How do you know if you have innate ability for photography?

<p>Excellent points by everyone. It isn't hard to see when a FB group is not right for you, it's when more talk goes into whether a picture should be in color or B&W with no discussion at all about weak or complete lack of content. Well, to each their own as they say. </p>

<p>A person who has natural talent in anything still has to put in the work. If they rest on their laurels those with lesser talent but who are putting in the blood, sweat, and tears to push their boundaries outward, they are the ones who will one day produce more significant work. Plenty of folks around with talent who do nothing with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Plenty of folks around with talent who do nothing with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, I'm sure this is true. Also, there are plenty of folks with talent who do a lot with it and do produce significant work but who, for various reasons, are never heard of by most of us. That's because they don't promote themselves, don't talk the talk even though they are walking the walk. That's their choice. If you're lucky enough to know them, you get to see a lot of significant but unpopular and unheard of work. And, as I said above, there are plenty of people with talent who through no fault of their own are never heard of. Their circumstances simply work against them.</p>

<p>Also on the loose topic of "the knack", critiques and social media, a few meandering thoughts...</p>

<p>I really respect the various "Humans of (your city here)" groups. The storyteller and former journalist in me wants to know more about the people who appear in street photographs, and too often the photographers themselves don't know. Sure, I enjoy those free-floating visual narratives as well. But I also enjoy the stories told by and about the people being photographed.</p>

<p>Funny thing, some of those "Humans of" group photos (not just NY, which are usually very good, but also San Antonio, Montreal, others) really aren't all that great technically. Or maybe I just don't grok the chosen style of the photographers. But the photos are engaging and the back stories seem as essential as the photos themselves. So I don't comment on the technicalities of the photos. If I comment at all it's on the entirety of the story.</p>

<p>But often I don't even read the comments sections. The larger and more popular a "Humans of" project becomes, the more it attracts toxic commenters, trolls and negativity, people who smirk about the funny looking people and their stories, and argue with each other rather than respectfully considering that these are real human beings, not celebrities or public figures, who are exposed to millions of people to share their stories.</p>

<p>So context seems as important as content, sometimes.</p>

<p>Regarding the Facebook vibe, I somehow got recruited into being an admin or mod on a FB photo group, but for a year didn't do much more than weed out spammers and vet applicants to be sure they actually had a real interest in street and documentary photography, rather than tourist snaps and selfies. I was too busy with other stuff to invest much time in critiques.</p>

<p>Most of the photos to that group have been pretty typical of all street groups on Facebook, Flickr, etc. Some very good, most pretty familiar and forgettable, others ... meh. I've deleted maybe one or two photos that simply did not belong, not even remotely relevant, but usually I try to avoid that sort of thing.</p>

<p>Most of all I try to avoid moralizing about ethics, especially on hot button issues like photographing the "homeless" or seemingly vulnerable people in public. Sure, there are some photos that raise my hackles a bit. But I try to see what the photographer saw, and give credit for intent. And we're never going to solve that issue or reach consensus. Everyone has to make their own choices, mistakes, and hopefully learn as they go.</p>

<p>Recently a new member, Gigi Chatham, posted a short series of photos from the 50th anniversary of the Selma, Alabama "Bloody Sunday". They were so good, and she selected just the right small set of photos. That's one particular time when I felt my constructive critiques were well received. Made my heart dance a silly little leprechaun jig of joy. I'd really like to see more of that - photo essays - in addition to the disembodied, detached snaps of strangers going about their lives.</p>

Trying to weigh the merits of composers of the top rank is as tough as deciding if tonight's sunset is worth a 6 or a 10... Or " that is a nice sunset, come look." But they are all nice, some are nicer. In some real way hard to pin down.

 

I see examples in my FB group on 3-D photography which defy conventional rules for good viewing and others which hit all the right notes( oops, see how easily we fall back on music a la Schumann and Brahms and Grieg and Stravinsky. No, sorry not the late quartets please, :-( sorry, too hard for me to get a hold on, Wouter, ...I am still trying time to time, but heck give me the middle ones, Razumovsky, -that bunch,- anytime :-).

