Can we learn to photograph,

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Fred</p>

<p>Masterpieces ... hmm.</p>

<p>First of all photographs I enjoy looking at, which I don't get tired of looking at. Pictures which can tell a story and pictures which please me graphically and tonally. Pictures which speak to me echoing what I know, what I imagine, my values, my interests<br>

Second, masterpieces are photos which show me a creative or storytelling process. Photos which show a research path and which are the results of studies and creative work.</p>

<p>Third, masterpieces are photos which might not match what I am, but in which I can recognize mastery of composition, technique, even manipulation in some cases.</p>

<p>I shy away from linear processes, particularly in the case of humans and human creative activities, so of course I need to understand what I want to do and what I do influences what and how I understand.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What Luca may be getting at, or at least my take on it is, that in any of these areas ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, you are right.</p>

<p>My question is: provided that photography is relatively easy (<em>as Wouter says: know something about f-stops, about ISO, about interpreting light and exposure</em>), which is demonstrated by the flood of images we are exposed to, does talent play any role?</p>

<p>And, on the contrary, my doubt is that you might not need any talent at all to photograph. Is it just behaviour, actions and processes?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, piano playing is as easy as taking a picture. You just have to know how to sit on a piano bench and lift your arm and then use a finger on that arm to strike a key or two. I compare most photographs taken to the results of that key-striking action on a piano. From there, we move on to learning and talent. The flood of images we see is not photography. It's camera sales.</p>

<p>That helps answer your last question. My answer: No! Just behavior, actions, and process results in the arm being raised and the arm being lowered with fingers extended to strike the keys on the keyboard. Music and photographs (as distinct from noise and pictures/snaps) is the result of intention, purpose, thought, feeling, learning, talent, desire, longing, and an array of other stuff depending on the musician and the photographer.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>BTW, Luca, thanks for expanding on your idea of masterpieces. I can relate to a lot of the things you list as important to you. I think "masterpiece" also has something to do with longevity and historical context. I'm not sure most masterpieces can be determined in their own time. I think most of them, first, prove to endure and, second, prove to relate significantly to their era in history (though they probably have a universality beyond that).</p>

<p>Also, there are a lot of significant and wondrous photos and other works of art that are not masterpieces, IMO.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>One is born with "X" talent. I don't think that can be augmented, but it can be maximized, like a figure sculpted out of the stone, freed by sheer work.</p>

<p>Asking if one will become a great is like a six year old kid asking if he will become a millionaire by the time he's 30. The answer is: It's possible, but extremely unlikely. Life is a gamble.</p>

<p>In art, there are no goals, in the sense of objectives that gain "points" or you attain or possess. It's not a game, that is for hacks. It's an exploration. One can set goals, of course, but the work will go where it wants to go, unless you strangle & kill it, often giggling mischievously while it drags you along. It's not like taking a train between two points and arriving exactly on time. More like riding with a crazed cabbie that gives you the grand tour of the five boroughs until stuck at a red light, and you thrust money at him and bail out, wondering where you are.</p>

<p> </p>

[albert_richardson1]

<blockquote>

<p>My question is: provided that photography is relatively easy (<em>as Wouter says: know something about f-stops, about ISO, about interpreting light and exposure</em>), which is demonstrated by the flood of images we are exposed to, does talent play any role?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find myself feeling irritated as this line of thought continues on. I have a talent for mechanical things. It's a part of me. It is a part of the outlook and skill set I bring to projects that involve tools, my hands and things that fit together. What irritates me is that the OP seems to be ignoring the obvious which is that if a person has some innate capacity to do well with the tools at hand one can expect he will excel. The project, and the tools for completing it, provide a context for talent to find expression.</p>

<p>If a talent for something is a part of you, you can expect it to show up in your work. In fact, you may not understand the seriousness of issue the OP raises because talent is not something you can turn on and off. (You can manipulate the result of your work to suit the needs of others, however, especially when they are paying for it!) (This is where I say, "You either have it or you don't!" ... No comment on the subject should overlook a remark that has the weight of such a huge load of simple truth in it!! :-) )</p>

<p>How does a person go about problem solving anyway? Have you ever wondered how different people can tackle a seemingly straightforward problem in their own way? The fact is that everyone brings a unique mixture of understanding, experience, habits and skills to a puzzle at hand. Each person always translates the problem requirements into something he can understand and attempt. He applies himself to the problem. Providing the matter is challenging enough how could a person make something like his own talent go away?</p>

<p>Ever look at a problem in front of you and find yourself asking how something so simple can be so hard? I feel irritated because I want Luca to stop spinning his wheels and go out to take some photos. Get absorbed in it. There's more to it than it would appear. Just the same, it's interesting and satisfying. Defining the exact role talent plays in things is about as productive as trying to nail jelly to a tree!</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Albert</strong>,<br>

