Can a "good eye" be learned ?

Ladies and Gentleman,<br><br>

 

After 12 years of photography, what is a man to do when<br><br>

 

- he loves photography,<br>

- his photos are sharp and the exposure is technically accurate,<br>

- he can explain the zone system inside and out,<br>

- he used an A1 for 1 year just to hone "the basics",<br>

- had a darkroom at home for years,<br><br>

 

but still, 90% of his photos stink! That's right, I said it - stink.<br><br>

 

I am not trying to be humorous folks. Nor am I fishing for a pep talk.<br>

My photos stink because after 12 years, I have not been able to learn<br>

creative composition. I have made a methodical and dedicated attempt to<br>

"learn" this. <br><br>

 

I am an engineer by trade, so I'm quite versed in the technical aspects of<br>

photography. Any lighting, any subject - I'll dial you in. But I just<br>

don't seem to have the artistic ability needed to capture the moment.<br><br>

 

My landscape shots are great - no suprise, I've mastered exposure/wb.<br>

My formal shots are great - no suprise, I've mastered lighting.<br>

My architectural shots - bad.<br>

My candid shots - bad.<br>

My "photojournalistic" shots - bad.<br><br>

 

So I've posted this to the "Philosophy" section for good reason. I<br>

humbly ask whether a "good eye" is something that can be learned or<br>

whether it is something that you are born with.<br><br>

 

Thank you.<br>

is this just your take or is it shared. in any case would it make a difference what others

thought. You probably know the answer already. What's rare is your ability to distinguish your

shortcomings. . Have you tried letting go. Technical perfection is restrictive/oppressive for

some. Your ability for self reflection might find it's way to the surface. I would enjoy seeing

your work of 12 years.

 

'whether a "good eye" is something that can be learned or

whether it is something that you are born with.'

my vote; short answer yes if it is latent - no if it is not present

Not only can this be learned, it is not that difficult to learn. The best way to improve in this area is to take a drawing course based on Betty Edward's <i>Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain</i> or to obtain the book and do the exercises. There are many community colleges that offer community education courses in drawing that are based on the book. The most common problem that many photographers who are technically excellent but unhappy with the aesthetic aspect of their craft is that their brain processes visual information in an analytical (abstract) way and they need to learn to engage their brains in a visual perception mode. You will hear a lot about composition not being a matter of following rules and this is very much true. Instead, good composition occurs when the image looks right, and this is a matter of learning how to see a scene and image as they actually appear and make the appropriate judgments. Drawing is the best way to learn this skill but if you want a photography-based approach, I wrote a book that uses a series of exercises designed to enhance perception called <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/pac.htm">Photography — The Art of Composition</A>. Problems with architectural shots may be due to how you perceive perspective and issues with candid and photojournalist shots may be due to how you perceive dynamic composition (i.e., photographing scenes that are changing over time). These are all areas that can be improved with practice once you learn the difference between how scenes appear in reality versus how you think they should appear. If you want an exercise in this, try photographing bowling with a normal lens and try to capture the pins at the moment the ball is striking them. You may be surprised at how long it takes the ball to reach them, the effect of perspective on timing the shot as the ball reaches the pins, and the brief duration in which the pins are in motion after the ball hits them. In any case, I think that you have some opportunities to develop in this area and are not limited by an unremediable aptitude deficiency. Good luck.

One can learn to play the violin, but few have the "gift". I have always believed that only so much can be learned and that DNA has something to do with the rest. How else does one explain "prodigies"?

Bert, why am I skeptical? It's like trying to explain to somebody what chocolate tastes like.

 

My wife's eye is superior to mine. She's never read any books or taken any classes. She rarely carries a camera. But when she does, every frame of the contact is printable. Mine are all over the place.

Imagine you are 10 years old, with innocent eyes...

Learned. No one did anything right the first time, except maybe Mozart, and I wasn't there when he supposedly played at three.

 

Prodigies, when interviewed, are people who can't stand to NOT do the thing they're great at, loved it from the first time they tried, and so they practice it all the time.

