A Natural Eye?

Perhaps some people have a natural gift for seeing photography as more than record shots :D. I've yet to meet someone who wasn't creative in some way - the only difference is the way(s) in which they have chosen to use their creativity, and perhaps the amount of effort they've put in to improve it. So, not some people - all people.
 
StephenM said:
Perhaps some people have a natural gift for seeing photography as more than record shots :D. I've yet to meet someone who wasn't creative in some way - the only difference is the way(s) in which they have chosen to use their creativity, and perhaps the amount of effort they've put in to improve it. So, not some people - all people.
Click to expand...

But are there any degrees of creativity in your opinion, or are we all equal in that regard?
 
this thread has gone around in circles so many times now, I'm tempted to take a photograph of the screen and enter it for march's Staff POTY under the topic "Curves"...

(hows that for a creative solution to my "artists block" i'm struggling with at the moment...)
 
Last edited:
RaglanSurf said:
I agree with you but this has never been a debate whether photography is or isn't art?
Click to expand...

He was never debating or discussing anything regarding any topic as far as I can tell. He tried telling us a few things though.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Davies Photography said:
However in both cases someone with a natural aptitude for creativity may fare better at both tasks. Photography is a form of Art so why your trying to differentiate i am not sure.
Click to expand...

On what basis can we assume that a natural aptitude for creativity even exists? Can we assume that?
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
But are there any degrees of creativity in your opinion, or are we all equal in that regard?
Click to expand...

I believe that creativity can be developed and improved, so yes I do believe that there are different degrees of creativity in that the same person can become more creative. Is that what you meant?
 
StephenM said:
I believe that creativity can be developed and improved, so yes I do believe that there are different degrees of creativity in that the same person can become more creative. Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...
I would agree with what you say above, and that we all have creative ability, but I suppose I was really asking if you think we all have the same capacity for creativity....are we all born equal in that regard? Your statement suggested that the only difference between people in this regard was the amount of effort/learning/practice/experiences or other developmental factors that have gone into honing their creativity, and that therefore we are all 'created equal' in the natural ability to be creative. This I find difficult to agree with (if that's what you're saying).
 
I wouldn't argue that point either way - I simply don't know. There are obviously differences between people in terms of motivation which would have a big influence on how far anyone could develop. I suspect that given two people with equal starting points and equal ability, the one with the greater motivation would come out on top. And even against a greater innate talent (however that's taken) a sufficiently greater motivation would come out ahead. Whether we decide that the difference in outcomes between two people was down to ability or motivation there would still be a difference and a point to argue over (or discuss, since in f & c we don't argue).

On that note, I call a halt - because I'll be away for a few days.
 
StephenM said:
I wouldn't argue that point either way - I simply don't know. There are obviously differences between people in terms of motivation which would have a big influence on how far anyone could develop. I suspect that given two people with equal starting points and equal ability, the one with the greater motivation would come out on top. And even against a greater innate talent (however that's taken) a sufficiently greater motivation would come out ahead. Whether we decide that the difference in outcomes between two people was down to ability or motivation there would still be a difference and a point to argue over (or discuss, since in f & c we don't argue).

On that note, I call a halt - because I'll be away for a few days.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stephen. A very interesting subject, with learning for all of us I think.

It's funny, I came home tonight to find my daughter (6) and youngest son (8) sitting together on the floor. She was drawing, as she does a lot. I wouldn't go as far as to say she is talented (especially not in this thread ;)) but she is quite good at it, perhaps simply because she enjoys it and practises a lot. Anyway, with this discussion in mind, I said to my son, who was looking at a book, "why don't you ever draw?" His answer, though half expected, was quite enlightening...."because I'm not very good at it." I'm not sure exactly where that came from, but it is probably true that as things stand he isn't as good as his younger sister. But of course the main reason for that is likely to be that he never practises. Even if their innate abilities are equal (or even if they're not), it is almost certainly the amount of practice she does that makes her so much more accomplished than him. So I told him "that's not true, it's just that you never do it....why don't you have a go now?". I then left them to it and went out to pick up their big brother from football (he's not so good at that, by the way, despite training twice a week plus matches at weekends for years on end :D). Of course, when I came home the two of them were both beavering away at drawings. The interesting thing was that the bit of confidence he gained from our chat had clearly motivated him and he actually was able to produce some quite good drawings, certainly enough to convince him that he's not 'naturally useless at drawing'. Obviously there are lots of variables here, but it does seem to fit in with a few things that have been said in this thread...the thing that resonated particularly was the idea that if you tell yourself (or are told) you aren't capable of something, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, sorry for the ramble.
 