 

I conclude this. Like measuring the quality of real, not the recorded, eyeball vision of sunsets and then assigning a level on them, it is worth trying, even if it is a question of thinking ' Well, I will personally recognize a truly super one when I see it. ' Worthy discussion. Wandering topic by its nature. Followers of beauty in the Arts.

I had trouble with adding this view, said wrong file type, but will give it another go just for the hell of it. Reminds me of what my eyeballs saw.<div></div>

Before you embark on.n a career or even just casual occasional work for people, make sure you read this http://digital-photography-school.com/the-biggest-legal-mistake-photographers-make/

<p>Gordon,</p>

<p>Just for the record, I was not suggesting to the OP that he/she ask others what they think of his/her work. What I was suggesting is that the response of others is what will indicate whether or not there is a perception of talent. Most know that posting shots for critique on the webernet on sites where everyone and his brother is also posting shots does little more than generate either 'likes' in hopes of reciprocal 'likes' or 'hates' because it makes someone else feel better. Rarely are honest critiques given.</p>

<p>However, I know of no other way to judge talent than to have other people judge you as talented, people who have no interest in you passing similar judgment on them. That would require your work to be seen by someone somewhere, and there are many ways to do that, or you can rely on serendipity.</p>

 

<p>Bill, if one has a solid understanding of the art in question and some reasonable amount of self awareness, it is not really that hard to grade ones own work. At the very least a current effort can be compared to previous efforts. I don't disagree that the opinions of others are of value but we will remain at odds in so far as your assertions that there is no other way to evaluate.</p>

<p>Gerry, to me Beethoven's late works (especially the quartets and the piano sonatas) are more internal than his other work and, therefore, to many, more challenging. They are less "expected" and less accessible, IMO. But, once you come along for the different ride they provide, they are moving, curious, and foreshadow a lot of what is to come in music, at least as I listen to them. Mozart is cleaner, more accessible, and mostly stays within structure. None of this is meant as a value judgment one way or the other, since at this point judging better or best just doesn't make any sense to me. Different, though.</p>

<p>Consider the difference between <a href="http://joseangelgonzalez.com/wp-content/gallery/daido-moriyama/02_on-the-bed-i__.jpg">MORIYAMA'S PHOTO</a> and <a href="http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa322/erickimphotography/HCB/henri_cartier_bresson-squares.jpg">BRESSON'S PHOTO</a>. Similar differences in terms of expectations, accessibility, internalization, and form.</p>

I agree Fred. I can appreciate and understand the Bresson portfolio. like the picnickers and relate to them. And the bicyclist and bottle carrier boy. ..... As to the grainy naked lady, smoking on rumpled bed, in chain motel and with leaning walls... Well something I will have to sneak up on i expect. Or get explanation thereof.

 

 

 

I think one of the late Ludwig has a melody in it I like. I recall it is the Op 127. I like a melody now and then. I play others , just to see whether I missed something folks rave about. ( I bet an audio forum guy or gal would ask " What speakers and amp do you use? What is your digital to analog converter? " Not so different from photo folk, eh.) I have all of Haydn's symphonies and love each and every one. Philharmonica Hungarica series, That pretty much defines my taste in music. Except for musical scores, them too I like......

Gosh we slipped into the too many notes business gomenasai.

 

 

 

I like 'accessible' in photos and of course music. Open to the tastes of others of course. Have a complete set of Mozart Divertimenti . One filling meal, those, easily digested.

 

 

Aloha nui. ( Postscript. Cats, why does it always have to be cats...never understood cats.)

<p>"How do you know if you have innate ability for photography?"</p>

<p>My Gran at the age of 83 worked for 2 years as a cleaner in some posh blokes house to buy me my first Leica.</p>

<p>My Gran did this because she believed I have talent so it must be true.</p>

<p>I photograph flowers because she likes photos of flowers.</p>

I am also new to photography. I didn't seriously start to learn until after I

retired. I don't know if I have any talent but I know when I'm able to capture

something I like inside my camera, I'm excited. I'm still confused about

when to use which priority on the camera so I often let the camera do the

work, but I to keep trying. I look at the photos on this site and think I'll never

get to that level but that's okay. If I can keep getting excited about my

pictures then its a great thing for me.