 

That out of the way, let's go to candids and photojournalistic: they don't just happen because you have a camera, you need to take a few seconds or minutes, and size up where the action is and where it's going. After a little recon, you can see that Aunt Essie May will smile when she sees baby Oglethorpe, make "that face" when Uncle Fester comes into the room, etc. A longer lens and a little distance helps here, so they act more naturally.

 

It helps too to "zoom in" in general, took me years (and some $$ at workshops) to find out that so much of my stuff was dull because I tried to put too much in, I called it "establishing context", but it was just too busy. For PJ work, you just need to get in there and isolate. A whole line of cars backed up at a wreck, which is only 5% of your shot, is nothing, a cop yelling in front of a smashed car, which fills the frame, is dynamic

 

For architecture, treat it like landscapes. A shape, color or contrast caught your eye, shoot that

 

Don't get discouraged (oh, yeah, and don't get hit when you cross the road, while I'm being obvious) so many people who seem to pick it up automatically, have some history of art study, or at least of looking at things in a critical way

 

When your shots start to improve, and they will, you'll dope slap yourself and say "that's what I was looking for"

I think being a engineer has developed the right side of your brain to the detriment of the left side. You can really only think consciously well about one thing at a time. If you are shooting a photo of a landscape you break it down into it parts, the camera, the settings , the light , the exposure, what the development will be a N-1 or a N+2, and then you shoot the photo. It turns out the way you planned it thought the 10 steps, and you like the photo.

 

When you shoot candid photos, and Photojournalistic shots, your engineer mind can't think about all those different steps ,and what the person is going to do next, or what expression is opening on their face and you freeze, and do not get the photo you wanted.Most people who I work with, whom are very left brained ,have a hard time shooting digital. They have to think a lot more on the camera, the computer, the fill flash, and they miss the moment. I think , and this is just my opinion , the best photographers are people who have a pretty balanced brain, not too left sided that they forget to load the film, or flash card in the camera and not too right brained that they are thinking pixels instead of capturing the moment. The suggestion to do exercises to develop both sides of the brain is a very good one. I would not want a all left brain person building a bridge I would drive on, and I would not want to hear poetry from a right brained person, an exaggeration,but you know what I mean.

 

I think we need both kinds of people in this world. When I look at a Ansel Adams landscape , I see beauty, balance, detail and technical perfection. When I look at his photos of people, I see he did not do it very well, even though I found him to be in person a very people friendly person. I say go with your strengths and work on your weakness.

Ummm, engineering is left side, much of 'art,' creativity, and intuition is right side -- at least if you buy into left side/right side. Photography requires lots of both.

 

Dave, you *can* do it! As an engineer, understand what makes your pictures 'stink' when compared to 'good' ones. When you observe yourself preparing to make a stinky picture, ask yourself if you want to create still another one. Ask yourself what you need to change in order to make the shot fantastic. Don't press the button until you have an answer. Afterwards, do post-mortems on your shoots. Look at what went right and what went wrong, and why. Apply your learnings as correction factors on subsequent shootings. It will get better and more routine.

 

If you really want to get better, and have thick skin, post images for critique.

 

Some people are born with talent. If lazy, that talent won't get them far. Some people seem to have no talent, but they have drive and determination to help them and often (usually?) surpass many 'talented' people. A musical case in point is guitarist Robert Fripp of King Crimson -- no evident talent at all in the beginning despite much persistence. Regardless of ones preference for his work, he became a unique master.

 

--Chris (recovering engineer, 50/50-brained photographer (ha!), and talentless musician)

You have quite a list there. Must you be proficient in every area of photography? Don't be so hard on yourself. If after 12 years landscapes and formal portraits are your strong areas then that's where your strong areas are. However I also think it's good to branch out occasionaly least us photographers get in a rut. So if you decide your weak areas aren't showing any improvement so what? Keep at it and have fun anyways, you will always get satisfaction from doing great landscapes.

 

Here are a few bits of advice:

 

1) Pick up a copy of the book "Art and Fear". It was written by two authors one of whom is a photographer himself. Excellent reading.