Well, that was some read. What no one seems to have actually pinned down, is what a 'natural eye' is anyway? Which raises a few more points - the first one being, for those arguing in favour, how do you decide if some one has the natural eye and more pertinently, if you feel you can do that, how do you feel about your own, do you have one or not?

I am asking because one thing you do see time and time again on forums are people who convinced they are crap photographers - many are, some aren't. Conversely, you see lots of people who are convinced they are the next big thing, yet their photography, for most of us, would leave a LOT to be desired. However, whichever type of person they are, it is nearly always about a combination of skills and 'vision' [by that I mean having a fair idea of what works and what doesn't]- or lack there of.

I generally tend to side with RJ here, yes, I believe we are born with certain biological traits/characteristics that allow some of us to learn to be photographers [or artists, or anything else for that matter] far more easily & quickly than others born with different traits/characteristics. However, to me, that IS having a 'natural eye', it isn't some mystical thing and it doesn't mean someone born with less advantageous biology can't learn to be as good. It might take them longer, it will almost definitely require more encouragement and teaching/learning, a lot of determination, but they can get there.

Creativity is an entirely different thing, and I am not even starting on that one, there are already threads running on that thorny issue ;)
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
...Creativity is an entirely different thing, and I am not even starting on that one, there are already threads running on that thorny issue ;)
Click to expand...

I'll go further... anyone starts in on that, and I think I'll hive off the posts on that subject and merge them into the existing bear-pit thread :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yv
for now though, i've returned to my position from last night...


There Is No Spoon...
 
***Creativity is an entirely different thing, and I am not even starting on that one, there are already threads running on that thorny issue***

Easy with a digi camera in that you have subject then take hundreds of shots at all different angles and lenses and one of them should be "the" one...h'mm but I suppose you would have some sort of talent to choose which was the best ;)
Which reminds me of a stream (near me) winding thru' two gardens with shrubs and plants and occasional ducks and every year (and at different seasons) I use different lenses and can't get a great result......and often wondered how a gifted photographer would take that shot, of course if I was shown the best way it probably wouldn't work for hundreds of other subjects. So you've either got it or you haven't.
 
Yv said:
I generally tend to side with RJ here, yes, I believe we are born with certain biological traits/characteristics that allow some of us to learn to be photographers [or artists, or anything else for that matter] far more easily & quickly than others born with different traits/characteristics. However, to me, that IS having a 'natural eye', it isn't some mystical thing and it doesn't mean someone born with less advantageous biology can't learn to be as good. It might take them longer, it will almost definitely require more encouragement and teaching/learning, a lot of determination, but they can get there.

;)
Click to expand...

Well, if that's really what hes saying, we're back to being only an inch apart, the question then is the degree of influence a "trait" has v the degree of influence teaching has in supporting the end result, and for that we can chuck out bell curves and draw a pie chart...

mmmm........pie......:p


excalibur2 said:
Easy with a digi camera in that you have subject then take hundreds of shots at all different angles and lenses and one of them should be "the" one...h'mm but I suppose you would have some sort of talent to choose which was the best ;)
Click to expand...


y'see.....this is where you're missing it Bri, a natural talent needs only one shot, provided the camera exposes correctly, a natural talent doesn't need 11tybillion guesses
 
joxby said:
Well, if that's really what hes saying, we're back to being only an inch apart, the question then is the degree of influence a "trait" has v the degree of influence teaching has in supporting the end result, and for that we can chuck out bell curves and draw a pie chart...

mmmm........pie......:p
Click to expand...

yes and no... I am saying my definition of 'natural eye' is much closer to what RJ is saying, than the more indefinable quality others believe it is.

