Why Were the Best Photographers So Good?

[The Dark]

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.

Sorry If this sounds like rubbish to you but Im just trying to answer the original question "Why were the best photographers so good?". You can try to look for the scientific basis to creativity or talent but I doubt anybody can really find the real answer. Our human mind is way to complicated to just be broken down into a few generalized points. Until science is able to explain why not all of us are not among History's greatest photographers these 'unexplainable X-factors' will remain to be seen as 'Talent'. Oh! I also wish photography is 'absolute' like the laws of physics but then again I could be wrong.

 

[250swb]

The more you practice the better you get, which in most areas like art, sport, music, means hard work. And its the hard work that then makes it look easy.

Steve

 

[claacct]

Pure raw talent, the gift from Gods.

 

[Lord Nikon]

1234567890

 

[Jamie123]

Sorry If this sounds like rubbish to you but Im just trying to answer the original question "Why were the best photographers so good?". You can try to look for the scientific basis to creativity or talent but I doubt anybody can really find the real answer. Our human mind is way to complicated to just be broken down into a few generalized points. Until science is able to explain why not all of us are not among History's greatest photographers these 'unexplainable X-factors' will remain to be seen as 'Talent'. Oh! I also wish photography is 'absolute' like the laws of physics but then again I could be wrong.

First of all, nobody here is trying to look for the scientific basis to creativity. What made you think that? Also, nobody is trying to deny that there's such a thing as talent and that some people have more of it than others.
However, you started with the demonstrably false premise that everyone agrees that talent in other areas (music, etc.) is 'god-given'. Barring that a lot of people do not believe in God I went on trying to examine what kind of abilities one could even consider to be innate. The point of this was, of course, to show that even in those other areas you quoted, few people would argue that talent is completely innate.

But let's get back to photography. Like all other creative endeavours it is a cultural phonomenon and as such the notions of 'good' and 'bad' are highly relative. No one's born knowing what a good photograph looks like so it's inevitably a learning process. Some people clearly have more talent to learn than others but they still have to learn. Just as the fact that some people have more talent for learning languages doesn't mean that it will just fall into their lap and it also doesn't mean that others with less talent cannot get to the same point with hard work and dedication.

Last but not least, I do not believe that there is such a thing as having an 'eye' for photography but if there is I know I certainly have it.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"Successful," (whatever that means) photographers work incredibly hard. Much harder than most of us would be willing to work, making sacrifices that most of us would be unwilling to make. Sure, there is talent. But the really great photographers I have known maintain a pace over decades that I could never maintain.

 

[RFH]

Talent is a funny thing. Case in point: I just started attending a photo school. A girl in my class is totally clueless when it comes to the technical side of photography. She bought a DSLR a year ago, used it in auto mode and “doesn't know how to use RAW", as she says, and the last time we presented portraits for the class, she didn't even know if she had used flash for the image.
Yet her shots are among the best on the tackboard. Go figure.

 

[sanmich]

making sacrifices that most of us would be unwilling to make.

My uneducated guess is that very few of the great documentary/war etc photogs have a good family life. Being on the road a good part of the time and obsessional about what you do, as any professional of the highest level is, might not help.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My uneducated guess is that very few of the great documentary/war etc photogs have a good family life. Being on the road a good part of the time and obsessional about what you do, as any professional of the highest level is, might not help.

Even people who photographed peppers and driftwood didn't necessarily have a good family life: cf Weston.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

Maybe because they didn't spend their time obsessing about equipment, but trying to become better photographers? 😀

You nailed it. Also because there wasn't the ridiculous amounts of advertising on streets like there is today, among many other factors including digital and fashion.....

 

[emraphoto]

My uneducated guess is that very few of the great documentary/war etc photogs have a good family life. Being on the road a good part of the time and obsessional about what you do, as any professional of the highest level is, might not help.

Sadly, this has a grain of truth.

 

[StillKicking]

Maybe its because they only show people the good ones.. I think it was Cartier Bresson who said something along the lines of.. "shoot lots of pictures but only show people the good ones"..

Great photographers know a good image when they see it and edit out the rest.

 

[Dirk]

Maybe it comes down to either you are an artist and have that artistic perception, this "sixth sense" of seeing things that less gifted people don't see, or you are not, and just make do with a less elevated level of artistic talent. I don't think being an artist with a camera is different from being an artist with a brush. It's just a different instrument.

 

[Richard G]

Wasn't Kertesz happily married to the same woman for years?

