A Natural Eye?

[Andysnap]

I was just browsing the film photo section and I came across a couple of quotes which got me to thinking.

This from Trev Bray
Since returning to film I shoot far fewer frames and am trying to be even more subjective when composing. I'm not sure I have a natural 'eye' but I'm willing to learn.

And this from RJ
There's no such thing as a 'natural eye'. For what evolutionary purpose would any of us come out of the womb wired for composing photographs?

Now, I understand exactly what Trev is saying, I really have to work at and think about what makes a good shot and I suspect I very rarely get it right. Whereas some people seem to be able to walk into a spot and immediately see the image, or realise that there isn't an image there and move on.
RJ seems to be saying that this is a learned skill and not an art, that photographers have to work to develop the ability to spot the shot.

Is this true? Or are there naturally gifted people who are 'artists', who see it immediately, who just know....

Discuss.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, by the way, I'm just interested in how it all works.

Andy

 

[Deleted member 21335]

I recognise the quotes as they were in my thread!

I don't have what has been described there as a 'natural eye'. I do know people and see photos from people who can seemingly shoot the most mundane subjects and get really good, interesting photos of them, where I would either not think of pointing the camera at it or come home with a load of rubbish. It's really very frustrating. Lately I am trying to forget technical aspects to a degree and just try and concentrate on creating something pretty. Thus far though, it doesn't seem to be working. :bang:

 

[skysh4rk]

For what evolutionary purpose would any of us come out of the womb wired for composing photographs?

Until someone can answer this for me, I can't see any argument for photography being anything other than a learned skill.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Until someone can answer this for me, I can't see any argument for photography being anything other than a learned skill.

Whilst I can see your point, surely some people can me more 'natural', for want of a better word, at it than others? The same way some people take to sports or whatever better than others.

 

[skysh4rk]

Whilst I can see your point, surely some people can me more 'natural', for want of a better word, at it than others? The same way some people take to sports or whatever better than others.

For what purpose would any of us have a 'natural' ability to take a photograph? Modern humans have been around for 150,000 years or so and photography has been around .000000001% of that time, so I can't see how this would be any kind of genetically-bestowed gift.

With regard to sport, why would someone come out of a womb better able to shoot a basketball? They don't.

Folks might have physical characteristics that make them better suited to certain sports, but they still have to develop the skills to exploit those advantages.

 

[Andysnap]

Until someone can answer this for me, I can't see any argument for photography being anything other than a learned skill.

I totally see your point RJ, the technical aspects of taking a photo are a learned skill but is there not a case, as Gareth states, that some people are naturally better at the more artistic side of it, the 'seeing' bit, the bit where the emotional side takes over? Or are you convinced, like Sheldon Cooper, that it is all science?

 

[steveo_mcg]

A natural eye, I've got two both are rubbish for photography!

To counter @skysh4rk (this is forming a pattern) I do believe some people are naturally more artistic and can pick up composition easier than others, just as theoretically any one can play guitar it's possible for some to learn in a single lifetime.

 

[StephenM]

I don't think that we are all the same, and I'm not sure that the differences are down to upbringing. Some people take to certain things more easily than others, some people like things that others don't. And I suspect that it's the "liking" that makes the difference. If you care enough about something, you'll put in the effort required. Jacob served Laban for 7 years to "earn" Rachel, but he clearly wouldn't have put in that effort for Leah! If you care enough about "seeing" you'll put in the effort.

That said, I also think that "seeing" requires more than just careful careful observation. You need to know what sort of things will have a subjective effect on people generally, and that takes us into the psychology of vision. Some people may have a better innate grasp of these things, or it may simply be the effect of conscious or unconscious training. Think of Dr. Watson's first experiences with Sherlock Holmes, and SH's explanation that his immediate deductions were the result of training. So I'll cite Conan Doyle as agreeing with me...

Anyone can be trained to look and see, if they're willing to learn. Beyond a certain point, I think everyone reaches a personal limit. Not everyone can reach Usain Bolt's 100m time, no matter how hard they train. But I strongly suspect that few reach their limit - just as few athletes probably do (although they may need to be in full time training to get there!).

