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

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I am a new user to photo.net. I have little photography experience, and really only do cell phone photography. So I am a beginner. However, I'm not trying to brag, but I think some of my photos are not bad. I feel that I do "have an eye" for what is beautiful, special, unique, but is that enough? How do you know if you have innate talent for photography? (I mean artistic ability completely independent of equipment.) How does a person know if they actually are talented?<br>

Thank you...!</p>

<p>I think that's all it takes.</p>

<p>I believe that actual talent comes from combining an innate eye with solid technique. If you learn lighting, exposure, production, etc ... and find that your images continue to improve as these tools are incorporated into your arsenal, you are on the way to excellence.</p>

<p>Elsa, in my opinion, the concept of an innate ability is philosophically problematic and this is not the venue for discussing it. In that regard, try posting a thread on the Philosophy of Photography forum. </p>

<p>Your better bet at this stage of your photographic journey is to post your work for critique. Hopefully, your images will draw constructive comments from which you can learn.</p>

<p>The evidence is in the photos.</p>

<p>Ask creative folks in other arts - anyone with an eye and appreciation for visual arts. And don't only ask photographers whether you have potential. Photographers - not all, but a significant and vocal demographic - tend to be hidebound, stiffnecked, rigid about technicalities, rules and what is or isn't "real" photography, and more obsessed with equipment and materials than any other creative types (although musicians are a pretty close second). Take their advice with a dose of salts.</p>

<p>Technique and a grasp of basics can be useful as tools in the toolbox, to use or ignore as appropriate. But these will never be a substitute for innate ability, the knack.</p>

<p>And don't neglect frank but constructive critiques. Don't let critiques undermine your confidence. But do consider them carefully.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not trying to brag, but I think some of my photos are not bad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elsa, this is not bragging and it shows confidence in what you're doing, which is usually helpful.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think it's something anyone ever knows. It will be felt, by you and others. There's no certainty when it comes to art, IMO. And I wouldn't be too concerned with the innate vs. the experienced or the learned, because there are plenty of great artists who probably have different proportions of each. Best thing to do is use whatever you've got wherever you got it from.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>In my opinion, no, it's not enough. There's a difference between having an eye for what is beautiful and special and making a photo that's special. Taking pictures of beautiful things rarely makes for great photos. Using your heart, your mind, your soul (or whatever you want to call that side of you), your imagination to craft what you see into a creative 2-dimensional visual experience is what goes beyond having an eye for beauty. Some photographers have a good eye for the ugly, or the underbelly, which can be just as photographically significant. What is beauty, anyway? Once you start defining and creating it with your camera and skills, you'll be ahead of the game.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does a person know if they actually are talented?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll develop a sense for it and you'll get feedback from others. Once you're satisfied with your photographs, tell yourself you're just a beginner and have a long way to go. Then try new ways to express yourself photographically. Keep growing. Don't rest on your talent, even if you find you have it.</p>

 

How do you know? Because you aren't satisfied with what you've done and you don't give up. It's that simple.

<p>One way to tell if you have talent for photography is when other people like your work. They indicate this by saying that you must have an expensive camera :(</p>

Hard to resist an answer. Even if it is an ambiguous one to most of us... Innate ability is sometimes, yes, called" having a good eye " which kind of sounds like another way of saying you got "innate ability" to my ear anyway- without saying anything too too helpful, but that you have, right,innate ability, see... (Is that called a tautology, I think so, not sure...sounds kind of circular to me anyway.)..Is there an operational-sure fire- way to get the answer, I would love to know as well..

 

Elsa, If you feel you got it , you do have it, ok, and those you trust feel it too even better , that is a good sign. Photography is a craft or skill which takes a certain amount of experience and learning however. If you look at some of the recognized applauded photographers and can appreciate their work that should encourage you to stick with it if that is your concern and bothers you. Gain the skill that comes with practice and time and learning.

 

If you enjoy -emphasize enjoy- taking pictures, then does it really matter, (no it does not from where I sit)... I mean I never was innately great at team sports but I could shoot a basket after trying again and again and again.... Perhaps you ask an enticing question that no one can ever really answer for you as Elsa. We all are, with a little modesty, motivated to try and encourage like minded people to press on. Or rather stick with it and go on and develop whatever you got. And be open to learn new stuff....hope that is enuf to keep you with us on the long haul.

