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

[Allen Herbert]

<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"</p>

<p>Photographers photograph the world as it is.....nothing hidden....they offer a truth.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A percieved truth through their eyes.</p>

<p>But that is what matters.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>there are some folks who are disabled and don't visually show it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What this has to do with anything I said, I don't know. I'm talking about your consistently referring to this guy as "handicapped," in terms of the way he's portrayed in a photo through the use of post processing. You've made "handicapped" the issue, not me. I'm responding to your emphasis on it. If I'm doing any redirecting, it's in continually trying to redirect you back to your own words and thoughts.<br /> <br /> All I've said is that he should be treated no differently (photographically speaking) because he's (someone you keep referring to as) handicapped than were he not handicapped. Whether that's an argument or a point of view is irrelevant. Just deal with the substance of that one particular thought. If he were not handicapped, why would it be OK to post process him in a sinister manner but it's not OK because he is?</p>

[alfbailey]

<p>I think any genuine "Handicapped" person would actually be appalled if we would separate them by singling them out and by consciously not including them from any area of photography, whether it be theatrical, street, journalistic or any other genre you care to mention. After all, don't you think they would want to be treated the same? They are just people after all. <br /> The fact that we haven't actually established that the person in the image is "Handicapped" in any permanent way seems to have fallen by the way side and the continual emotive, even sensationalist metaphors relating to "Handicapped" people continue to reign. Tim, I don't take your views personally at all, I find them interesting if something less than illuminating. I just seek to advise you to free your mind from such restrictions that could prevent you from displaying your talent. I would imagine that handicapped people feel ostracised enough by society in general without photographers adding them to a list of "no go" area's. Again I will repeat myself "asking permission" was not an option on two counts. 1 I didn't consider the subject approachable, and 2 the actual title and intention to post as a scary character was not born until weeks later.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alf, not sure what you think about something I said in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here, because I think it does show why you may be considered at least by some (including me) to have talent. In describing your feelings about not approaching the guy, you mentioned the big city danger vibe and some fears you were experiencing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even fiction, stagecraft, and theatricality are inspired or instigated by some deeply felt and authentic emotions. Our creative imaginations don't just happen. I see a connection here. The "evil" or sinister vibe may be theatrical, in having been created by lighting and other post processing means, but perhaps unintentionally or unconsciously, it stems from the foreboding feelings Alf has expressed. Hearing Alf and looking at the picture says to me that Alf was somewhat unfiltered, even if unintentionally motivated at the time, in his photographic expression and in how his experience at the time informs his making of the photo and even his using "evil" in the title. <br>

<br>

Alf says he might be wrong about the guy. He's not expressing a so-called truth about the guy, but it seems to me he's expressing his own authentic feelings, through a theatrical vision. This photo is a revelation about Alf, which a photo often is in relation to an instinctively open and liberated photographer, whether or not it reveals much about its subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When a photographer instinctively and even unintentionally transfers his own feelings into the photo he's creating, I think we have something rare and special . . . call it talent or call it something else, and call it innate or not, it is certainly worth noting.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Handicapped, why specifically hone in on one word I was only using to identify the person being photographed. That's the same folks who would ask Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play after her husband was assassinated.</p>

<p>I'll put it another way for those who have to win an argument focusing on one word instead of the bigger picture. The subject in Alf's image is clearly handicapped by the use of a crutch I've seen being used by polio victims back in the '60's. That actually adds to the interest of the subject but as a handicapped person struggling, not to be perceived misleadingly as some Igor character from a "Resident Evil"/ graphic novel type flick which I actually saw as well.</p>

<p>Also the man in Alf's image has a wound on his head and appears by his posture and facial expression that he's tired from doing whatever he was doing (climbing stairs with a crutch?) and/or suffering from depression. I mean hasn't the man suffered enough from being judged on his looks without now having to be portrayed as a menace to society as some villain in a movie without his consent? Just because consent can't be attained doesn't leave the photographer off the hook for making such a bad decision in order to fulfill some photographic vision that's contrived at best and exploitative at worst.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I mean hasn't the man suffered enough from being judged on his looks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You seem to be the one person here judging this man by his looks. You've determined what he wants and needs by how he looks.<br /> <br /> You say there's a bigger picture but that bigger picture in your description is still all about his being handicapped, though now you've added the bruise.<br /> <br /> Of course we've focused on that one word, because you keep using it and because you've used it as the isolating factor in why he shouldn't be made into Igor. If he weren't handicapped, it doesn't seem you would have a problem with him being fictionalized as Alf did. So, yes, "handicap" has been your focus and it is, in reaction, ours.<br /> <br /> He wasn't PERCEIVED as an Igor character. He was used as the raw material to CREATE one. Again, we must keep the difference in mind between fact and fiction, reality and illusion.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You don't make any valid sense, Fred, that moves this topic beyond just tit for tat argument sake.</p>