Polgar deliberately set about making chess grandmasters of his two young daughters and succeeded. Modern theory has it that Mozart was merely the product of a similar program. I find it amusing when academic experts insist that it is all just nurture. I suspect insecurity or even jealousy. I come across some fantastically talented people. Are some of them really smarter than me? Of course they are. Was Lartigue hot-housed? Nope. Did HCB get that eye from hard work alone? I don't think so. Not everyone is stunned by that joyous shot of Munkasci as HCB was.

James Rhodes is an 'it' young classical pianist. Clever marketing? Yes. A few lucky breaks in his training? Yes. Hot-housed for this career? No. Is he really good in a sense that he offers something that isn't a dime a dozen amongst hard working pianists? Yes, he really is. Has he got talent? Yep. And what that is in his case is the perfect taste in phrasing, sublime touch of course, but also adventurous departures from convention in choice of repertoire and presentation and identification of a new direction for classical piano playing that is needed and is being appreciated. This is what painters did in 16th century Italy. The patrons had to like it and they did. This is what we see in photography with camera phones and Hipstamatic and before that, Polaroids. It's the whole package that gets someone to the very top and keeps them there, but except in painting and sculpture talentless ardour and clever marketing won't succeed on their own.

 

[furcafe]

Depends on what time period you're referring to. Before the 1920s, there was even more advertising on the streets than there is today. Even later, there was plenty of advertising, e.g., http://www.howtobearetronaut.com/2010/01/1940s-london-in-stunning-hig-resolution-colour/

Also because there wasn't the ridiculous amounts of advertising on streets like there is today, among many other factors including digital and fashion.....

 

[bigeye]

Obsession/passion for it. It's the only thing that can get them through all the effort and BS to consistently get good pictures.

.

 

[Jamie123]

That's not uncommon. I know of a number of pros who are very successful - who barely got by in the film world without knowledgeable assistants and now in the digital world are useless without very sharp computer/PS + Capture 1 competent staff. Many can't configure a tethered connection without help. So, they hire help and make pictures and get famous.

Sure and I don't see any problems with this. I truly believe that the most important thing as a professional photographer is knowing what you like and how to get it. If that means hiring other people to do some of the technical stuff, so be it. It might not be the smartest thing to fully rely on other people to handle important aspects of your work but if it works then it's fine.

 

[I Love Film]

I spent many years as an editor at some large publications.

I could easily and instantly tell what photographer had talent and who didn't after looking at a couple of contact sheets or prints.

Same thing for writers. Mostly after reading a couple of lines, or at the most, a few paragraphs, and it was glaringly obvious who was good or not.

The same thing for a photographer's "eye". They either have it or they don't.

If they don't have it, they can spend several fortunes on equipment or go to school for 20 years, it doesn't make any difference. They may improve themselves technically somewhat, but then they will produce technically excellent mediocre, boring photos.

The example above of the girl who barely knows how to work a DSLR but produces the best portraits is accurate. You only need a minimal amount of expertise with equipment if you have the "eye". You can't teach it, and you can't make your own eye better with practice. It is what it is, it's prewired in your head.

It's fun to play with gear. I like to, most men like to, but it makes no difference at all in the finished product, unless all you want to do is produce very sharp, well-exposed awful pictures.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I spent many years as an editor at some large publications.

I could easily and instantly tell what photographer had talent and who didn't after looking at a couple of contact sheets or prints.

Same thing for writers. Mostly after reading a couple of lines, or at the most, a few paragraphs, and it was glaringly obvious who was good or not.

Most editors believe this about themselves.

Fortunately, they don't always agree with one another.

What does this tell you about who has an 'eye' and who doesn't? For that matter, what does it tell you about the 'editor's eye'?

Cheers,

R.

 

[I Love Film]

Most editors believe this about themselves.

Fortunately, they don't always agree with one another.

What does this tell you about who has an 'eye' and who doesn't? For that matter, what does it tell you about the 'editor's eye'?

Cheers,

R.

I would say the Internet as a whole would do well to have a gigantic uber-editor.

There are also good editors and bad editors. A bad editor, obviously, would not have the natural born "eye" of a good editor, just the same as photographers and writers.

Take for example the wonderful photo blog that is called "The Big Picture" at Boston.com

I used to follow it every week, it was superb. It inexplicably became terrible a few months ago, then I read that the editor had left and went to here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/world-war-ii/

Take a look, it is superb again. The editor made all the difference.