown up with blogging and reblogging etc. etc.) and I do sometimes struggle with this when I see a photographer that's better at 15 than I was at 25 but that's just the way it is.
 
This is a great Friedlander quote, perhaps it will be a little food for thought -

"I only wanted Uncle Vernon standing by his own car (a Hudson) on a clear day, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on the fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography."
 
I have a small series of books on my shelf that are amongst my favourites:- The Hebrideans by Gus Wylie, An English Eye by James Ravillious, On Reading and The Polaroids by Andre Kertesz and even The Americans. All of them represent a selection/culling from bodies of work completed over a significnat period of time by talented photographers who were deeply committed to and practiced in their art/craft. All of them invested real significant time over long periods to produce these works - all of which were of love as much as mor more than money.

Simple really.
 
sojournerphoto said:
I have a small series of books on my shelf that are amongst my favourites:- The Hebrideans by Gus Wylie, An English Eye by James Ravillious, On Reading and The Polaroids by Andre Kertesz and even The Americans. All of them represent a selection/culling from bodies of work completed over a significant period of time by talented photographers who were deeply committed to and practiced in their art/craft. All of them invested real significant time over long periods to produce these works - all of which were of love as much as or more than money.

Simple really.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is one of the reasons to go to Arles. You see the work of seriously committed photographers; if you're lucky, you even get to meet them. And you realize just how ENORMOUS their commitment is.

Yes, there's a place for the gentleman amateur, usually from a very rich family, who just drifts into it and never works that hard: Lartigue is the finest example.

But most, especially today, work very hard and make significant sacrifices. Comparing myself with people like Duane Michals, Tim Page or Vanessa Winship (very different photographers from different generations), I know I'm just a dabbler. And I suspect that few people on RFF spend as much time on photography as I do, which makes them dilettante dabblers. Until you're prepared to do the same as the really successful guys, shut up and stop snivelling. The 'you' of course is not addressed to sojournerphoto, but to anyone with limited understanding of the work involved, and who believes it's just a question of 'being discovered' or 'getting in with the Art Mafia.

Cheers,

R.
 
Jamie123 said:
Sorry but that's rubbish. "We" certainly do not all agree on this. Even if we let the religious aspect aside for a moment, I think you'd have a hard time finding a lot of scientific proof for your claim. Firstly we would have to agree on what 'talent' really means. Let's split 'talent' into three possible components: 1) physical predisposition, 2) motor function/sensory abilities and 3) intellectual abilities.
There are certainly a few aspects of talent that are genetically determined to a certain degree like e.g. having long fingers for playing piano, being tall for playing basketball. Basically these are predispositions that give you an edge in a certain field and if you do not have them, you may even be unable to do a certain thing (if you have very short fingers there are a few pieces you simply cannot play on the piano).
But once we stop talking about these very basic predispositions we start getting into the whole nature/nurture debate.
Let's talk about point 2. We might consider such talents as having an absolute pitch or having remarkably good or precise motor functions an innate talent but that's not proven at all. It's just as likely that they develop in early childhood.
And last but not least there's point 3. We do accept that part of our intellectual abilities has to do with genetic predispositions and/or childhood development but we also generally agree that this is an aspect we can improve by hard work and dedication. And we do know that social aspects play an enormously important role in this.

Now the argument about talent in photography (if there is one) seems to be whether it mostly comes down to 2 or 3. The people who argue that being good at photography requires having an 'eye' for it would probably want to put this in category 2 together with things like having an absolute pitch. This reasoning is highly flawed in my opinion as the visual equivalent of having an aboslute pitch would seem to be something like being able to distinguish the slightest variation in color, not being able to produce a good image.
If, however, you subscribe to the view that photography is a sort of visual language then it follows that it can be learned. I'm sure that a lot of that learning goes on in early development but that doesn't mean that one cannot make up for it later in life. A lot of young people today seem to have remarkable visual literacy (having grown up with blogging and reblogging etc. etc.) and I do sometimes struggle with this when I see a photographer that's better at 15 than I was at 25 but that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

I too believe you can learn to be a better photographer, and like all things in life the more talent you have to begin with the further the hard work and application will take you. I don't believe hard work alone can ever make you a great photographer, that I believe requires natural talent. Besides learning implies copying what others have done before you, real talent sees with a unique eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mos6502
A good short video about Tseng Kwong Chi.
Replies
1
Views
283
Zuiko-logist
Z
A
The mystery photographer of '60s San Francisco and undeveloped Kodachrome
Replies
16
Views
2K
bcostin
bcostin
raydm6
Doctor With A Camera
Replies
10
Views
739
raydm6
raydm6
raydm6
Richard Brown - The Last of the Hill Farms
Replies
14
Views
637
Dogman
Dogman
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
boojum
boojum
Back
Top Bottom