<p>The person is being used, misrepresented and exploited for his looks and bodily condition without his permission. It's a bad and uninspiring idea for a photograph. </p>

[alfbailey]

<p>Fred G <br>

I did read the particular passage that you previously posted and now refer to, and I gave it some considerable thought. <br>

It does seem logical that a perception of "evil" or a fear of something sinister looking, could be experienced and then expressed by creating a villain from the same source. The innermost fears, joy and solitude and a whole host of other emotions we feel are all expressions that we hope to portray and even project to our audience. Put simply I think we all want share our experiences. And where I try to do that deliberately with landscapes pretty much near all the time. I didn't consciously do it here. However after reading your analysis, I think the likelihood of a connection between my fears and my posting is very strong. Now whether that is interpreted as talent is probably a decision for each individual viewer to make, but I think the logic and reasoning you have applied are soundly based and illuminating. And yes certainly worth noting! </p>

[alfbailey]

<p>Tim it is you that seem to be missing the point, Why are you continually trying to separate this man from the rest of society. I take you would think it was ok to use a relatively healthy person, or would the fact that they were old automatically rule them out, of maybe if they had red hair it wouldn't be fair. You make huge assumptions about the state of the man's health, and decide for him if it's appropriate to photograph him or not. Because you saw a polio victim using a similar crutch it doesn't follow that this guy has the same or a similar disease that just is not a valid argument. I saw a long John Silver using one but it doesn't make me believe he's a pirate. The fact that the guy was carrying a crutch is not evidence in itself that he was handicapped. He moved about freely, he didn't "struggle" or labour up the stairs........I was there remember. He could of in fact been dancing with it minutes previously to my taking the image, the fact is I don't know that, but then neither does anyone else. However some of us don't make the far reaching assumptions and moral judgements that even the subject might find patronising. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Fred, aside from my observation and opinions of Alf's image, can you locate, describe the talent put into creating the image?</p>

<p>Alf, not interested in your excuses to support your intent behind creating your "Resident Evil" image. Neither am I interested in your dissecting every word I've used to assess it. You can dismiss what I said by calling them as baseless assumptions but it still doesn't make it a better decision behind creating the photo in the first place. I stand by what I say and I have enough integrity to stick to it and I don't have a history here or anywhere online in getting into constant arguing on subjects like this just so I win.</p>

<p>I don't give a sh*t what anyone thinks about my POV or opinions, but I won't back down when I know I'm right. And I'm 100% on this coming from a background of making images that communicate effectively since I was a teenager. And yeah, I was constantly told I was talented by Fine Art professors and other educated professionals in the imaging arts going that far back so I feel confident enough to stand on my own words. </p>

 

[spanky]