I'm very sorry to irritate you. But I would rather say that you are helping a lot in "<em>keeping the wheels spinning</em>", as you say.<br>

There is no line of thought, just questions and reflections. I of course have answers of my own, but would like to hear from others, as from you. And consider that some of my statements are intentionally ignoring nuances, this being a rhetoric technique.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The fact is that everyone brings a unique mixture of understanding, experience, habits and skills to a puzzle at hand. Each person always translates the problem requirements into something he can understand and attempt. He applies himself to the problem.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>But as <strong>Mike Dixon</strong> says</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><em>In my experience, "I don't have a talent for ________" most often translates to "I haven't put much time or effort into ___________." Most of my best friends are very 'talented' musicians. In practical terms, that means they spend dozens of hours a week practicing, studying, and trying to get better at what they do. No one I know who is 'talented' simply picked up an instrument and started making music instantly.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have to work on talent. Creativity is work, hard work combined with more or less talent.</p>

<p>I completely agree with the <em>provocative and ironic</em> statement of <strong>Fred </strong>"<em>playing the piano is easy</em>".</p>

<p>Thank you for your exhortation to go out and photograph. That's what I've been doing since I was about 14 years old.<br>

But it's not enough. Not any more.</p>

<p>I've "<em>set my bar</em>" very, very high and I have come to the conclusion that trying to achieve the results I want requires not only <em>interest </em>in what I do, but also <em>technical skills</em>, making my neural connections turn the focus ring or the speed dial in the right direction, <em>knowledge </em>of what film suits my objective and which lab provides me with the results I want.</p>

<p>But that's still <em>not sufficient at all</em>.</p>

<p>I need to <em>think </em>about the visual communication of the photographic projects I want to do, <em>nourish </em>my viewing and perception ability, looking at the world around me, but also <em>seek the places</em> where the images I like will maybe come up, <em>look </em>at other's pictures in exhibitions, books, websites (the least suitable visualization means).</p>

<p>Discussing issues like this here is part of this process.</p>

<p>Your suggestion to go out and photograph is not enough for me any more. My conception of photographs requires a much more complex process, relating the rational, the sensitive, the imagined, the perceived, the technical.</p>

<p>I set the references for my photography. But "<em>spinning the wheels</em>" provides me the food for thought I need "<em>to go out and photograph"</em>, bringing home the results I want.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>One thing I find interesting is that 50 years or more ago, the average wallet of drugstore prints would contain mostly images with the object of interest (generally a person) very small in the frame and lots of extraneous background and foreground. I think this was related to the fact that people’s main visual experience of photography was gained in the cinema, with images on the screen quite a long way away. Camera-club judges and other self-appointed gurus made a lifelong career of exhorting photographers to crop their pictures heavily.<br>

From general observation and some time spent curating an exhibition of children’s photography, I would say that growing up with TV has radically altered the way people see. Even very young children picking up a camera for the first time apparently instinctively frame pictures the way they have seen them on TV, much closer up and with an awareness of the effects of wide-angle and tele lenses.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Albert said, "... go out to take some photos ... "</p>

<p>One can go after the earthworms with a shovel -- chase them down, so to speak by "going out" and digging. Or, one can make the wigglers come to you by <a href="http://www.ehow.com/how_2323102_get-worms-out-ground-digging.html">thumping the ground</a>. In this thread, we're thumping the ground.</p>

<p>(When not posting to this thread, we are, of course, also, shoveling ... )</p>

<p>Now, remind me, what was it I wanted to do with all these worms?<br />[<em>The "worm" thing is referencing one of Albert's posts in a different thread. I hope readers can get the gist of what I'm saying without knowing exactly what he said elsewhere</em>.]</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Julie</strong>,<br>

Sometime I'll tell you what I am doing with all the worms popping up.<br>

:-)<br>

L</p>

[dennis_ernst1]

<p>This is a very interesting discussion and something we all have to answer for ourselves when evaluating our own work.<br>

I see photography as being a three step process. First there is the interaction with the subject. This is often more like forming some kind of a relationship with it. For me this step is largely talent but there is room for leaning there. The second step is the capture. This is more something I learn through practice and education. The thirds step is the communication of your work. This I feel requires both talent and skill. The ability to communicate well in photography is no different than any other field and has much to do with your success as others see it.<br>

Doing what you love to do is where talent lies. Unless there is that love for doing it, practicing is only drudgery and frustration in the end.<br>

I think in order to become “great” you need to have both talent and skill. It’s a rare person that get a big endowment of both.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>David</strong>,</p>

