You Need More than ‘Natural Talent’ to Make it as a Photographer

[RichardPhoto]

For these sorts of topics I usually rely on Alder's Razor (Newton's Flaming Laser Sword):

If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate.

I leave it to the art world to run round in circles chasing their tales arguing over which subjective opinion should be erroneously elevated to objective fact!

 

[Dektol Dan]

I Too

I Too

Am running for President as a Republican.

 

[mdarnton]

I wanted to be a musician, but couldn't do it. I became a photographer by accident. Much later, I learned how real musicians practice, and discovered that this was what I'd been doing as a photographer without knowing it, but had never done as a musician: take a small goal, and tediously repeat it over and over again until you perfect it, then move on to the next small step.

As a photographer, I had been doing that because I enjoyed the act of photography; as a musician, I'd been trying to get to the end of the process too fast, skipping the ground work of doing the exercises thoroughly. As a photographer, I'd worked diligently imitating the styles of a number of photographers I liked, just for fun, not for presentation anywhere, just for me. Eventually out of that I developed, unintentionally, my own approach and vision. That whole process happened the quickest during a four-year period where I was shooting two 36x or more rolls a day with a goal of six usable pictures a day, for a daily newspaper where I had totally free rein of what I shot and how I shot it, and if it was interesting on any level it would be published. The only restriction was that I had to come up with six printable shots every single day. In a workshop I'd done with David Vestal he'd predicted that if I ever got the news job I thought I wanted that it would be one weird event, and he was correct. Those six shots a day moved me rapidly forward, though.

tldr: the only path to success in any endeavor that involves skill is through dedicated and directed practice. With focus--not just a lot of aimless shooting.

See, for instance: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2514369&postcount=5

 

[__jc]

A little earlier in the quoted piece in the OP:

Mr. Turlington: The images you’re turning in, they’re cool. You’re looking at things in a really unique way. Got a lot of natural talent.
Mason: Thanks.
Mr. Turlington: Yeah, but that and 50 cents will just get you a cup of coffee in this old world. I’ve met a LOT of talented people over the years. How many of them made it professionally without discipline, commitment and really good work ethic?
[Mason shrugs]
Mr. Turlington: I can tell ya. I can count it on two fingers. Zero. It’s not gonna happen for you, Mason. The world is too competitive. There are too many talented people who are willing to work hard; and a buttload of morons who are untalented, who are more than willing to surpass you. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are sitting in that classroom out there right now. Hm? You know what they’re doing? They’re doing their assignments. Which is what you’re supposed to be doing, but you’re not. You’re in here. Now, why is that? You’re special, Mason?


Mr Turlington is, of course, completely correct (at least within the parameters of his own observation). So tell me - forget photography for the moment: in what field of human endeavour - anything, anywhere - will just 'natural talent' be enough to enable you to 'make it' (whatever that means)?

 

[Thardy]

A little later in the quoted piece in the OP:

Mr. Turlington: The images you’re turning in, they’re cool. You’re looking at things in a really unique way. Got a lot of natural talent.
Mason: Thanks.
Mr. Turlington: Yeah, but that and 50 cents will just get you a cup of coffee in this old world. I’ve met a LOT of talented people over the years. How many of them made it professionally without discipline, commitment and really good work ethic?
[Mason shrugs]
Mr. Turlington: I can tell ya. I can count it on two fingers. Zero. It’s not gonna happen for you, Mason. The world is too competitive. There are too many talented people who are willing to work hard; and a buttload of morons who are untalented, who are more than willing to surpass you. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are sitting in that classroom out there right now. Hm? You know what they’re doing? They’re doing their assignments. Which is what you’re supposed to be doing, but you’re not. You’re in here. Now, why is that? You’re special, Mason?


Mr Turlington is, of course, completely correct (at least within the parameters of his own observation). So tell me - forget photography for the moment: in what field of human endeavour - anything, anywhere - will just 'natural talent' be enough to enable you to 'make it' (whatever that means)?