Pie...Yes please! :D
 
Did someone mention pie? :)

Actually, I have a question, well more of a ponder really.

A couple of years ago I was chatting to a local, highly regarded wedding pro. He's in his late 60s and has been a photographer all his life across numerous genres.

I said something along the lines of, "I often take what I think will be a good picture but it turns out to be rubbish."

He was puzzled by this and after a bit of thought said, "why? Can't you see through your viewfinder?"

Within a few weeks something very similar was said on a thread in another section of this forum.

I think about that a lot.

I suppose the question is, why do I, and going by Brian's post why do others, have this disconnect between viewfinder and final image?
 
joxby said:
y'see.....this is where you're missing it Bri, a natural talent needs only one shot, provided the camera exposes correctly, a natural talent doesn't need 11tybillion guesses
Click to expand...

This is where I think most are missing it: Only those who are very skilled will ordinarily get the shot in a single attempt, regardless of the presence of any natural characteristics that may or may not exist.
 
simon ess said:
I suppose the question is, why do I, and going by Brian's post why do others, have this disconnect between viewfinder and final image?
Click to expand...

Different question, different thread. But I've got my own ideas on it. They're in my book, so another extract may be forthcoming.

(Yes, I'm still here but about to not be as Spokeshave so eloquently put it :D)
 
droj said:
Or a gifted photographer might choose not to release the shutter .... because they couldn't see the material for a photograph?
Click to expand...

That's a good point, and I'm making the newbie mistake of:- a still camera would have more difficulty creating a shot that the naked eye pans.....back to using rectangles with my fingers :eek:
A while back I saw a guy with a large digi camera taking a quick shot of the same scene and said to him "You wont get a great shot as I've tried" h'mm I wonder if he did ;)

Just thought:- a painter would have no problem with the scene as he doesn't have to worry about lenses and there limitations.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
This is where I think most are missing it: Only those who are very skilled will ordinarily get the shot in a single attempt, regardless of the presence of any natural characteristics that may or may not exist.
Click to expand...

Life experience is my evidence, it has taught me that this is exactly what they do, see it shoot it, with little experience, no teaching and hardly any thought to what they are doing, in fact to actually consider it more deeply than a quick snap would be to circumnavigate that talent.
What we define as a good picture differs from person to person, but generally I think a good picture is something that provokes a response, makes me feel something.

Gotta go back to this girl I know, she knows nothing of the technicalities of photography and photographic equipment, she knows nothing about what makes a good picture, I've tried to "help" her on that but its a waste of time and really not at all relevant, she just knows what she likes, the equipment she uses is just what she has, nothing high performance or of value but what she captures are evocative, engaging and beautifully simple pictures, I highly doubt she even knows she has talent.
 
joxby said:
Life experience is my evidence, it has taught me that this is exactly what they do, see it shoot it, with little experience, no teaching and hardly any thought to what they are doing, in fact to actually consider it more deeply than a quick snap would be to circumnavigate that talent.
What we define as a good picture differs from person to person, but generally I think a good picture is something that provokes a response, makes me feel something.
Click to expand...

But you're assuming that because something wasn't explicitly taught, it also wasn't learnt. Humans, however, can learn implicitly without any conscious awareness that they're even doing so.

Language is an obvious example of this, as we'll see young children learning and speaking languages with complex grammatical rules before even attending a single day of school. Children and their parents won't be explicitly aware of this learning, but it has obviously taken place. If language can be learned implicitly without any teaching, why can't this be true of the skills used in photography?
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
But you're assuming that because something wasn't explicitly taught, it also wasn't learnt. Humans, however, can learn implicitly without any conscious awareness that they're even doing so.


Language is an obvious example of this, as we'll see young children learning and speaking languages with complex grammatical rules before even attending a single day of school. Children and their parents won't be explicitly aware of this learning, but it has obviously taken place. If language can be learned implicitly without any teaching, why can't this be true of the skills used in photography?
Click to expand...