<p>very interesting observation.</p>

<p>I guess it could be referred to the formation of the cultural background. You address the interactive relationship between the viewing experience and the the way each of us produces images.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The flood of images we see is not photography. It's camera sales.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>is photography too easy to stimulate a serious creative work? Does the majority go for the fastest track?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, is it the majority we're concerned with?</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Good point, Fred!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Albert,<br>

Since part of a quote originating from my post irritated you: thanks. I am glad it annoyed. In fact, I posted it as a bit of irony (so I certainly agree with your reaction). The way it was quoted pulled that a bit out of context.</p>

<p>Luca, you made a bit a jump from my last post. Sure, the technical part of photography can be learned, internalised, and certainly becomes easier with time. But that doesn't mean it is (ever) easy. Also for you, at some point in time, it was hard and something to learn. It's a hurdle to take and not by definition an easy one. Creatively interesting exposure choices are (to me) still at the core of a good photo too (together with some other factors). And it's a consideration still to be made for nearly every photo.<br>

Large parts of the creative viewing and seeing can also be learnt and developed. And even with extremely solid knowledge, it remains a consideration for each photo.<br>

Just to be clear: I did not mean to state it was easy. The opposite.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is photography too easy to stimulate a serious creative work? Does the majority go for the fastest track?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't the majority usually go for the fastest track? And isn't it OK too? If photography is not their ultimate interest? Most people on this site are heavily into photography, we're a niche market here. Most people just want nice photos of their children, family, pets, holidays. And that is OK. They do not want serious creative work, nor aspire it. They probably have some other hobby they invest more time and energy in.<br>

But for those who do aspire serious creative work, I'd say photography is darn hard. Your imagination always stays hampered by these real life-like things in the viewfinder....</p>

<p>I much like Dennis' notion: <em>doing what you love to do is where talent lies</em>. Without a love to do it, it certainly never will work. Whether it's completely the same as talent, I do not dare say, though.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, some really good points there. Your discussion of learning and creativity makes me think . . .</p>

<p>I find I can't clearly separate the two. Maybe because I've been academically inclined for so long, I find learning to be a creative act. I can't learn with creating something (writing a paper, giving a presentation, helping along a dialogue, etc.). And, for me, each creative act is a learning experience because, in at least some aspects, it's something I haven't done before (which is why it's creative). Talent isn't precisely the same as creativity but they're related, I think. The answer may be that when learning becomes doing (rather than passive), it moves toward creativity. Talent may reside in the balance, harmony, tension, and counterpoint between the two and in their overlap.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>Luca: </strong> To answer your original post, I believe that craft, technique, and technology can be taught and, therefore, one can learn them. However, being able to "see a photograph" is another story. Although I won't beg any questions by stating that having this ability is innate, I think it comes down to each person being "hard-wired" differently.</p>

<p> </p>

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>"We won't all be Weston, Frank, Avedon, Leibovitz. And that's what some people think of as <em>enough</em>."</strong></p>

<p>Fred: I am grateful to my son for teaching me that, when I die, I don't want people asking whether I was enough like Adams, Avedon, Leibovitz, et. al. I want them asking whether I was enough like myself.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[GBarrington]

<p> I sure hope so!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred, in fact as I was posting it, I noticed how much I can not see the technical side of photography seperate from the creative. And learning indeed is creative by design, in creating knowledge, experience.... also on a practical level, I am learning photography, but in the meanwhile I also do have quite a few photos. It's not that much either/or indeed.</p>

<p>Talent - it's is a word where I continue to get a bit stuck. Cannot really get an idea with it, a mental image of how it works. Is it an inherent ability to learn easier, more by instinct, a specific set of skills or abilities? Does it lay dormant, or does it only exist once developing (and hence is more a property of the development)? Is it (as Michael says) hard-wired, or is it a "lucky" combination of knowledge, experience, interest, moment and environment making development run smoother?<br>

Do we all have the ability for creativiness, or do some simply have more ability? If so, why, and is that development, or a brain more tuned to it (versus mathematical minds, or ...?). Sure most jobs take some sort of talent, but creative efforts seem to have this extra layer, of being able to express yourself in a more or less unique way.<br>

I just don't know. Some people bloom late, but gloriously. Child stars on the other end, starting with a big boom and sliding down after. One day flies, and artists consistently delivering work for 60 years and more. Whatever talent is, there seem to be quite some other factors that need to come together to unleash the full potential. </p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Wouter, talent is a knack for something; an ability. Someone demonstrating talent consistently produces work that is awfully good compared to the work of others. The best explanation I can think of for it is to simply say that ability is a gift. Creativity has to do with originality, that is one doing things for the first time ever. Sometimes a person makes things no one else has ever seen before, either. Sometimes these things are so amazing we call him a "genius," but as you know this is rare.</p>

<p>I think that there is no useful purpose in speculating about latent talents and abilities. What might a baby be able to do as it grows up?, for example. There is no way to answer such a question. Talent that exists will show up in various activities that a person engages in. </p>