<p>Fred, much of my technical skill in processing film and make traditional wet prints is from trial and error. My first class was an all day Sat class. Missing one day was like missing two. On the day the teacher went over the steps for making a print I skipped class due to a nasty cold. The next week I pretty much had to wing it with some help from whomever was at the enlargers to my right and left and they were only a little less clueless then me. I picked up tips here and on Apug and other sites but for the most part I just had to go through massive amounts of paper. That was over ten years ago. Now I have everything down to what I want my prints to look like so I can pretty much be an assembly line and churn out an impressive number of prints in a single session. So yes, I really don't care about gear. I am casually curious about film photographers who print their own work. I always hold such photographers in higher esteem then those who out source their printing work. A couple of months ago at MOCA there was about 30 or so Winogrand pictures up. I know for much of Winogrands life he let others do his printing but I have to admit some of these prints I thought I could print a better example. I'm sure for 99% of the other people who viewed these pictures it wasn't an issue but I suppose when you are a perfectionist like me, these things just jump out.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>So yes, I really don't care about gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, to be clear, whether you care about gear was not my point. I appreciate what you've said. What I was questioning was why you'd assume that SOMEONE ELSE who cares about or who references their gear is a beginner?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Re <i>"I really don't care about gear"</i>.<br>Anyone who takes what he or she is doing serious cares about the tools and materials he or she needs to turn ideas into the envisaged result. The same regarding the technical skills needed to use those tools and materials to get the desired result.<br>It may not matter much anymore once the product is finished, and it usually does not matter much to the intended audience. But anyone who assumes and/or says that gear (or having the required technical skills) isn't important doesn't know what he is talking about (or - as is not uncommon - is assuming a posture: "I'm so good that i'm above all that. My brilliance suffices to turn everything i turn my attention to into gold" and such).<br><br>Things go wrong in a different way too, when people think that the intended result is to demonstrate a mastery of the tools and materials, to demonstrate how excellent their skills are, instead of using all of those to turn ideas into reality. A phenomenon so common that it has been given a name or two of itself: craft, a.k.a. fine art.<br>But misjudging the instrumental role of tools, materials and skills so badly does not mean that tools, materials and skills aren't important. The mistake is in the misunderstanding of the role these things play. But mistaking instruments for the final goal doesn't mean these instruments do not have an important, but different, role to play. They most certainly do.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, aside from my observation and opinions of Alf's image, can you locate, describe the talent put into creating the image?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already have. But I will reiterate and summarize what I've already said. <br /> <br /> First, please see my post from yesterday at 8:13 PM, which says that, for me, there's talent involved in being able to express oneself in an unfiltered manner, in being able to even and perhaps especially take one's fears in the moment and create a fiction that expresses a kind of hyper- or pseudo-fear or negativity. That ability somehow seems even stronger to me when it just happens (unfiltered) and is unintentional. It means to me we're getting something very authentic. I think raw talent is authentic. Additionally, I think talented photographers are good at making photos that are metaphoric even as they may be grounded in very real or even common street situations. And I think Alf has done that. As Lex pointed out in the POTW thread, it's not often one sees a salient combination of street work and theatricality such as this. This has all been stated quite aside from your own opinions as it was all said already in the POTW thread long before you even entered the discussion. I think Alf saw the stage-like quality of the setup, man standing alone in a potentially gothic-like setting, seen from below, with tall domineering window behind him and his creative instincts found a way to fictionalize that scene in a way that was obviously recognizable to all of us (the horror movie-ish-ness of it all), that was consistent with what he saw and, even more importantly, might well have been inspired by his authentic feelings of doubt or fear at the moment. I think the photo also shows a strong sense of perspective and how perspective can help express meaning and feeling, and that's a photographic talent, IMO.</p>

[spanky]

<p>To Fred and Q.G, yes, gear is important, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all that some photographers make it out to be. When I was a beginner, like many others, I put way too much emphasis on the camera as the means behind the photograph. Is my lens good enough? Is my shutter accurate? Am I used the right dilution for my desired contrast? What a liberating feeling I had when I decided to chuck all of that out the window and just worry about what is occuring inside of me when I'm shooting. That has a much bigger factor in my work then anything else. Gear is important, yes, which is why I'm using the best I can afford. Can I take better pictures with a Leica then my current Nikon and Zeiss lenses? Maybe, maybe not. I tried out a Mamiya 7II and decided I would still take better pictures with "Big Bertha" my RZ67. When I look at a photograph, I don't think about what camera was used, or the film, or any of that. I did when I was a beginner so maybe that explains my thought process in this matter.</p>

[spanky]

<p>Another quick thought that occurred to me as I'm getting ready to head over to my darkroom. There's a person on a street photography group I visit who lists his Leica gear with his pictures and maybe even his film, I can't remember. Anyway, his pictures are imo mediocre. Now is the fact that he is using a Leica somehow supposed to matter to me? Does a mediocre photograph taken with a Leica somehow take on more significance then a mediocre picture taken with a Canon or Nikon? On the other hand, if he starts to upload truly amazing photographs am I supposed to give the credit for such virtuosity to him or to his Leica? Am I supposed to think "Gee, I'd love to take pictures like these so I guess I need to start using a Leica." Am I making any sense? A camera is a tool like a paint brush is a tool, a chisel is a tool and a piano is a tool. Listing them with photos one uploads just makes no sense to me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Now is the fact that he is using a Leica somehow supposed to matter to me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know. It seems to matter enough to him to list it. That's what I'd focus on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does a mediocre photograph taken with a Leica somehow take on more significance then a mediocre picture taken with a Canon or Nikon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, if he starts to upload truly amazing photographs am I supposed to give the credit for such virtuosity to him or to his Leica?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would give it to him.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I supposed to think "Gee, I'd love to take pictures like these so I guess I need to start using a Leica."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I making any sense?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A little.</p>