 

2) One word: Diagonals. I read in an art book once that as far as form goes diagonal elements are stronger then vertical and horizontal elements.

 

I must have had #2 in mind when I shot the candid below. Had the man been sitting in a normal upright (or vertical) position it would have been a ho-hum image but diagonal lean gives it a sense of movement even though he was still. It's almost like he's sliding into home plate or about to topple over.

 

The second image also a candid was a favorite of a teacher of mine due to the triangle shape that the two teens make in their position on the bench.

 

So look at objects in terms of shapes and lines.

 

I also suggest visiting museums and gallerys. Don't just go once a year or so and don't just look at the photography. Go often and look at everything. I was at a museum yesterday and was amazed at how people would look at a work for a couple seconds and then move to the next and so on. How can they possibly take in a painting or sculpture in a couple seconds? So really look and let it get into you.

 

You can also pick up a text book on the Humanities. I have one and in one part on testing to see how visual one is it asked some odd questions like "Do you see things as things like the mountainness of mountains, the marbleness of marble, the glassiness of glass and do you care about things in this sense?"

 

Hope some of this helps.<div></div>

<div></div>

Put it aside.

Get out of your box.

If you do not have a substance abuse problem, smoke pot.

Take an art class...do something new with the photography...branch out...create a new artform.

And most importantly, get off of photo.net for awhile.

The best book that I've ever read on composition is geared towards painters:

 

The Simple Secret to Better Painting: How to Immediately Improve Your Work With the Golden Rule of Design (Paperback)

by Greg Albert

Lots of responses and excellent advice. You can learn to improve your "eye", but it takes

practice (quantity) experimenting. I would take a look at your images in each catagory for

generalities, what do you normally see and photograph. What are the strengths and weakness

in the images and your vision. Then take a look at other images in the same catagory

(browsing PN is great along with each photographer's Website), looking for what they do

differently than you. Then practice taking the images you normally do and then some you

wouldn't, even if it doesn't think or feel right to you. And lastly, as suggested, think like a

child, view the world with curiousity, awe and wonder, it awakens the senses.

"After 12 years of photography, what is a man to do when

 

- he loves photography,"

 

Just keep loving your photography. No pep talk as what's there to pep.

 

You're wanting more out of your effort, relax and enjoy. Go slow, not fast.

 

"I humbly ask whether a "good eye" is something that can be learned or

whether it is something that you are born with."

 

Both. We're all born with the innate ability to run, but we still have to practice if we expect to win anything competitive above schoolyard recess races. We're not born with an innate ability to spell; that's why we have spellcheckers. One's intuitive and one's learned, some are better than others at each but both are necessary component of life.

 

Photography? One has to see your effort to get some idea of where you're at so a dialogue can ensue in order to better understand where you are at, at this time and point. The good news, according to some here I'm deluded and handsdown the worst photographer on the web, so it's not personal:)

 

Have you taken the time to set up a display portfolio of some of your effort?

Many interesting ideas, I like what Thomas says ''Have you taken the time to set up a display portfolio of some of your effort? ''

 

 

It leads me to remember the bio. of Jacques-Henri Larige (1894-1986)

 

 

''Jacques Lartigue was born in Courbevoie on June 13, 1894. He took his first photographs at the age of six, using his father?s camera, and started keeping what would become a lifelong diary. In 1904 he began making photographs and drawings of family games and childhood experiences, also capturing the beginnings of aviation and cars and the smart women of the Bois de Boulogne as well as society and sporting events. An unfailingly curious amateur, he tried out all the available techniques, tirelessly recording the fleeting moments and meticulously arranging his several thousand images in large albums.

However, it would seem that photography was not his true vocation. In 1915 he attended the Académie Jullian: painting was to remain his professional activity and from 1922 onwards he exhibited in the salons of Paris and southern France.

 

 

His acquaintances in the world of the arts included Sacha Guitry and Yvonne Printemps, Kees van Dongen, Pablo Picasso and Jean Cocteau, while his passion for movies saw him work as still photographer with Jacques Feyder, Abel Gance, Robert Bresson, François Truffaut and Federico Fellini.