 

[skysh4rk]

I totally see your point RJ, the technical aspects of taking a photo are a learned skill but is there not a case, as Gareth states, that some people are naturally better at the more artistic side of it, the 'seeing' bit, the bit where the emotional side takes over? Or are you convinced, like Sheldon Cooper, that it is all science?

My PhD relates to skill learning and I'm unconvinced by the mysticism surrounding natural 'talent' and 'gifts'.

 

[steveo_mcg]

My PhD relates to skill learning and I'm unconvinced by the mysticism surrounding natural 'talent' and 'gifts'.

Man, if your going to bring learning and facts to a discussion then I'm just going to go home, how can we hope to have a polarised circular discussion under those circumstances!

 

[Andysnap]

"With regard to sport, why would someone come out of a womb better able to shoot a basketball? They don't."

I'm not convinced that this is the case. I believe that some people are more predisposed to certain tasks/sports/arts etc. Not everyone can be taught to paint like Vermeer there has to be a natural talent there in the first place. Not everyone can learn to play football as good as Pele (showing my age) there has to be some natural in-born talent... doesn't there?

 

[simon ess]

Humans have been creating visual imagery since earliest times.

It's about rather more than photography.

Nature and natural forms are very much rooted in simple mathematical concepts such as the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio.

The human brain is wired to respond to these concepts and is probably constructed on the same lines.

I believe we are all born with a natural ability to see composition but most of us learn to believe that we don't.

Just my theory.

 

[MartynK]

I don't have an answer for you, but for what it's worth, I think that...

Most of the technical skills of photography have to be learned, and developed through experience. This probably comes more easily to some people than others, but it's well within anyone's capability if they're sufficiently interested.

The artistic side - in the broadest sense - may well be similar in the sense that it can be learned, but possibly lends itself more to some sort of natural "gift" too. My daughter (30) has never had any art lessons but has been able to draw and paint remarkably well since she was a child. She's not particularly interested in photography, but I've also been astonished by her ability to spot the makings of a good photograph and capitalise on them, often taking something very prosaic and turning it into a shot I'd have struggled to see in advance.

This is just my personal opinion, I'm not looking for an argument either!

 

[steveo_mcg]

My PhD relates to skill learning and I'm unconvinced by the mysticism surrounding natural 'talent' and 'gifts'.

Man, if your going to bring learning and facts to a discussion then I'm just going to go home, how can we hope to have a polarised circular discussion under those circumstances!

Ah why not, I'm pulling Shakespeare...
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Asha]

I struggle to "see" a photograph ....... it doesn't come naturally which can be frustrating when I know there is a shot there somewhere but I can't find it!:banghead:

I do however have a fantastic natural ability to make mistakes in most tasks that i do ....Now that skill is something i was definetly born with!

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

My PhD relates to skill learning and I'm unconvinced by the mysticism surrounding natural 'talent' and 'gifts'.

Interesting, though instinctively (and without relevant academic training ) I disagree.

Using football as an example, it seems obvious that some footballers are successful through significant innate 'talent', despite a lack of application or learning effort (George Best springs to mind), whereas others are successful through a disproportionate amount of hard work and application, with less of the obvious ability (David Beckham). This difference may not be an "innate footballing ability", but relates to co-ordination, reflexes, spatial awareness, or other things which are measurably different from one human being to the next, putting aside the obvious physical attributes that are required to be a top footballer, some, but not all of which can be developed (and some of which are therefore also 'innate'). Obviously some of these things can be nurtured and improved through lots of hard work (Beckham) but they are not present equally in all successful footballers. And I don't see why the same distinctions can't apply to humans with different innate mental attributes as they obviously do between musculo-skeletal ones, when arguably the brain is just another body part which is different in each of us.

I suppose it's the nature-nurture argument in a nutshell. Anyone who has met my three children will know that they are like chalk and cheese (and, let's say chimney pots for the third one), despite having more or less the same upbringing.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

And I don't see why the same distinctions can't apply to humans with different innate mental attributes as they obviously do between musculo-skeletal ones, when arguably the brain is just another body part which is different in each of us.

