Natural Ability vs. Skill

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>So I was wondering what you all think the difference is, and which you'd rather have.<br>

How's that for short and pithy?<br>

Peace to all-JBCrane</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>You left out the part about the hard work needed to make something of both natural talent and skill.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It all depends on how you define "ability" and "skill." Having the ability to remain calm and unflustered while thinking your way through a complex problem (<em>any </em>complex problem - photography-related or not) may have more to do with one's success (depending on how you define <em>that!</em>) than any particular single raw talent, per se. Having the ability to tune out distractions while concentrating on what you're doing (photography or not), likewise. But these are things that can be learned.<br /><br />By "skill," do you mean: knowing how to set the slave options on your speedlight so that you can use it off-camera? There is no natural ability to do something like that, so it's sort of a false dichotomy... no point fretting over an either/or that doesn't even apply. One might have a natural comfort with the hierarchial organization of information, and thus take right to the menu systems embedded on electronics - and thus <em>appear</em> to have "natural ability" when it comes to operating complex equipment. But the <em>skill</em> needed to use that equipment is always an acquired one. Natural ability (on that front) simply weighs on how quickly those skills pile up, and how often they need refreshing.<br /><br />Or... are we talking about the folks who seem born with a "good eye," and comparing them to those mere, workman-like photographers who have to be shown how to see and compose well on the fly? Are we talking about gregarious extroverts who seem naturally able to manage a wedding party full of hostile misanthropes, and comparing them to photographers who are <em>themselves</em> hostile misanthropes, and who have to learn some canned patter in order to get some happy-looking subjects?<br /><br />I've always chafed a bit at the notion of "natural" photographers. I think that such people come to photography with brain wiring, a temperment, or a world view that eases their acquisition of the skills needed. But the problem is that "photography" is too broad a subject to discuss in this way. A successful landscape photographer may need - more than particular skills involving hyperfocal distances - the ability and willingness to hike with a heavy pack in the dark while being eaten by mosquitos. Tolerance for that could well trump the lab-smart photographer with formal training or the heavily right-brained Artist when it comes to results. Real success comes from having the discipline to apply learned skills to one's purpose.<br /><br />People who were raised with a sense of discipline and the importance of concentrating their energies on a task - they are the ones who will magically appear to others to be naturally good at things. All <em>sorts</em> of things. When they happen to pick up a camera or sit down to do some post-production work, their life-long, acquired <em>skills</em> in approaching anything they do with that sense of discipline and focus will often appear to others as a natural ability to be good at most anything they choose to do.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I rather have natural abilitly. If you know how to draw, you know how to draw, you can always improve on that. </p>

[steven_clark]

<p>I don't think there is such a thing as natural talent in photography. It's too abstract to be anywhere in our genes.</p>

[fischerphotos]

I think it's both. You need the skills and the ability to do those skills.

[sarah_fox]

<p>This is similar to the nature vs. nurture issues that continue to be a hot topic of debate in the psycholigical and neurobiological communities. I don't think we've arrived at any consensus. I think the moderates in these communities would say it's a combination of both -- or framed in the context of your question, both natural ability (nature) and skill (nurture).</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><em>I don't think there is such a thing as natural talent in photography. It's too abstract to be anywhere in our genes.</em><br>

You can have a good eye.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Listen to Sarah, she was a real neuroscientist before she turned to the dark side (photography). Or is it "dark room" side? I guess not any more ;)<br>

Of course, we all know that actual expertise in a topic is no necessity here on the P.net gallery.</p>

<p> </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>hard work, practice, practice, practice, with some good natural ability almost always wins.</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>Natural ability gives you the vision, skill and technique makes it Reality.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>Baseball is 90% mental -- the other half is physical. </p>

<p>So is photography.</p>

[Leroy_Photography]

<p>I agree with Matt: "People who were raised with a sense of discipline and the importance of concentrating their energies on a task - they are the ones who will magically appear to others to be naturally good at things. All <em>sorts</em> of things." I’d also add that skills are acquired through determination.</p>

<p>I like sports analogies and am reminded of Michael Jordan not making his high school basketball team. His determination made him work even harder to hone his skills and become a better player. He made the team the next year. The rest is history. Tikki Barber had worked hard, but wasn’t given an opportunity to shine until a teammate was injured. I believe he said, "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."</p>

<p>In our "instant" society, young people today want it NOW. If it doesn’t happen immediately, they give up and never know the satisfaction of hard work. I probably take 10,000+ photos each year, but I’m far from being a good photographer. That doesn’t stop me from trying. I get great satisfaction when I look back at where I was three years ago and where I am now because I know I've improved.</p>

<p>So, given the choice, I think I’d choose skill.</p>

[betty_lowrey]