<p>I question the idea of innate talent. Most of the people I know who are good at something are good because they put in the time and effort. Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers' argues that the people who have become really good at something have put in 10,000 hours of practise. Talent, I suggest, is like a seed - it needs cultivation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does a person know if they (sic) actually are talented?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If other people tell you you are.</p>

<p>Not being a smart-aleck, but that's pretty much it.</p>

<p>Other people telling you that you are good, as suggested above, is seldom a useful yardstick. Many people of great talent in various arts where not recognized as greats by their peers. Conversely in the age of the internet you can get yourself onto a photo sharing website like this one and stroke the right folks and get abundant positive reinforcement despite having no knowledge and no eye. In fact I have seen many people who may have had some talent grow stagnant because they became contented with the abundant false praise available with the click of a mouse.<br>

There really is no substitute for hard work , put in the time and in due course you will find that you can answer the question yourself.</p>

<p>Photography is a visual language, and you're beginning to shape your own expression through it. I encourage your viewing lots of images - others, and your own. There's so much excellent imaging technology available now, that you can do about anything conceivable. Experiment. Enjoy. If possible, ask guidance from more experienced photographers whose images speak to you. You're on your way!</p>

<p>It's not enough to have talent, you must also have passion. If you really love photography and practice it all the time, you'll keep getting better. Then what talent you do have will increase.</p>

<p>I disagree Gordon. Growing up, most of us knew kids who drew well. They had an innate ability for it, or a talent. The only way they knew they had this talent was because other people told them they did. Now, that's not to say that someone who really wanted to draw couldn't learn to do it through hard work, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have a 'talent' for drawing. </p>

<p>There are photographers who simply have a better eye than others. They can see a picture, or an angle, or light that others might not. That's not to say one cannot learn to be more aware of those things, but talent is typically something that one has prior to working at it, at least as I interpret it. And talent alone won't breed success, but you definitely have an advantage if you start with it.</p>

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

 

Yes, it is. Your camera, your pixels or film, your subject interest and eye, and ultimately your enjoyment.

<blockquote>

<p>The only way they knew they had this talent was because other people told them they did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, this is not the case in my experience. Many kids I know who had all kinds of talent were actually discouraged by others, mostly because the kid in question didn't conform to the standards that were preset. If you could draw like everyone else but were somewhat better at it, you got declared by others to have talent. If you could draw like no one else you often had more talent and were often dismissed, at least early on. I hung out with a lot of painters in college. The best of them were the ones most folks didn't get. I'm not dismissing the role others play in letting us know something about ourselves. But I also wouldn't overemphasize it. It's certainly not the "only" way to know one has talent.</p>

<p>Elsa, I know plenty of people with great talent who have gone exactly nowhere, whereas there are others with little apparent talent (at least initially) who have done great things. I am still not sure how much is "innate talent" and how much is "hard work". It varies for everyone, I'd guess. Maybe the only thing that changes is that your learning curve is shorter if you can do some things instinctively. Craig Tanner wrote a pretty nice essay on this subject, called "The Myth of Talent" that might be worth reading for some food for thought: http://www.tmelive.com/index.php/articles/view/28/24.html</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I question the idea of innate talent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As do I - there is a difference between how easy one picks up some matters versus others, but talent in itself is at best a potential. They left the parts out where young Mozart studied for hours and hours in the film Amadeus, but they were there, and not a little. It's misleading to think that talents gets you anywhere without learning, and a certain passion to carry on. So, in many cases, I think the seeming 'innate talent' is the fruit of a good preparation, ideas and a will to make those ideas come true. These are still personal qualities, but they're more about what you <em>want</em>, rather than who you are.<br>

When to know if you're good, or better than some - I have no clue. Compliments are easy; real critiques, less so. The last one I'd trust on this subject is oneself. I measure myself only versus my ideas of what I hoped to achieve. Sometimes that bar is a bit high, sometimes it's silly low. You need both (in my view) to keep being challenged and feel rewarded. But a solid judgement on how good or bad the results are - no (at best an idea on where I find myself on a learning curve). As a result of not knowing which judgement to trust, I keep it simple for myself: just keep working harder on it, regardless. It is never good enough.</p>

