Can a "good eye" be learned ?

[Allen Herbert]

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

whether it is something that you are born with.

 

Learning is is like a ladder, you take it step by step. When you eventually get to the top there's something else, not you. Use the ladder and abuse it, be you.

 

You are not a machine programme, you, are you.

 

They all talked the same, they liked the same, and they wanted to be the same. Same, made them happy. Same made them feel wanted, loved, by the same.

 

They thought they were happy, but they felt unhappy...really, they wanted to be more than than the same...they wanted to be...

 

But the same called upon them and they were taken away....a lost tear my friends was all what was left.

[exaktamoment]

I have been looking through this thread and it brings to mind a question that has been on my mind for a little while: Does it make any difference which eye you use when taking pictures?? Do pictures taken using the left eye (and therefore, right brain - artsy fartsy side) have any greater artistic value and/or merit than those taken with the right eye??

 

Lou

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Louis Lohman </b> <i> [...] Do pictures taken using the left eye (and therefore, right brain [...]</i><p>

That's not the way it works for the eyes. Left is left, right is right. Keep in mind that the eye is part of the brain. Tightly coupled. It's not like the rest of the body. In fact, a lot of the eye's output is processed in the midbrain where the outcome is not available to the intellect.

[artedetimo]

Without knowing exactly what you mean by "good", "bad" and "stink" my answer is Yes.

 

My first thought is that if you are going to master photo you have to go beyond practicing

it. You need to study photo to learn photo. In the language arts many instructors will tell

you that the best way to write better is to read more; read anything. Exposing yourself to

as many different styles, levels, sources, qualities of work as possible will begin to open

your eyes.

 

Learning and understanding how to read photography (both your own and others) is the

most critical part of getting "better." If you can't see all the decisions in a photo by just

looking at it then you haven't gone far enough... though you will always have further to go,

because the art is always evolving as are you.

 

Next, you need to interact in person, face to face, with other hopefully more

knowledgeable photographers and get feedback. The more you learn how people read

your work the more you will be able to "write" better work. The best thing I ever did was

start taking classes at a local college. I pick up technique on my own pretty well, but

seeing why and how other people do certain things gives me more insight into how I do

things and gives me options and new things to explore. Plus I often have to explain to

others how I do things, which helps me formulate and reformulate my ideas into cleaner

and clearer processes within my own work.

 

And finally you need the feedback of teachers and other students to refine how you make

decisions. There were master photographers who took thousands of shots to only get a

few "good" ones, and there were others that lost only a few per roll. Each photographer

makes decisions about how they want to shoot to get what they are after.

 

And the final thing I will add from Steichen (to paraphrase), learning to use a camera only

takes about a day, to learn to give meaning to your work takes a lifetime. So if you shoot

what has meaning to you, it will be inevitable that your work will be meaingful.

 

Shoot the things you like to look at and you will start to find that you will like to look at

your photos too :)

[vandit]

Funnily, I was having this exact same conversation with someone a few days ago, and my staunch belief is that an aesthetic eye can indeed be developed. Innate artistic ability only affects how quickly you learn.

 

I have done a writeup on what has worked for me:

www.photosafariindia.com/articles/aesthetics1.html

 

Essentially, it is a long term process - no shortcuts, no books. But if you make a concerted effort to correlate the scene in front of you to a potential image, it is not that hard a skill to acquire.

 

Comments are always welcomed.

 

Vandit

[beeman458]

"Do pictures taken using the left eye (and therefore, right brain - artsy fartsy side) have any greater artistic value and/or merit than those taken with the right eye??"

 

That's a yes and no answer. The left eye, the emotional eye, talks to the right hemisphere; yes. But the Corpus Collosum allows both hemispheres to talk to each other; no. So it's pretty much a wash.

 

If you don't believe me, try talking to someone's left eye:)

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Thomas</b><i> That's a yes and no answer. The left eye, the emotional eye, talks to the right hemisphere; yes. But the Corpus Collosum allows both hemispheres to talk to each other; no. So it's pretty much a wash.</i><p>

It's a wash but mainly because how the brain/eye works is irrelevant to the discussion. And above is not how the eyes work with the brain. Each eye transmits to both sides of the brain, with a strange nexus in the midbrain of which we know little except, perhaps, "blind vision" that is not directly available to the intellect.<p>

[andy_laycock]

If I read this right then 10% of your photographs are good. I think that's a pretty good percentage and would be ecstatic to have a hit rate like that again. I think that few people are great at every subject and most don't shine at anything. If you have two areas that you are great in then you are ahead of the game as far as I'm concerned. At least you still love photography but I think if you concentrate too much on what you don't like about your work you may wind up losing that love. I know this from personal experience.

[beeman458]

"It's a wash but mainly because how the brain/eye works is irrelevant to the discussion. And above is not how the eyes work with the brain. Each eye transmits to both sides of the brain, with a strange nexus in the midbrain of which we know little except, perhaps, "blind vision" that is not directly available to the intellect."