This reminds me of the teen in Palm Beach County FL who has been impersonating a medical doctor. Last year he was caught in a hospital wearing a white coat walking the halls introducing himself as Dr. After he was caught and told by the authorities to stop, he opened an office and started treating people with as a natural path.

The point is that he has some sort of "talent " in order to get away with his scam for a while. But he didn't /doesn't want to put in the time by obtaining the proper education and training to become a a physician.

Of course I'm assuming that he's just trying to take a short cut and not some loon.

 

[__jc]

Obviously even if you have "natural talent," and you make no time for the old in and out, you won't be successful.

I rather fear I may have a rather different interpretation of the meaning of the bolded phrase than you do, moof. Within the meaning of the way I understand the phrase, you certainly won't "make out" if you have no time for "the old in and out", but you may "make it" ie be successful in any number of other pursuits that don't involve copulation.

 

[Hsg]

tldr: the only path to success in any endeavor that involves skill is through dedicated and directed practice. With focus--not just a lot of aimless shooting.

I once tried to put this theory into practice, I shot everyday for a month.

After a couple of weeks, the photo taking process had become mechanical and boring, but I kept on shooting, taking some satisfaction in the number of shots I captured each day. Just like a videogame player I was doing it for the score, the number of shots I got each day, the more shots I captured the better I felt.

What did I learn from that month-long practice?

I don't really know, but never again did I try to force myself to photograph as often as I could because that kind of practice had failed in my experience.

 

[Hsg]

I don't think anyone improves by practicing photographic self-flagellation!

But it is a popular proposal on forums - one camera - one lens - one year - one photo.

Practice makes sense in art forms where there is a difference between learning and performing.

A saxophone player can practice and then perform. An actor can practice in front of a mirror and then perform on a stage or in front of a camera.

Photography does not have such luxury. Even if you break down the process into capture, develop and print, still the capture part is the heart of photography.

 

[mdarnton]

Because YOU failed, the whole concept is wrong? Because you took a month, settled for a mindless film body count rather than making good images, and in that month you got bored rather than accomplish what I did in four years? You think that every day of those four years of full working days was a blessed learning experience, a constant progression of growth and fascination?

I once tried to put this theory into practice, I shot everyday for a month.

After a couple of weeks, the photo taking process had become mechanical and boring, but I kept on shooting, taking some satisfaction in the number of shots I captured each day. Just like a videogame player I was doing it for the score, the number of shots I got each day, the more shots I captured the better I felt.

What did I learn from that month-long practice?

I don't really know, but never again did I try to force myself to photograph as often as I could because that kind of practice had failed in my experience.

 

[Bille]

You Need More than ‘Natural Talent’ to Make it as a Photographer

That´s valid for just about anything.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, apart from always carrying a camera and knowing how to use it the list is in these threads. Perhaps keeping your eyes open ought to be added but most of it's common sense. The list that is; not becoming a great photographer...

Regards, David

 

[Hsg]

Because YOU failed, the whole concept is wrong? Because you took a month, settled for a mindless film body count rather than making good images, and in that month you got bored rather than accomplish what I did in four years? You think that every day of those four years of full working days was a blessed learning experience, a constant progression of growth and fascination?

I was polite enough not to ask you if you have put this pompous theory of yours that, "the only path to success in any endeavor that involves skill is through dedicated and directed practice. With focus--not just a lot of aimless shooting." into practice or are you simply regurgitating something you must have heard somewhere else?

But since you failed to see that irony in reply to my post, I assume that you have not.

And yes, its about me. If some pompous and cheesy theory does not work for me, that is the end of its usefulness for me. After all I'm stuck with myself...

 

[mdarnton]

It's a primitive strategy, but I guess when things go wrong, then you have no one but yourself to blame. Me, when things don't work out the way they're supposed to, I hunker down harder and try to figure out where I went wrong. It never really made sense to me when people who can't do something think they know everything about the thing they couldn't do. But that's just me.