 

 

Although Lartigue occasionally sold his pictures to the press and exhibited at the Galerie d?Orsay alongside Brassaï, Man Ray and Doisneau, his reputation as a photographer was not truly established until he was 69, with a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the publication of a portfolio in Life. He now added his father's first name to his own surname, becoming Jacques Henri Lartigue. Worldwide fame came three years later with his first book, The Family Album, followed in 1970, by Diary of a Century, conceived by Richard Avedon. In 1975 he had his first French retrospective at the Musee des Arts Decoratifs in Paris. For the rest of his life, Lartigue was busy answering commissions from fashion and decoration magazines.

 

 

He also produced the official photograph of the new French president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

 

 

He died in Nice on September 12, 1986. (www.lartigue.org)''

 

 

So, he learn to paint after he had taken it first photos but had a good eye, the most representative job is in he's childhood, but took a long time to be discovered. (Bless God he keep his negatives!)

 

Probably a ''Good eye'' it is not learned, but selecting your work to display Is.<div></div>

''Probably a ''Good eye'' it is not learned, but selecting your work to display Is.''

 

 

I have to say it is not learned but improved....

Dave D, I have same problem, but fail to see any pics from you ?

Quote:"I think being a engineer has developed the right side of your brain to the detriment of the left side. You can really only think consciously well about one thing at a time. If you are shooting a photo of a landscape you break it down into it parts, the camera, the settings , the light , the exposure, what the development will be a N-1 or a N+2, and then you shoot the photo. It turns out the way you planned it thought the 10 steps, and you like the photo."<p>

 

Absolute bullxxxx, stinks all the way. Leonardo da Vinci is the father of us all engineers. One has to be creative to create something new. Engineers are the true artists of our times. The above statement bases purely on complete ignorance and envy.

90% stink? I'd say that's pretty good. That's 1 keeper out of 10.

 

Even though no one here has said so, I doubt that many of us do much better than that.

 

About 95% of my photos stink.

I too am an engineer, think like an engineer, love the tech side of things, will investigate any photographic problem until I get it.........<br><br>

 

.....buy <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580081940/102-1033815-8737761"><u>Tao of Photography</u></a>.....it's like reading about yourself. Don't let the "Tao" disuade you...it's more of an extension of that philosophy rather than strict adhearance. It just explains the Tao idea, then translates it to pedestrian thinking real quickly. I guess this quote from one of the buyer reviews of the book says it all "...The book does this by outlining some of the principles of Taoism, an ancient Asian philosophy of life, and then drawing parallels to the teachings of great photographers, like Minor White, Henri Cartier Bresson, and Ansel Adams...".

Your architecture shots are bad? Try large format - composing upside down and reversed creates a level of abstration that can really change the way you compose. It's a lot of fun!

David, I have struggled with the same question until I realized substantial differences in creativity exists even within experts of our primary domain (of expertise). <br><br>

I think creativity can be learned but only to the extent of our potential as it exists today. For us hobbyists, I think it might be helpful to examine what it takes to be a brilliant (in your case) engineer and apply the same strategy to photography.

I've no profound advice, just one exercise that might help. I've written this before.

 

Look at all your work, as much as you have saved. Take those you like the most, and put them aside. Look at them again after a few days. And again like this until you find a thread of commonality. Do you like the thread? If you do, then pursue it with vigor. One example is the theme of windows I found in work going back 30 years. Another is a thread of decomposition (broken so-called Rules of Composition). I can post examples if you like.

 

But photography's heart and soul is the thing in front of the camera, the subject, and it's place in time, a moment. Are you interested in the subjects you photograph?

"...and apply the same strategy to photography."

 

One has to realize most of the notable gang is notable not so much for what they did but much for who they knew. Becoming a notable within the art world is as much politics as it is art. I don't see being an engineer in the same light. Maybe everything is about self-promotion and professional skill is secondary to this innate need to self-promote.