 

Better check these things out a bit further as you're incorrect in your above. The left eye is connected to the emotional center and the Corpus Collosum allows the two hemispheres to talk to each other so yes it does make all the difference in the world. Cut the Corpus Collosum and see what happens when one eye or the other is closed/covered and the open eye is shown a picture. This is a well studied, discussed and written about phenomenon.

 

Centers of the brain do not develop equally and segments of the brain have different capabilities; IQ's if you will. Brain centers can be developed just as muscle and fat can be gained and lost. The brain is less of a mystery then you realize.

[mrstubbs]

"but still, 90% of his photos stink"

 

What are you complaining about? I'm still at 99.9%! One in a thousand is about average for me. And i'm pleased with that.

 

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

whether it is something that you are born with."

 

Be more self critical Dave. A good eye (photographically) does not see the greatness of an image, it sees the faults. If you take away the bad, then you are left with the good.

[frank uhlig]

Look Dave D.

 

I am very happy if I get 2 shots (oh heavens, if there are three) out of one film that are worth their salt.

 

So I am content with the fact that roughly 95% of my shots are not museum quality. (Maybe 99.99% are not, but so what.)

 

And you whine when 90% are not such. Come off it. You must be an ace at photography, Dave! Congratulations and be Happy!

[jcs56]

Well, if your 10% off your photos are fine then you are ok.

 

Best regards,

 

JC, Mexico city.

[robert_g.1]

In answer to your question Id say yes.

 

We all have a starting point or degree of an eye for photography that we are born with , we can do little about that.

 

And we all have a finishing point , and thats totally in our hands.

 

So where do you want to finish? Keep going it can only get better !

[beeman458]

In the simple, if a good eye can't be learned why have education (art school)?

[mike dixon]

<i>Better check these things out a bit further as you're incorrect in your above. The left eye is connected to the emotional center and the Corpus Collosum allows the two hemispheres to talk to each other so yes it does make all the difference in the world.</i><P>

You're the one who needs to check these things a bit further. Pico was correct: each eye has connections to both hemispheres of the brain. The left half of each retina (which records light from the right half of the visual field) connects to the left hemisphere of the brain; the right half of each retina connects to the right hemisphere. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gray722.png">Here's a diagram </a> illustrating the basic wiring.<P>

It's a shame this "left brain, right brain" bullshit has become so popular. It's not merely an oversimplification of how the brain works; it's actually a profound distortion that causes more confusion and misunderstanding about brain function.

[beeman458]

"You're the one who needs to check these things a bit further."

 

I have.

[beeman458]

As a suggestion Mike, reread what I wrote and make note of what I wrote as to how the left eye connects with the "emotional center" (the right eye doesn't) and how all this grey matter interacts via the Corpus Collosum and what happens to one's ability to perceive and communicate emotional thought via the right eye when the Corpus Collosum is cut.

 

I actually took time to read some of these studies and you're welcome to take "your" time to Google and read this information.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>The left eye is connected to the emotional center and the Corpus Collosum allows the two hemispheres to talk to each other so yes it does make all the difference in the world. Cut the Corpus Collosum and see what happens when one eye or the other is closed/covered and the open eye is shown a picture. This is a well studied, discussed and written about phenomenon. </i><p>

Old news. The issue there is that the information is assimulated but not available to the language center. I did write that the midbrain does a lot of work not available in that regard.<p>

It also remains that most of us, I am sure, have not had the corpus collosum cut. To speak to that is like arguing about one-legged sprinters in the context of the regular olympics.

[beeman458]

"It also remains that most of us, I am sure, have not had the corpus collosum cut."

 

Try talking to the left eye in regard to emotional issues and you'll understand.

 

If someone is angry with you or you're just meeting for a first time, talk the to left eye. If you need to have a heavy conversation and you want to know what the person you're speaking is about, talk to the right eye; the windows to the soul.

 

Before you tell me how goofy, deluded, stupid or otherwise that I am, just try it a few times.

 

Try talking to someone and then break into a grin, while talking to the right eye. Try doing the same while talking to the left eye and make note of the different responses you get. I do this with people, as a sort of parlor trick, letting them know up front what I'm going do and they still can't help busting into a smile. It really is a kick once you're onto it.

 

You left out of the conversation my comments about different centers of the brain have different capabilites to learn; IQ if you will. When you discuss these issues, it's helpful to write/speak in a three dimensional fashion as opposed to the simplistic. If it were all so enigmatic, we wouldn't have schools of art, technical or liberal arts cause there wouldn't be a common basis (bell curve ability) to base education on.

[beeman458]

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

 

One must actively participate in the photographic process, including threads one starts.

[pavel_olavich]

Dave, could it be that the reason 10% of your pictures are "good" and 90% bad is because you are not decerning enough to pick & choose "opportunities"?

 

I've been shooting for 12+ years now, and as time goes by I am more decerning about what comps I make. Meaning, when I go on a trip or shoot, I shoot less, so that my keeper rate is higher then say 5 years ago.