<p>I do think some people just have a natural eye. It's like being a naturally good painter, or naturally good at any other artistic venture. Some people are just BETTER at it. If that wasn't the case, anyone who put a little effort into it would turn out identically good pictures.<br>

I'd rather have a lot of natural ability and a lot of smarts to learn the rest. The technical aspect of photography is what I found to be challenging. I'm much more of a "if it looks cool I'm happy with it" sort of shooter. I like breaking technical rules and getting away with it! A photographic outlaw...woo hoo! I kid...<br>

You're always going to have those two opposing camps...the technical purists who scoff at those who didn't study light, composition, and settings for YEARS before venturing out to make their own art....and those who picked up a camera and went to work, relying on learning as they went and a natural eye to further their cause. The two camps seem to go head to head on these boards quite often, which is sad considering our goals are similar: to take interesting, pretty, and sometimes lucrative pictures.<br>

Man, I got wordy there....</p>

[bernie moore]

It's quite simple: the egg came first.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>"People who were raised with a sense of discipline and the importance of concentrating their energies on a task - they are the ones who will magically appear to others to be naturally good at things. All <em >sorts</em> of things." </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course this would exclude those with autism and savant syndrome.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /></p>

</blockquote>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Sarah, the Three Stooges settled the Nature vs. Nurture argument some years ago, unfortunately the scientific community never notied their ground (and pie, piano, horse, plumbing, baking and everything else that breaks)) breaking work.</p>

<p>The specifc episode was about 2 rich guys that made a bet they could or couldn't educate the Stooges, I think it was the idea that spawned Trading Places. Anyway, I guess scientists spend to much time doing science instead of watching TV.</p>

<p>For me the question is what do I do since I have no natural ability or skill? Was it nature? Was it nurture? Maybe I have no natural angst that makes me suffer? What would improve my photography? Become a Republican?</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>Um,<br>

I sometimes think it's better to be luck than good.<br>

Just my 2p.</p>

<p>P</p>

[photo_dark]

<p>I'd like the following:<br>

45% work ethic<br>

0.5% natural talent<br>

4.5% skill as a result of work ethic<br>

50% people and business skills (trying to make it as a commercial/lifestyle photographer)</p>

 

[nealcurrie]

<p>I think I'm fairly average in the skill department, but I will say that one of the nicest shots I have ever captured was the result of standing in the cold Pacific up to my knees for about 30 minutes (in shorts & water shoes) when it windy and was -2 Celsius. It took about 2 hours to thaw my body out after, but man is that a nice negative! :)</p>

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I think about some of the great photographers of our time and past times and always wonder how they became great. Was it just the right time for them in history? Were they naturally gifted enough that their vision just had to come out? Were they brilliant marketeers? Were they humble, quiet and unassuming yet their work spoke so loud it couldn't not be heard? Did they stink but have a great salesman? Were they important in fulfilling a crucial period in history that no one else could fill?<br>

So to answer my own question, I think both are important, but natural ability doesn't mean anything if you're lazy. I believe hard work, study, attention to detail, more hard work, good people skills, faith, drive, and above all else, heart-felt passion is what separates the the wheat from the chaffe. A little sprinkling of natural ability can be a real encouragement to get you started, too. <br>

Peace to all-JBCrane</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>LOL, Michael! I watched that show as a young child, but I guess I forgot that episode by the time I landed in graduate school! ;-)</p>

<p>One school of thought is that we become more interested in pursuits in which we have natural abilities and that we work hard to develop those abilities, finding reward in our successes. That sounds pretty plausible to me.</p>

<p>(JDM, thanks for the plug, but the neurosciences are soooo broad that I only have a minor brushing with behavior genetics. My fields were sensory physiology and bioacoustics.)</p>

[stp]

<p>For me, a large part of it is being at the right place at the right time. So as the number of times I head out to take photographs goes up, the number of good photographs that I like and keep goes up as well. But I've also tried to learn and to be more discerning over time, and that attention to photography has helped me to improve, I believe. This still doesn't answer the OP's question, does it. I'll go with a good eye, which one can have naturally and which one can develop through conscious effort over time. Still haven't answered the question -- I'm sitting on the fence seeing both sides.</p>

[mark_hanegraaff]

<p>I think that as soon you even acknowledge that there is such thing as natural ability, then it become easy to blame any failures on your lack thereof, thus making it very hard to improve.<br /> Michelangelo summed it up nicely when he said: "If people only knew how hard I worked to gain my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all".<br /> So yeah, if you ask me results are pretty much a matter hard work and rigor.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"I think I'm fairly average in the skill department, but I will say that one of the nicest shots I have ever captured was the result of standing in the cold Pacific up to my knees for about 30 minutes (in shorts & water shoes) when it windy and was -2 Celsius. It took about 2 hours to thaw my body out after, but man is that a nice negative! :)"</p>

<p>So it seems that the most important factor is a wee bit of insanity.</p>