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

[hiranjgarbh_missier_bainat]

<p>knowledge, more knowledge and passion, passion, passion. <br />Greetings, Hiranjgarbh Missier Bainath Maharaj</p>

[spanky]

<p>One sure sign of a beginner is someone who posts a picture and lists the camera, lens, etc.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I knew the answer as soon as I broke open and read msg in a fortune cookie. / snark/

[Didier Lamy]

<p>"One sure sign of a beginner is someone who posts a picture and lists the camera, lens, etc"<br />So now I know that I am still a "beginner". And likely to stay so, since, once the admiration phase is over, I always look at the technical points of a photo, if there are some available, and I find normal to reciprocate. Marc, if you see some hardware information provided with a great photo, do you look the other way?</p>

[spanky]

<p>No Didier, I simply don't pay any attention. It's not important to me how a photograph was created, what matters me to is the effect if any it has on me. Photography being the mechanical/chemical process that it is, I know this is important to others and that's OK, it's just not my cup of tea. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It's not important to me how a photograph was created</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How did you ever learn how to make one? Some non-beginners might even look at or provide this information because they know that even experienced photographers can still learn. They can learn about more than vision and photographic effect. They can learn how to photographically create, express, and communicate their vision. That may well take a bit of . . . technique. A vision and effect that stays inside one's head is not a photo. <br>

<br>

There's a strange over-reaction in the photographic community against gear and technique. It seems often to come from those who mention its importance to other people. It does get discussed a lot, and it is certainly part of camera advertising, which is pervasive. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, though it is so often done.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Would someone be considered a talented photographer if they shot indigent and handicapped people in the street who look menacing to be later post processed and dressed up to look like a villain in a movie and still pass it off as an impromptu street capture? Just curious.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Would someone be considered a talented photographer if they shot indigent and handicapped people in the street who look menacing to be later post processed and dressed up to look like a villain in a movie and still pass it off as an impromptu street capture? Just curious.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(Tim seems to be describing <a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00dHkh">THIS WEEK'S POTW</a>. Interestingly, the photographer who took the photo has explained why he chose the "Street" category, in direct response to Tim who brought up the same issue in that thread.)<br /> <br /> To answer your question, Tim, for me, assessing the talent of the photographer would depend on what his photos looked like. <br /> <br /> In assessing talent, one of the criteria I would not use is what PN category the photographer chose, especially since there are such a limited amount of categories. (I would have placed the picture in a category called "Storytelling" if there were one, which there should be and which I've requested numerous times over the years. Failing that sort of category I, too, would have placed it in "Street.") <br /> <br /> Another thing I wouldn't do in assessing a photographer's talent is limit my assessment to one photo. I'd look at an entire portfolio or at least a good array of the photographer's work. <br /> <br /> Something else I wouldn't do is make a special case for how a photographer should treat or show handicapped people. Most handicapped people I've gotten to know don't want to be "handled" differently or, worse, patronized.<br /> <br /> I'd also pretty fiercely question Tim's description of the photographer and photo. Tim says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>pass it off as an impromptu street capture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer DID NOT "pass it off" as anything. It was an impromptu street capture, one that he then post-processed a certain way. Street photography has a long tradition of various degrees and styles of post processing. Check out Moriyama sometime for an example of someone shooting impromptu street stuff that doesn't look much like what we'd naturally see out there on the street. If we're interested in even a semblance of fairness, we might say that the photographer made several contributions to the discussion where he explained exactly how the shot came about, how it was taken, and what post processing he did. It seems to me the last thing the photographer did was try to pass anything off. The photographer went out of his way to make clear exactly what the shot entailed, and he did that in the critique discussion even before it had become POTW. He certainly did not try to pass anything off. <br /> <br /> Finally, let's say we did determine that a given photographer was some sort of heel, doing things like intentionally miscategorizing his photos in order to throw people off, which this photographer did not do. There are plenty of talented artists who are jerks. Just ask Tippi Hedren and several other actresses about Alfred Hitchock.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, Marcel Duchamp just came to mind, speaking of passing things off. He used various pseudonyms in order to pass some of his art off as the work of someone else, such as R. Mutt. And he was often (as other artists are) intentionally misleading in interviews about his work. That's who he was and all of that came from, IMO, a very talented artist.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>By placing that photo in a folder labeled "street" is an admission by the photographer that the subject (handicapped person) is an unwilling participant to be later portrayed as some type of film noir styled movie villain where the photographer needed to archive as a street scene instead of as a post processing experiment or effects study.</p>