 

Five years ago I tried to make pictures for every opportunity I came across, having no regard for lighting, angle, contrast, dynamic range, etc. So my keeper rate was 1% to 5%.

 

These days I take less pictures, bypassing many "great" scenes because I can't get the angle I need, or the DR is too wide, or the lighting is cr@p (wrong time of day), or for many other reasons. In the old days I tried to make the picture regardless even often knowinbg full well it would not work for some of the reasons mentioned.

 

So maybe your problem is not so much lack of composition skills, but rather a lack of descernment, ajudication of what will work. Perhaps your engineering side sees a candidate scene that is light challanging, and so you perceive this opportunity as a way of mitigating that challange instead of an opportunity to get something that will work comp wise.

 

In my first few trips to Europe, I took 5,000+ pictures of which 5% or less were great. On recent trips I take about half or 2/3's that amount and what I found is that when I am more discriminate, I make less pictures but find I have more keepers.

 

Making pictures is like fishing...coming to the watering hole at the wrong time of day, or dropping your hook in the wrong part of the water could make for no bites on the hook.

[beeman458]

"In the old days I tried to make the picture regardless even often knowinbg full well it would not work for some of the reasons mentioned."

 

Now there's a pearl one can take to the bank. :) Teaching oneself restraint is a long in coming lesson. Good comment.

[dave_d2]

First, let me say how much I have appreciated reading each and every reply. There are obviously many sage individuals here and I'm truly grateful.<br><br>

 

A lot of great suggestions. Some composition/drawing books are on the way, that's for sure. One response suggested I "smoke some pot". I think his point was that I relax a bit and let go.

<br><br>

 

I also realized that I really need to start viewing photography as a Release from my technical-side, instead of an extension of it. I think what I "loved" about photography, wasn't the photo per se' - it was the technical challenge of learning how to get the perfect exposure. I look at Ansel Adams' work and I don't see wonderous mountain-scapes ... I see shadows and highlights. A bit unfortunate really.

<br><br>

So, I have found an element of photography (creativity) that I can't learn by simply applying an equation. I am happy to hear there is a scientific component to expanding one's creativity. I'll enjoy learning about that in my own technical-way. But once I've done that, I really gotta just "let go".

<br><br>

Lastly, a few folks offered to critique my work. I like that idea but I'll have to scan some negatives. I actually just made the leap to DSLR so once I'm done geeking my way through the manual, I'll try and get some digitals up.

<br><br>

Best wishes to all.

[ffrancis_van_boxtel]

After twelve years of building engines, I ask myself.

 

They look gnarly, chrome, tubes, and heavy steel strikes the eye.

 

But, there is one problem. I am still not able to get them to run.

 

Is this sheer lack of talent or is it possible to learn how to do this.

 

I'm a very talented artist, engineering though seems not to be one of my natural talents.

 

For those of you who are engineers, I'll explain: this is a fictive question.

 

The rest isn't fictive.

 

Professionaly i'm in audio engineering, creating sound balance, getting the music across,

 

understanding what the music played is about.

 

This has come natural to me.

 

An other aspect is, getting the equipment connected adjusted, working and free of hum,

 

hiss and howl.

 

This however is not given naturaly.

 

Still, now after a quarter of a century on the job I am not "the person" to get for solving

 

technical problems if things become complicated.

 

Though, a basic understanding and skill has developed to such a level that I dare call

 

myself an engineer.

 

Same problem Dave, don't take pictures, study the technique required to not have to

 

rely on talents. Talents in my oppinion do not exist. Abilities to learn, every one has

 

them. It's just that one is faster in one field and the other in an other.

 

On photography, hadn't shot a single pic for over twenty years.

 

Started shooting about three years ago, now doing a professional course on documentary

 

andPJ photograhy and doing well. Technical however, simplest camera available, Leica M,

 

allmanual. Digital ( that means complex DSLR's with one zillion options ) seems to turn

 

itselfagaist me. Studying hard I will get there, even thechnical. Meanwhlle I enjoy shooting.

 

Enjoy your studying.

 

Fr.

[neilpeters]

For every woman, there is a type of woman.

For every artist, there is a type of artist.

Everyone in these forums is too intelligent to compare ourselves to others, but its hard not to. If I look at John Peri, Yuri Bonder, Haleh Bryan, Alex Lee, etc etc, I could get very discouraged.

I choose instead to be inspired.

When I was 18 and still learning to see, not that I know anything now, my mentor Mr. Larson kept showing me what was good about this picture I took, but it didn't make any sense to me what he saw.

So off to the library, and I looked over every photo I could by the Masters and anyone else. Finally, composition and light started to make sense. This took years.

Being a photographer meant knowing when you had taken a good shot.

I was really relieved to learn a "great" photographer might be happy with (ONE) picture they had taken that day. And a truely great photographer might be happy with 20 pictures taken that year !

Millions of people have played baseball, still, there is only one Babe Ruth. But, if you even get to play, you've suceeded.