This is pretty much identical to what I was going to reply but you have worded it better than I could. And it translates into pretty much anything I can think of. I admire writers who can articulate things in such a way that I struggle. i don;t believe that's down to training and practice 100%, but some people just do have a natural talent for it.

With regard to sport, why would someone come out of a womb better able to shoot a basketball? They don't.

I would argue against that too. Some people will just take to it better or easier than others. As Francesco said above, some can achieve similar levels by hard work and determination where some can just do certain things. People's brains work differently. I believe this is the same with photography. I am trying to work hard to learn how to make better photographs where some people can just do it.

 

[sirch]

For what purpose would any of us have a 'natural' ability to take a photograph? Modern humans have been around for 150,000 years or so and photography has been around .000000001% of that time, so I can't see how this would be any kind of genetically-bestowed gift.

With regard to sport, why would someone come out of a womb better able to shoot a basketball? They don't.

Folks might have physical characteristics that make them better suited to certain sports, but they still have to develop the skills to exploit those advantages.

Could it be a "re-purposed" evolutionary trait, like basket ball might be; if you are good at throwing rocks at food that is running away from you then you will eat better and have more kids.

As hunting animals we have developed eyes and brains that are particularly well adapted to certain aspects of nature. We are also very good at recognizing faces, for example we can see a "face" in this :-

So it could be that people who have a "natural eye" are just more attuned to seeing things like faces, movement, water with which other people empathize more readily because we all share common visual and mental processing traits which were evolved to recognize prey, threats, hunting grounds, etc.

 

[StephenM]

This is pretty much identical to what I was going to reply but you have worded it better than I could. And it translates into pretty much anything I can think of. I admire writers who can articulate things in such a way that I struggle. i don;t believe that's down to training and practice 100%, but some people just do have a natural talent for it.

Please don't take this as a personal remark, or even a question that I expect you to answer.

I'm going to use C. H. Spurgeon, Martin Luther and John Owen for this post. Spurgeon remarked that there was a correlation (that he'd observed) between the size of a minister's library and the length of their pastorates. The point being that to have something fresh to say depended on copious reading. He also recommended certain authors as "teaching a man to think". Now thinking is something that is innate in all of us, but some are better at it than others, and he was of the opinion that the skill could be honed. I found reading one of Martin Luther's books a revelation in showing me at first hand how close reasoning worked, and it's a lesson I've always remembered. Thoroughness is another, and anyone who's read any of John Owen's works (1616-1683) will appreciate what this means.

So back on writing. There are courses to teach people to write; there are techniques to follow for writing. And there is learning by example. Which brings me to the rhetorical question - if you find writing difficult how much reading do you do that matches the kind of writing that you find difficult?

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Please don't take this as a personal remark, or even a question that I expect you to answer.

I'm going to use C. H. Spurgeon, Martin Luther and John Owen for this post. Spurgeon remarked that there was a correlation (that he'd observed) between the size of a minister's library and the length of their pastorates. The point being that to have something fresh to say depended on copious reading. He also recommended certain authors as "teaching a man to think". Now thinking is something that is innate in all of us, but some are better at it than others, and he was of the opinion that the skill could be honed. I found reading one of Martin Luther's books a revelation in showing me at first hand how close reasoning worked, and it's a lesson I've always remembered. Thoroughness is another, and anyone who's read any of John Owen's works (1616-1683) will appreciate what this means.

So back on writing. There are courses to teach people to write; there are techniques to follow for writing. And there is learning by example. Which brings me to the rhetorical question - if you find writing difficult how much reading do you do that matches the kind of writing that you find difficult?

An interesting point and I appreciate you taking the time. I am happy to answer. The answer is of course, lots. I read and admire peoples blogs both written and photographically. I write my own for the sake of writing them and then delete them never to be seen because frankly, they are utter garbage. The same with the majority of the images I take. In fact, I was writing a post in the "talk photography' section about this very thing but hey, it flows with this conversation so I will summarise it here.....