Marie

<blockquote>

<p> I feel that I do "have an eye" for what is beautiful, special, unique, but is that enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is. If images you are creating, process which leads you to that creation and continuous after, are important to you - just do it.</p>

<p>Marie,</p>

<p>Welcome to a wonderful hobby. Much of the conversation in this thread centered around the OP's question on how one can tell if he/she has talent, but whether you think you have it or not isn't very relevant to how much you can enjoy photography, and one can certainly improve her ability with practice. </p>

<p>In my opinion, the most enjoyment you get from photography comes from the subject matter. The camera in auto mode will usually capture the exposure correctly, but a correctly-exposed boring photo is still a boring photo. I'd rather have one that misses slightly on exposure but that I like the subject matter and composition of, if I had to choose between the two. And many exposure issues can be fixed later, but you can't do much about the other components. That's not to say that one should get lazy with exposure, but that you aren't necessarily hurting yourself by using auto modes.</p>

Marie, don't tell anyone, but lately I have been shooting a lot in P, Program mode, which relies a lot on a program designed into the computer and made by someone who doesn't know me but is still pretty smart... I know about the other modes and even when I might want them, but why not start, in your case, with less thinking of 'modes,' and more about what you got in the image. And also, checking each shot in the screen is good as a learning tool. You can easily shift the P program mode or add or take away a little light. Just look at the ones you like and see what the INFO tells you about the exposure and the shutter speed. I hope that helps your thinking. Welcome to a big camera club, Marie. You have a healthy attitude.

<p>Marie, I'll offer some advice while recognizing there are many different needs and many different ways to skin a cat. It's not meant to sway you one way or the other. Rather it's meant to offer an alternative possibility which may or may not work for you. When I started, I was encouraged to use manual mode so I wouldn't become dependent on AUTO and, more importantly, so that I would quickly learn about exposure and about all the possibilities for creative expression through various non-standard uses of exposure tools. It worked well for me. Now, I rarely use AUTO and have a pretty second-nature relationship to settings and feel my flexibility in terms of expressive exposure has been helped by this. I happen to have the type of personality where, if I first try a simpler way, like using AUTO functions, I don't always trust myself to then take steps to get into things at a more complex level, thereby often missing out on some of the nuances that I can do myself that certain AUTO features aren't as prone to bring forth. I have nothing to compare it to, since that's how I learned, so I can't say if it's better than starting with AUTO. I just know it seems to have worked for me. How much it was a struggle and how much it may have impacted the subjects I chose or the compositional sense I developed, I don't know. For me, it was a holistic process, and so it seemed to integrate my feel for subject and composition with my feel for exposure. I tend to like photos where I feel that sort of integration going on, where technique is used expressively and is directly relative to the subject and composition. I didn't really treat them as separate and I still don't. To me, in a photo, the exposed subject is the subject and a different exposure or a different kind of focus often actually means a different subject.</p>

<p>Bill, Gerry & Fred, <br>

Thank you for the advice and encouragement. I will definitely keep trying to master this complicated and beautiful craft (although "Master" is probably a stretch!) The creative part is different for each person and I think Vika and everyone just beginning to learn also has to learn to trust their judgement. It doesn't matter whether you use a cell phone camera, a point & shoot or the most expensive camera you can find. "Practice makes perfect" is the best advice and the reward is the satisfaction of capturing something pleasing to look at. </p>

You are welcome, Marie. Here is some more thought on your concern. I was temped to say Edison learned more by failures and we are in the same camp. I speak for myself. A good friendly advice and a book or two in the bargain won't hurt either as you know.

 

 

 

Remember that What You See is What you Get in the new super smart mirrorless cameras. I picked up a neat trick in this review of the GH 2 camera from an online Amazon reviewer and he is so on target about how you can overcome shooting mode angst: I quote from his intelligent but lengthy comments on Amazon couple years ago-----------------

 

 

"Program Shift - Forget using Aperture priority with this camera. You can leave the camera in Program mode. With program shift you can change the aperture setting and thus the shutter speed while in program mode. To do this you press the shutter release button down half way to set the exposure. Then if the numbers are in yellow you just rotate the rear dial switch to change aperture. Want a shallower depth of field or faster shutter speed, then dial in a bigger aperture (smaller number). If the numbers are not in yellow then you are currently in exposure compensation mode. All you have to do is click the rear dial switch and then rotate it. Snap. What a neat feature."