<p>There's something wrong with the idea that started the whole discussion in the first place. You don't get to choose to have talent, and you do benefit from working at your craft. This isn't an either - or proposition. What is more, when you see the work of a highly skilled craftsman, you can't tell what part of the picture comes from talent and what comes from her training and learning. You wind up saying things like "time and time again she knocks it out of the park!" "She has a great eye. I can depend on her to make interesting pictures." Figuring out the mind that makes the work is somewhat like trying to unscramble an egg.</p>

<p>The OP goes on to say in later posts that he is looking for more than study and craft development can give him. (I can't be sure that I really understand his point, except to share the impression I have that he wants something that seems to be out of reach.) There is something to the notion that a very creative person can follow such an individual path that he gets to a point where no one can help him. Individual productivity and style can be so distinctive that there is simply no way that someone else can do the same thing. If a creative person reaches a point where he wants some sort of guidance from another person vis-a-vis a specific element of a project, for example, he may find himself to be alone in his quest. It's possible to be in too deep. The work will be too technical and too detailed for anyone but another him to be able to understand it. </p>

<p>The business about spinning wheels is simply a reference to what appears to be a habit of asking questions that have no answers. Questions lead to questions that seem to lead nowhere. I've heard this sort of thing characterized as being slippery. I really don't know what the OP hopes to get out of all this, perhaps some sort of new direction for himself? Who can say?</p>

<p>You really can get earthworms to come out of the ground by hitting it with a shovel? You learn something new every day! (No earthworms were squashed in making this comment :-))</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Albert</strong>,</p>

<p>Thank you for your response. I must say that your critiques to my original post are quite useful and help me to continue along my line of reasoning.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>You don't get to choose to have talent, and you do benefit from working at your craft.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very good. This I already knew. Talent is a gift. You can build on your talent, but it's a gift. The question is about the talent/craft development mix. And about the talent vs. craft development in <em><strong>photography</strong></em>.</p>

<p>Photography is not only a craft, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The OP goes on to say in later posts that he is looking for more than study and craft development can give him. (I can't be sure that I really understand his point, except to share the impression I have that he wants something that seems to be out of reach.)</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not. I do not agree that my original question has no answer. On the contrary, it has potentially infinite answers, as are the combinations of photographers-situations-photographs.</p>

<p>My first purpose is to explore whether there are some main streams of thinking on this matter.</p>

<p>It's true that creative paths can be extremely individualistic, but I don't think it's about "helping". And it's also not necessarily about "understanding". "Bright" and "open-minded" viewers can accept to look at creative work even if they do not (entirely) understand it.</p>

<p>One final remark on the method: you say that "<em>The business about spinning wheels is simply a reference to what appears to be a habit of asking questions that have no answers</em>".</p>

<p>I already mentioned that there are potentially infinite answers. This philosophical analytical method is known as the "<em>Socratic method</em>". It was applied to concepts which appear to lack any concrete definition, as in this case.</p>

<p>My overall purpose is to progress in my understanding of where my own photography is and of where I want it to go.</p>

<p>It's helpful.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Albert,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>here is no useful purpose in speculating about latent talents and abilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No suprise, but I disagree with much of your post, though I certainly understand the point you try to raise. Sure, this dicsuccion is not going to give solid answers to Luca, you or me. It's not the point really. The point I am looking into is human learning and development, and factors that play a role. Talent is one of the factors, but also a rather strange one, since it indeed just seems to be there. Or is it?If you want to develop yourself and others, understanding how to maximise abilities, how to stimulate in the right way, it does not hurt to have understanding, or at least insights and ideas, on this subject.</p>

<p>And well, to me, this site/forum aims to develop me and others. So pondering on the nature of talent and how to use it, I see merit in it. Like Luca, discussions like these give me a lot back too. They stimulate me, and make me assess my own progress and stand-still as photography hobbyist. Answers or no answers.</p>

[sjmurray]

<blockquote>

<p>Can we learn to photograph, or do we need an innate talent to view and compose?<br /> Will studying and experimenting be enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are the posted questions. To my mind, yes, anyone can learn to photograph, but that doesn't mean the photographs will be artistic or interesting to anyone but the photographer, and there is nothing wrong with that. Many hobbyists are in that category. However, I would say "yes," we do need innate talent, and "no" studying and experimenting <em>alone </em>is not enough if you want to make great photographs. </p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Where you have infinitely many answers to a question how do you sort out which ones are which? Are some better than others? How do you know? Can you reconcile various potential answers that are convincing, but take you in different directions? If you can't decide which ones are best, do they improve your position more than if there were no answer at all? Before long you too will be asking what difference it all makes. To be sure some mixture of talent and skill goes into just about everything people do.</p>