<p>I wouldn't read much more into the practice of listing gear than this: People sometimes identify with the things they use regularly. Any car will get me to and fro and yet people often ask what kind of car I have. Pianists very often let us know what pianos they prefer to play on. Guitarists often are identified with the brand guitar they use, cigarette smokers with a favorite brand. I think of these things like I do names. You'd be the same person without the name, but it somehow becomes attached to you. Also, people often think the brand they use is the best. So they like to make it known. And, in some cases, a particular type of camera (if not brand) may be quite well suited to a particular kind of result, so the information can be interesting.</p>

[alfbailey]

<p>Tim, I don't need to make any "excuses" my image stands all falls in it's own right. It is there to be appreciated or criticized. I don't mind which but it's good to get constructive feedback which helps me to improve my photography.<br>

You seem to becoming rather agitated that I have delivered answers to your opinions and that was not my intention, However if you really don't "give a sh*t about what anyone thinks about your POV's and opinions why bother to pursue them into a totally unrelated thread. </p>

<p>If I have dissected every word then it is because of the inappropriate words and scenario's you have to used to try and justify your original stance. I have merely chosen to answer you. <br>

I have never had any professors telling me I had talent, and I find it really odd that you feel you need to back up your views with claims relating to your own questionable talent when it was never brought in question in the first place. Next thing you'll be telling my how many degrees' you have in photography.<br>

No one is asking you to "back down" Tim we can agree to disagree, but the image was assessed by others to have merit not me. <br>

Have a good week! </p>

 

[spanky]

<p>We seem to be on the same page Fred, but I still think unless a particular company is paying one to endorse their products I don't see how listing ones gear is going to matter to anyone. I see your point though about people being attached to their gear. I'm often asked by people what camera they should buy. I have no way to answer that question so I tell them get whichever camera comes with a return policy so you can try it out to see if you feel comfortable using it. People who know me as a photographer mistakenly presume I'm knowledgeable about cameras and I'm not. I can tell them everything about the cameras I use and that's it. <br>

Now lets talk musical instruments. I think it's a safe bet to presume many people are familiar with the name "Stradivarius" even if they don't listen to classical music. The name has become synonymous with excellence. Now can I tell the difference between a violin solo played on one of these fine instruments and a different one of high quality but of a lesser pedigree? Most likely not and according to Wikipedia a lot of other people cannot tell the difference either. However, to a person playing a Stradivarius, it may have a effect on them mentally that may in turn affect how they play the instrument. It may make performing with it more of a joy...or maybe it doesn't matter. Like I said I used a Mamiya 7 II for a weekend since I like the 6X7 format and maybe because I'm getting older (or lazy) I'm open to the idea of a lighter camera in this format. However, it's a rangefinder and I just couldn't get the hang of it. I recently read the new Leica store in LA offers rentals. Other places do too but I may stop in someday and rent one for a weekend...I've always been intrigued to find out for myself if they measure up to the hype. </p>

[jacqui1]

<p><strong>Tim</strong>...I have entered this conversation at a late stage so please forgive me. I have now read the previous posts and traced it back to Alf's stunning image that was discussed as the recipient of POTW. A great debate and a very well deserved accolade!</p>

<p>To my mind the conversation has steered away from the "category" that Alf posted his image under, to the ethics of taking a photo of a handicapped person (even though it has never been determined, as far as I can see, that the person in the photograph is indeed even handicapped!) to a more recent remark in this thread that questions Alfs talent.</p>

<p>Tim, some words of advice.....never judge a book by it's cover and we all know what assumption is huh!? </p>

<p>Although I cannot be as articulate or as knowledgeable as <strong>Fred G</strong> in my response, I can, and do completely agree with his analysis of Alfs talent.</p>

<p>I do feel it is only fair, that when someones talent is bought into question over a single photograph, then the bigger picture has to looked at, to get a better idea of their work and as a photographer. I have seen a lot of Alfs work on PN and have to say I am truly impressed with his work, so much so that I did a bit more research and discovered Alf has won several competitions, including a place in the Sony World Photographic awards..... two years running!</p>