 

He is so right! Exponentially right. A clever and so handy feature on new cameras.

Which simplifies life with help of automation and still gives you control, real control.......Cool feature! You still get to make choices. A step on the not so steep learning curve at that.

 

 

My cameras now have this Program Shift feature built in...I love it..best of several worlds, automation in service of our choices. And I point out that Program is not as automated as Auto which chooses almost everything down to the last itty bitty bit...Program is different. You can read about it in the manual and see what I mean.

 

( Fred will note " ex parte" that I do not agree with him about starting with Manual Mode in my advice to novices any loger, but so what as Fred is an ally on what counts in image making, and never gets out of kilter about friendly disagreement of this sort anyway:-) And this forum is like that which is why I am a long time member.

 

Marie, I say again learn to use the Program, not Auto everything mode is what I still advise. It works. Honest. I endorse it. Ahang in there Marie. Get a readable manual on your camera too...Hey, retirement can be a blessing and a new road to travel. Enjoy. Aloha. gs

<p>I usually shoot in Program mode. I try to concentrate on content, composition and quality of light. I let the camera worry about auto-focus and auto-exposure. If it appears the camera's Program mode isn't working right or I have a real reason to override (less than 10% of the time), then I'll make manual adjustments. But even then, exposure settings can be adjusted in Program mode.</p>

<p>The point is getting the content right is the hard part. That's where your innate vision has to shine. Exposure and focus are craft and technical issues that you'll learn over time.</p>

<p>Of course when I shoot with medium format film camera, everything is manual because the camera has no auto focus nor auto exposure. But even then, I bracket my exposures most of the time. Content is paramount. Don't get hung up on Manual. It's like worrying whether you should use a #2 or #3 pencil to check the box on your test rather than worrying which answer is correct.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't get hung up on Manual. It's like worrying whether you should use a #2 or #3 pencil to check the box on your test rather than worrying which answer is correct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might want to seriously think about the many obvious flaws in this analogy. I have no quarrel with your own predilection toward using auto exposure and focus, but dismissing manual adjustments as being akin to what pencil one uses to write with is quite a stretch. Think of the connection between the use of a pencil and its writing of an expressed idea. Now think of the connection between the use of a camera and the picture produced. <br>

<br>

And, by the way, since most computer scoring machines (at least at one time) couldn't read anything but #2 pencils, if you didn't worry at least a little about which pencil you'd use, you might have scored a big ZERO on some important tests!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Exposure and focus are craft and technical issues that you'll learn over time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are probably as many memorable, experienced, practiced, and accomplished photographers who don't compartmentalize like this and who take a more holistic approach to their art and craft. Tell me the difference between Ansel Adams's art and craft. The difference between Michaelangelo's art and craft? The difference between ManRay's art and craft? The difference between Jackson Pollock's art and craft? The difference between Van Gogh's art and craft? For the latter, look at his brushstrokes. Do they matter more or less than the stars in his sky and the grass on his landscape? Or is that a silly question? (It is to me.)</p>

<p>I happen also to often prioritize content but I "innately" sense that content has to be delivered to the viewer and I don't (and can't) draw clear lines of distinction between the content and its delivery since the content is only available to the viewer through my delivery.</p>

<p>To be clear, I am by no means arguing against the use of auto exposure for anyone who wants to do so. I am now finding myself in the strange position of simply defending the use of manual exposure for those who choose to do so. What a bizarre shift!</p>