I am off to Iceland on the TP trip in two weeks. Since wanting to go and now going I have looked at a lot of blogs of peoples images to Iceland. I LOVE them. The photos are magical and shot in more of a documentary style than, for example, that of an accomplished landscape photographer. I know that if these people posted them here in the C&C sections, they would receive comments like some of my own photos have done recently. That they are a bit boring and bland and that they don't grab you. But to me they are beautiful. Shots of people, local animals, scenery, lots on film (this is the F&C section after all) and just lovely to look at. These people to me have a natural eye for things like this and, try as I might, I wouldn't be able to achieve the same things.

 

[StephenM]

Thanks for the reply. It begs a load of questions that are definitely off topic! I find myself wondering (with respect to the writing) whether novelty leans enchantment, and whether your own writing wouldn't elicit a better response from someone to whom the material was new. As to judging some to have a natural eye - how do you know? Can you be sure that they haven't put in a lot of work, study and analysis to achieve their results? I've never seen a football match in my life, and never (as far as I know) even seen a film clip of George Best and David Beckham playing. Is it obvious (assuming that earlier posts are correct) from the play alone which has the innate ability and which works hard at it?

As to your last statement - I'd be flabbergasted if it were actually true! It's possible to concentrate on the wrong areas and work hard to no effect. No matter how physically fit I was, I wouldn't be able to beat a top tennis player; and equally, no matter how much I understood tennis, I'd still fail if I wasn't fit. It's not just hard work - it's applying yourself to the correct areas.

A final 17th century quote, from Richard Baxter this time. "It isn't the reading of many books that is necessary to make a man wise or good, but the well reading of a few - could he be sure to have the best". I think this applies across the board.

Edit - I think I'd better bow out at this point as having posted too much!

 

[skysh4rk]

Using football as an example, it seems obvious that some footballers are successful through significant innate 'talent', despite a lack of application or learning effort (George Best springs to mind), whereas others are successful through a disproportionate amount of hard work and application, with less of the obvious ability (David Beckham).

Humans have the capability to learn implicitly without being explicitly taught. For instance, almost all of us will have been able to speak English before we even attended our first day of school. Are you going to argue that you had a natural talent for English? No.

Now, it could be argued that humans have a natural predisposition to learning language, and there is research exploring that, but simply speaking English is not something that we can do straight from the womb without learning it.

Physical skills can also be obtained implicitly, vicariously, or transferred from other relevant skills, which may make it seem like they must have been natural as their acquisition was so effortless, but they are still the result of learning, whether we are aware of that process or not. Like language, some of us will have physical or mental characteristics that make us better suited for performing certain tasks, but you still need to develop the relevant skills to exploit those advantages, much like we don't speak English out of the womb even if we have a predisposition for learning it.

And, again, what is the evolutionary purpose for someone being born to play football, which has only existed for the past 130 years or so? There just isn't any scientific evidence to support the concept of innate football talent and it's not for lack of trying.

I believe we are all born with a natural ability to see composition but most of us learn to believe that we don't.

Simon, while I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with everything that you've said, I think you're starting to touch on some important concepts.

Whether any of us believe in natural ability or not, that last comment reminds me of an important piece of research which showed that simply believing that performance in a task is determined by natural ability, rather than skill or hard work, actually limits real-world performance in that very task compared to those who believe otherwise.

So, even if natural talent does exist, which I don't think it does, believing in it is potentially harmful.

 

[StephenM]

Whether any of us believe in natural ability or not, that last comment reminds me of an important piece of research which showed that simply believing that performance in a task is determined by natural ability, rather than skill or hard work, actually limits real-world performance in that very task.

It's always struck me (it must therefore be innate knowledge ) that the four minute mile was absolutely beyond human ability to achieve until it was done; and in the year it was first done, several people did it.

 

[skysh4rk]

We are also very good at recognizing faces, for example we can see a "face" in this :-

Even recognising faces—and patterns that resemble faces—is actually a learned skill according to the research and not a natural ability, as people who are blind from birth that later gain vision have difficulty seeing faces and must learn to interpret them. I can't find the original scientific papers at the moment, but here is an excerpt from an article that discusses these studies:

"Dr. Sinha showed me a video in which a teen-age boy, blind since birth because of opaque cataracts, sees for the first time. The boy sits still and blinks silently, the room around him reflecting in his eyes as a kind of proof of their new transparency. Sinha believes these first moments for the newly sighted are blurry, incoherent, and saturated by brightness—like walking into daylight with dilated pupils—and swirls of colors that do not make sense as shapes or faces or any kind of object. “The moments immediately following bandage removal are not quite as ‘magical’ as Hollywood movies would have us believe,” Sinha told me. To answer Molyneux, then: No. A cube and a sphere are both lost in this confusion.