<p>It's a creative ethics issue similar to if I went to Africa to shoot the ebola victims being buried in their graves and/or walking around with an I.V. bag and then post processed them with the look of the movie "300" and titled the work as "Zombie Apocalypse". It's my right but I'ld have to admit I would be talentless as a socially conscious photographer and at worse an exploiter of the less fortunate. Or maybe it's just as simple as having bad taste. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And what are the ethics of bringing it into THIS discussion when it really has nothing to do with talent and was fully aired over there? What are the ethics of claiming, in the current thread where the photographer's voice hasn't been heard, that he tried to pass something over on his viewers without at least mentioning the explanation he gave for why he chose "street" and what he thinks "street" can mean? It seems to me you're trying to pull a fast one much more than he ever did.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There may be a lesson in art, or at least artistry, here. What you've done, Tim, is pretty much the same thing you've accused the POTW photographer of doing. Only you've actually done it and he hasn't. You took an actual situation (the POTW and the thread) and you altered it to where you didn't tell anyone here it was a real photo and real PN photographer, instead making it sort of hypothetical or at least leaving that information out. You didn't tell anyone the photographer had talked about the reasons for his categorization of it as street and you used your own idea of street in conveying the story without providing his side of the story, which you already knew. So you actually passed the whole thing off as something it was not, certainly at least as something different from what it was. Boomerang!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>And what are the ethics of bringing it into THIS discussion when it really has nothing to do with talent and was fully aired over there?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography is about making decisions on how to show others what the photographer has a passion about on any particular subject or scene. How well that is portrayed or communicated defines the level of talent in a photographer as both a communicator and storyteller.</p>

<p>Ever heard of folks who have a talent for picking talent? That's a real skill/talent that has made some folks very rich because they are very good at making these kind of decisions much like the decisions a photographer makes on what and how they want to communicate an idea or story.</p>

<p>That's how that photo is related to distinguishing talent. Frankly, now that I saw that POTW thread that I didn't realize is archived in the critique section of that photographer's image gallery, I'm thinking whether I should start a thread on how to tell if a photographer has a talent for being socially tone deaf. It's getting really hard to distinguish now as it gets buried in all these debates.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>What you've done, Tim, is pretty much the same thing you've accused the POTW photographer of doing. Only you've actually done it and he hasn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer's responses in the POTW shows he can't be reasoned with. He's made his mind up as to how he views his treatment of that subject. It's done. And so I didn't want to extend the debate and have it archived forever in his gallery's critique section so I brought my concerns here as I feel it does relate to another way of recognizing talent in a photographer. Talent is directly connected to making decisions as I've said before.</p>

<p>Why did you have to post a link to what I was talking about, Fred? I didn't ask you do that. It was a generic question anyway. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>how to tell if a photographer has a talent for being socially tone deaf</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One way is to read their posts. I've made my determination.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>he can't be reasoned with</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only definition of "reason" I can assume here is "Agree with Tim Lookingbill." If you do this, you are reasonable. If not, if you make clear and articulate statements about your work and defend your own ethics, you are unreasonable. <br>

<br>

When I'm approached by someone being illogical, misrepresenting facts and categories, and ranting moralistic claptrap at me, I'm not usually swayed by their arguments either.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>so I brought my concerns here as I feel it does relate to another way of recognizing talent in a photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet you still chose to pass it off as something different than it was, leaving out that it was an actual situation and that the photographer had a different take on why he chose the category than you did, which was the point.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The only way you could show it to this new audience to be a "lack of talent" was by altering both the context and the facts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why did you have to post a link to what I was talking about, Fred? I didn't ask you do that. It was a generic question anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Read these three sentences again, Tim, and you may find some tone deafness that you've been looking for. "A link to what I was talking about" means you were, in fact, talking about the POTW. You were talking about a very real and specific instance. "It was a generic question" is quite simply false. It was about a very specific issue you had already been discussing. You described it in specific detail. It is not generic.<br>

<br>

I didn't call attention to the source because I had to. I did it because I wanted to, because you were being disingenuous and unfair to the photographer by not providing his own explanations for why he made the processing choices he did and for why he chose the street category, instead substituting your own ideas of what street should be and claiming he was passing it off as something akin to what you think street is rather than what HE thinks street is. Even if you're right about street and he's wrong (which is not the case), he wasn't passing it off as having the qualities you think are inherent in street. He chose street because of the qualities HE thinks it has. That's not passing something off. It's having a difference of opinion on what the category means.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The only definition of "reason" I can assume here is "Agree with Tim Lookingbill."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>....that...wait for it..."who didn't know a person who calls them self a photographer thinks it's a good idea to photograph a handicapped person and tonemap them to appear as if they're a menacing movie villain".</p>