Language is forced upon us from birth, parents spend every woken second teaching their kids language right from the instant they are born, its a fundamental skill that we can't live without, how is that comparable....it just isn't.
Anyway, 6 pages is enough for me, I'm gonna have to grade it a fail on the evidence presented but, its all about opinions :D
 
joxby said:
Language is forced upon us from birth, parents spend every woken second teaching their kids language right from the instant they are born, its a fundamental skill that we can't live without, how is that comparable....it just isn't.
Click to expand...
And the way we look at things isn't? Of course it's comparable.
 
joxby said:
Language is forced upon us from birth, parents spend every woken second teaching their kids language right from the instant they are born, its a fundamental skill that we can't live without, how is that comparable....it just isn't.
Anyway, 6 pages is enough for me, I'm gonna have to grade it a fail on the evidence presented but, its all about opinions :D
Click to expand...

Even if you do teach your kids bits about language, they'll understand far more complex concepts about that language than you'll have ever taught them. For instance, few parents will even know what gerundives or passive infinitives, but yet their children still seem to learn how to use them without any explicit help in this regard.

At any rate, there are parallels, but it's not worth discussing if you're not open to listening.

joxby said:
its all about opinions :D
Click to expand...

Yes, but shouldn't those opinions be based on something more than simply intuition? In other domains, it wouldn't be reasonable to make decisions simply based on intuition, so I can't figure out why everyone is so easily satisfied to do so here.
 
even if it was based on intuition, and it isn't, its perfectly reasonable to do so, you just don't think so
 
joxby said:
even if it was based on intuition, and it isn't, its perfectly reasonable to do so, you just don't think so
Click to expand...

According to the dictionary, being reasonable refers to being 'fair and rational' and 'having sound judgement' that is 'based on good sense'.

With that in mind, is it really reasonable to summarily dismiss peer-reviewed empirical evidence—that you (the royal you here) haven't even bothered reading—in favour of intuition and/or anecdotal evidence? I would argue that doing this constitutes the very essence of being unreasonable. In fact, in many occupations, this probably wouldn't even just be unreasonable, but also negligent.
 
TheBigYin said:
This thread has gone around in circles so many times now....
Click to expand...


...and nothing conclusive to report, or maybe there are intellectually-challenged philistines here who can't grasp the evidence as presented. Just goes to show you what it lets you see.
:)
When enthusiasts have a passion to shoot and listen to their gut all the way through -- shooting to processing to finished presentation -- they'll have enough keepers to make it feel worthwhile. Isn't that as good as it gets? It is for me. Some professionals may see things a little differently.

 
This is the first F&C thread I've completely given up on, far too reminiscent of other bits of the forum. Haven't found a way to stop it showing up, though. :(
 
ChrisR said:
This is the first F&C thread I've completely given up on, far too reminiscent of other bits of the forum. Haven't found a way to stop it showing up, though. :(
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I've been part of the problem, so sorry for that, but I've tried to be levelheaded, open, and fair. My own research overlaps with this area though (skill learning, but mostly in sport and performance contexts), so it is something that I am familiar with and can be passionate about.

While it may seem trivial to many, it's been particularly frustrating for me that a number of folks have been so openly dismissive of scientific research, as it implies that what I do is basically worthless, so that's a bit disheartening.

I don't do my own research for the sake of scientists and researchers, I do it so that it's useful for real life situations and hopefully informative for coaches, athletes, parents, physical educators, teachers, etc.

At any rate, you'll see I tried to break away from the thread earlier, but I just kept getting quoted and drawn back in. ;)
 
Last edited:
From what I can see we've had 237 posts in this thread, it's been interesting, frustrating, educational, frustrating, thought provoking and just a bit frustrating but I don't think anybody has been unreasonable, acted like a complete and utter twonk or thrown their toys out of the pram.
It is a bit out of the remit of f&c to talk on such a serious level and I assume we won't be making a habit of it but it's been a diversion and it's given Roberts enough time off to polish the silver and top up the decanters.

All's good in fusty and crusty (y)
 
Last edited:
WHS :agree:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top