<p>In balance, I thought it was only fair to then take a look at the work of the person making the accusations and questioning the talent of another photographer....</p>

<p><strong>Tim </strong>.... I am by no means an expert photographer, but then I don't think I need to be to express my likes, dislikes and opinions. Having looked through your Portfolio Tim, I'm left speechless, much like the other numerous viewers who may have paused to view your work and not commented. Your images left me unmoved and quite frankly bored. I see nothing among your images that has captured feeling, emotion, atmosphere or the imagination! Your obsession with yourself on the other hand, speaks volumes, it speaks of a self centered, egotistical bigot that can only inflate his own ego with so called comments from nameless faceless professors that told you that you have talent ..... I have news for you Timmy, they lied.....big time!</p>

<p>My research also revealed that Alf took up photography some 6 years ago ..... seems like he has learned more in that time span than you have in a lifetime!</p>

<p>I , and likely others in this forum would have a lot more respect for you if you didn't try to "big yourself up" with spurious claims of being talented, why not take a lesson from Alf and the greater part of the photographic community and let your images do the boasting!</p>

<p>In the meantime Tim, keep mentioning Alfs name and his photo, although he appears already quite well known, I'm sure he will appreciate the further publicity :) </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>We might want to take a breath here. Dissing someone else's portfolio as a response to their moralizing about and critiquing a fellow photographer's work doesn't seem like terribly good form. Then again, neither is claiming, in the middle of a discussion, that one is 100% right and doesn't give a sh*t what anyone else thinks. Nor is silencing someone for challenging the poster who has attributed depression to an unknown subject of a photo if they are next going to project a different illness onto the guy. I'd like to see all participants, both in front of and behind the scenes, in this thread, take one giant step backwards.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Jaqueline Sanderson, you express honest, exhausted views that others with better form may not want to state so vividly. Even though Tim will see it as an irritation and blow and provocation or something more... I add n ow a personal open note to Tim.

Tim, I think you hold some hostility that you vent in these exchanges on line. You do not see it. I think also as a long time member and follower, you need some help to deal with that toxic anger. It is no blow to self esteem to notice anger and control anger. Anger veiled as commentary and self righteous word arguments is a form of what is called ( yes an unfortunate name) passive-aggressive behavior. It does not label a person as this or that but it defines the behavior. It is time I made this opinion to you whether you take it kindly or as a chip knocked off the shoulder or feel it also to be full of sh*t. It poisoned the topic for me. The topic was of value until it became what it became. Gotta leave. More in sorrow than anger.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Like I said before I'm not concerned over other's opinions of me personally and my portfolio/gallery. I don't get bothered by it as some here have demonstrated by their responses.</p>

<p>I do on rare occasions see something that bothers me on this site and decide to call attention to it. I recognize it for what it is, name it and state my case.</p>

<p>When anyone as a photographer is left on their own in their own thoughts in the attempt to create an image for public view makes the decision Alf did to make someone out to be a comic book character, something the person is not, I have a problem with it and I have a right and a duty as someone who has a background as a visual communicator to point it out in public. Everyone has that little voice inside that says this is good idea and that is bad idea. I questioned Alf's little voice as a photographer.</p>

<p>That's what I did and I stand by it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not concerned over other's opinions of me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That goes without saying. It's very obvious.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as someone who has a background as a visual communicator</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why your myopia is even more surprising.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone has that little voice inside that says this is good idea and that is bad idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your posts here make me skeptical about this.<br>

<br>

It is gratifying that you have finally, in your last post, not referred to the subject of the photo as handicapped or disabled. That tells me you've internalized the fact I've been trying to point out to you all along that you've been stereotyping the guy. It's a step in the right direction that you've tweaked your thinking a little bit.<br>

<br>

Anyone who's involved in communication knows that communication is a two-way street. One has to articulate their own thoughts AND understand the thoughts of others. Without both, communication does not take place. Your'e OK though not great at the first part. As Gerry pointed out, you have anger issues which cloud your ability to be fully coherent. And you've claimed over and over not to understand me. Your being the only one in the thread who doesn't tells me your comprehension is limited and that side of the communication you seem to pride yourself on is lacking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I stand by it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was there ever any doubt?</p>