<p>Just to be sure....Don't dismiss cellphone photography. It's not a lesser (or more) art than photography-with-cameras-that-cannot-make-a-phonecall, except for a few purists. I find sometimes shooting photos with my cellphone quite liberating, inspiring to make different shots, different approach and different process. Enjoy it for what it does and can do - don't let the mainstream photo amateur lure you into the idea that you must at least have a full frame DSLR to count as a photographer. Just follow your ideas, set yourself some goals and work on them.</p>

<p>It's one thing having a good eye for what's beautiful. The harder part is being able to translate that into a good photo that expresses that beauty. Taking what's seen in 3D with your eyes and brain is difficult to translate in the 2D result that a camera provides.</p>

<p>Some of it is craft - and knowing the photo process of how to do it. That's something that can be learned and improved upon. </p>

<p>Post some of your pictures and ask people to tell you what they like and don't like in your photos. Sometimes there are elements in my photos that effect it negatively that I miss. Others who are not emotionally involved in my work can give me a clear-headed review of the elements that work and don't work.</p>

<p>In the end though, have fun. Never make it a chore.</p>

<p>Interesting article that Daniel linked to. I enjoyed it and find it inspiring. However, I disagree with this statement from the author:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We need this presence because the truth about talent is this – talent is a set of skills you develop over time through desire.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think what he is really describing there is 'ability,' which I believe is different from 'talent.' Nearly anyone can gain an ability to do something through hard work and perseverance (barring any physical limitations), but that doesn't mean one has a 'talent' for it, which to me is an innate ability that doesn't require any work whatsoever - you can simply do it. </p>

<p>Fred, 'only' might have been a poor choice of words, but I don't know how you'd measure talent unless others measured it for you. Ella asks, 'how does a person know if they actually are talented,' and the only answer I would know for that is that other people tell you. That's not to say that 'everyone' tells you, but typically someone has to see something different in what you're doing compared to others.</p>

<p>Regardless, whether you have talent for something or not, Mike has already pointed out the biggest predictor of success above - 'passion.' Have that, and you'll find a way around any obstacle, including a lack of talent.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bill, at a certain point, I believe, each of us has to trust ourself. All you have to do is look at the top-rated photos on PN to consider that talent does not have its basis in what others tell you. Others are telling a lot of photographers with little <em>artistic</em> talent (though they certainly have a talent for catering to the masses and producing what is already known to be good and accepted) how great they are. On the other hand, many on PN with a lot of talent get no recognition and keep persevering and expressing themselves with abandon, and aren't much listening to what others say. Or they may be listening, but they're not much influenced by it.</p>

<p>I think creative artists aren't much interested in "measuring talent." They're interested in expressing themselves, often compelled to do so. It's not a competition.</p>

<p>I disagree with you on passion. Going back to Wouter's example of Mozart, Salieri certainly didn't lack for passion, but he did lack in talent. He worked probably as hard if not harder than Mozart but could never compose with the richness and novelty that Mozart had. Sure, passion may buy you success. You may become known, may make a lot of money, etc. But it won't, alone, buy you artistry. Artistry is a combination of a lot of factors, to varying degrees in varying people. I don't think I would elevate one quality, for all artists, above another. It's some combination of talent, work, practice, passion, heart, soul, study, and some other things I'm not thinking of at the moment. Believe it or not, in many cases I'd throw in both sensuality and sexuality as well. But that's probably grist for a different thread.</p>

<p>Which reminds me of what makes for <em>success</em>. It's 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.</p>

I'm one inclined to think innate ability on complex things is a myth. Even if you're good to

start it is probably something else you've done before that let you practice some of the skills.

Practice trumps talent, always. Keep shooting.

<blockquote>Which reminds me of what makes for <em>success</em>. It's 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.</blockquote>

<p>Alan, I think that classic statement leaves out another component that is typically required, "luck." Maybe put that at 10% as well.</p>

<p>Fred, I think we generally agree on what it takes to find success in the arts. Of course, someone will always be 'the best,' and that is likely a person with both passion and talent (and perhaps a combination of the other factors you mention, but I'll take passion and talent over everything else).</p>