<p>Actually, by way of injecting a little humor into the this part of thread and in order to get back to the original topic of innateness, maybe I have to realize that I may have an uncanny innate talent for being able to multi-task, that is to say to recognize and even extol my own innate ability to consider, learn about, and focus on subject matter and content at the same time as I consider, learn about, and focus on exposure. I may even be a little more than human and some kind of photographic superhero for whom focusing on exposure rather than somehow distracting me from subject matter and content actually enhances my connection to it, at least from a photographic standpoint. Maybe it's just you photographic Salieris who are unable to pat your stomachs and rub your heads at the same time (or play a melody with your right hand while accompanying with rhythm on the left, or even better playing a melody with your left hand and accompanying it with rhythm from your right, which Mozart and most other composers require of a pianist now and then). Instead of defending those who wish to manually expose from the idea that such practice is similar to worrying about what pencil to use to write with, I'll just put on my cape and create my next masterpiece . . . and I'll do it . . . <a href=" WAY,</a> speaking of innate talent.</p>

In praise of Manual Mode as well...As you may learn later on Marie. M or Manual Mode will always have an important place in your toolkit. For instance.

 

Take a situation when we,later on in the road, try shooting a photo of person indoors with a hanging backdrop and couple AC powered flash lamp heads on light stands. (they are gettting more affordable). I myself find that the surest standard way to get something i want is to do a flash test with my old but useful flash meter and not rely on what the camera can offer alone... Hand held meter I bought suggests( by its internal program) what aperture I should consider, Marie, that is- one that will give me a reasonable middle -of- the- road exposure, from the side of child;s face where I held meter. ( No, please don't run off an buy a meter just yet, this is just a for instance and only one for instance at that.)

 

Now a choice. I COULD -if I wished, -, go off Program mode and choose say he A aperture priority, but that is not the best choice for me. M or Manual is better. So why?

 

 

 

With M manual I get to choose the f stop AND the shutter speed, full control thing. Both are usually of some interest in flash work, as you will learn in time, Marie. The f stop is the first pick for me. But I want to know and maybe then manipulate the shutter speed as well...and I can do so if I am in Manual. (A veritable buffet, though limited like a Las Vegas casino one:-)) There are times you may want to use both choices and yeah that gets a little deeper into Exposure, which is best looked into by one of the books or gosh right here in learning section of Photo Net. )

----------

 

Analogizing again on choices, let's see, oh well,maybe even how to lace running shoes. We get the old standby style taught as kids kind, We learn there are other effective lacing style choices used by some runners who learned the variations and why they are useful.

---------------

Sorry I got far away and just about forgot the original question which I think has been covered pretty well I think anyway..the mechanics are important, but are the lesser part of gettting to the finish line. A satisfying photo.

 

And a final thought. Learning curve speed is partly innate, partly just doggedness and determination . And pleasure reward...

 

 

Good luck, Marie and Vika. See you both around.

<p>Fred: You put words in my mouth by making an analogy that was not made by me. I would never compare #2 or #3 pencils to Van Gogh's brush strokes. The latter makes his work great. On the other hand, no one is asking who's paints or canvas Van Gogh used for his work. </p>

<p>What I am trying to suggest to a newcomer to photography is to focus on what's most important:- Content, telling a story, composition, excellent lighting. There's all sorts of technical issues one faces when taking a picture that you learn how to deal with over time. But they support the ability to "see" that the OP is referring too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>no one is asking who's paints or canvas Van Gogh used for his work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not. And no one has been talking about the make or model or ownership of anyone's camera or lens. In both cases, brushstrokes and manual exposure, we're talking about so-called technical processes, which you say are secondary to subject, content, and vision and I say don't have to be and can even be part of vision. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You put words in my mouth by making an analogy that was not made by me. I would never compare #2 or #3 pencils to Van Gogh's brush strokes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Alan, I have not put words in your mouth. I have not said you've compared #2 pencils to brushstrokes. I am the one who brought up brushstrokes to illustrate a point, which I just made again in the previous paragraph. Please re-read my earlier post to understand what I was saying. Consider it in light of your statement about vision vs. technique and craft. What I'm communicating is my own opinion that vision or art and craft can't always be separated, as I think is the case when we think about Van Gogh's brushstrokes (part of craft and technique) which is also a significant part of his artistic vision.<br>

<br>

And, though I thank you for your reiteration of your meaning in the second paragraph of your latest post, which I already understood, I was simply disagreeing with you and offering an alternative viewpoint.</p>