<p>If you disagree then you'll have to live with that decision. I don't have to because it would never had entered my mind to create such a photograph. I don't have a talent (stomach) for it.</p>

[alfbailey]

<p><strong>Tim</strong>, if you are referring to my image discussed in length at POTW forum, then it might be wise to read my last post that gives a full and frank disclosure of why it was posted under "Street" and if you had any further issues with it then maybe you should have aired them there, but just to reiterate it was posted under street because it was taken on the street and I am at a loss as to why you find that in any way unusual? Even more alarming is the fact that you now seems to be making accusations that I am trying to "pass it off as impromptu street capture" I have been totally honest in my reasons of where and why I posted it. However it would appear you are determined to find some kind of fault with them. You describe the person as "handicapped" a term that would assume that he has a permanent disability, When all the evidence in the photo and before my own eyes would suggest that he has been recently injured and will likely recover. (again this was described directly under the photograph when it was posted if you care to read it) Not that there is the slightest relevance within these remarks to suggest whether I am talented or not, nor indeed kind I find any relevance within the correct context of this discussion. However I feel that the emotive use of words like "Handicapped Person" and "Unwilling participant" are purely being used as a point scoring tool that seemingly failed to deliver within the relevant discussion at POTW. Who said he was "unwilling"? or is that just another assumption? <br>

The real question is....why would any kind of "Category" that a photographer chooses to post an image under, be any kind of deciding factor as to whether the said photographer has any talent or ability? If that should be the case then a photographer that decides to post an amazing photograph of a flower in a vase under the category of ...lets say Landscapes should be castigated for his or her actions and deemed talentless? I really don't follow the logic if indeed there is any that Tim has applied to this thread, but suffice to say "Pigeon holing" and kind of restrictive practice cannot bode well for the multitude of "Talent" that exists and tries to surface. I suppose I will just have to join the long line of other "Talentless" photographers that don't conform to Tims ideal of social responsibility through categorisation. </p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't call attention to the source because I had to. I did it because I wanted to, because you were being disingenuous and unfair to the photographer by not providing his own explanations for why he made the processing choices he did and for why he chose the street category, instead substituting your own ideas of what street should be...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are being disingenuous by not respecting anonymity of the photographer a I was doing where I was merely bringing up an alternate concept for defining photographic talent. </p>

<p>I'm sure you're going to counter with some other unrelated aspect to the core of photographers acquiring a talent for making bad photographic decisions that they won't own up to.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tim, I won't bother to address your last comments. I do want to address your ideas about people with disabilities, however. If it's OK to photograph a person without a disability and create a fictionally sinister and villainous vibe, yes, it certainly ought to be OK to photograph a person with a disability that same way. Most people know fact from fiction and illusion from reality, whether the subject uses a crutch or not. If you have to give such special treatment to folks with disabilities, I suggest you go out and meet some and learn just how special they are not and just how specially they don't want to be treated. They may need certain physical and practical accommodations, but they don't need different photographic handling and they don't need special artistic dispensation. As I said in that thread, we have now evolved beyond gay people needing always to be tragic heroes of impeccable character and black people being portrayed in as stellar a manner as Sydney Poitier in <em>To Sir With Love</em>. I would hope people with disabilities could be afforded that same dignity, the dignity to portrayed as human, which comes with flaws, humor, irony, and lots of other realities.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Tim</strong>, if you are referring to my image discussed in length at POTW forum, then it might be wise to read my last post that gives a full and frank disclosure of why it was posted under "Street"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read it. You didn't get my point.</p>

<p>It goes beyond labeling a photo as "street". That's why I brought it here and wanted to keep you out of it so you don't take it personally. Basically it bowls down to the fact that you thought that it would be make for a very good photo take a picture of a handicapped person and tonemap him to make him appear as a villain in a movie without his consent or knowledge.</p>

<p>That's a talent I'm advising you not to cultivate as a photographer. How you label, title or post process it is irrelevant at this point. It's the things that we do when no one's watching us is what's important (it's who we are) and will be revealed unless someone points it out whether it's a bad or good decision.</p>

<p>I don't know if you realize or are capable of realizing how you portrayed that handicapped person is considered unethical and in bad taste. As I said before it would not have ever entered my mind to make a photograph in this manner and I'm wondering what made you think it was a good idea. I don't understand it.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Fred, there are some folks who are disabled and don't visually show it so broad brushing it that way redirects from the simple issue I laid out in reference to this one image in order to win an argument. I'm not arguing. I'm stating a POV centered around making ethical decisions behind creating photographs.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

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

<p>Who are you taking your photographs for?</p>

<p>Yourself to express your Art or others....open a Mac Donald's others will appreciate it more.</p>