Stephen Kosslyn, a pioneer in the field of vision and mental imagery, told me that he was not surprised by Sinha’s results—many of the seemingly natural qualities in everyday vision are not innate but are instead learned through experience. Kosslyn gave the example of stereo vision, which requires the eyes to combine the two slightly different images that they receive into a single, sharp percept. “In order for stereo vision to work, the brain has to know something about how far apart the eyes are,” he said. Factors like prenatal nutrition can influence bone growth, which can set the eyes varying distances apart. “The brain can’t possibly know that in advance of being born,” he said, and so, in those first moments of new sight—even with two good eyes—the incoming light will be mishandled by an unprepared brain". (from http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/11/11/can-a-blind-person-whose-visio/)​

So, if even seeing faces, which seems so obvious and easy to many of us, is not a natural ability, is it really a stretch to think that photographic or sporting prowess must be learned?

 

[sirch]

There is tons of evidence that the brain is attuned to recognizing faces. It may be that someone who is blind from birth has reused that hitherto unused brain area for other purposes and so needs to "learn" but for sighted people that is not the case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception#Neuroanatomy_of_facial_processing

Facial perception has well identified, neuroanatomical correlates in the brain. During the perception of faces, major activations occur in the extrastriate areas bilaterally, particularly in the fusiform face area (FFA), the occipital face area (OFA), and the superior temporal sulcus (fSTS).[24][25]

It is bound to be a mix of propensity and learning, babies cannot walk for example but they have a massive drive to learn to walk and specialised brain regions, balance sense etc. to achieve walking. It is a case of tuning the nerves/brain etc. to do the natural thing. No amount of learning and training will enable me to run as fast of Usain Bolt, he was born with a particular set of abilitites that make him a fast sprinter but he still couldn't walk, let alone run, when he was born.

 

[Nod]

Sirch said (and I snipped!)

We are also very good at recognizing faces, for example we can see a "face" in this :-

Oddly, that's apparently known by printers as the dog's ballcocks!

As I said in the thread in talk photography, I can't draw the curtains or a bath, let alone a face but I do have a reasonable eye for a shot. I can't always capture it how I would like but I can see the potential (or lack of it) in a scene.

 

[skysh4rk]

There is tons of evidence that the brain is attuned to recognizing faces. It may be that someone who is blind from birth has reused that hitherto unused brain area for other purposes and so needs to "learn" but for sighted people that is not the case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception#Neuroanatomy_of_facial_processing

​

It is bound to be a mix of propensity and learning, babies cannot walk for example but they have a massive drive to learn to walk and specialised brain regions, balance sense etc. to achieve walking. It is a case of tuning the nerves/brain etc. to do the natural thing. No amount of learning and training will enable me to run as fast of Usain Bolt, he was born with a particular set of abilitites that make him a fast sprinter but he still couldn't walk, let alone run, when he was born.

Yes, but you can't make use of those areas of the brain to recognise faces innately, is the key, whether blind from birth or not. The research unequivocally shows this. In much the same way, we may also be predisposed to learning language, and have areas of the brain reserved for such, but you still will need to learn the language.

Usain Bolt has physical characteristics that make him well suited to running the 100m, but he must train and develop the skills necessary to exploit those advantages, otherwise he won't go anywhere very fast. It's also important to keep in mind that our training can influence our physiology and that physical characteristic aren't necessarily genetic (although many may be). For instance, many distance runners have enlarged hearts, but they weren't born that way.

 

[Andysnap]

I think that there is a fundemantal difference between a skill in running and what I'm talking about i.e something far more airy fairy and artistic. There are purely physical reasons why Bolt can run so fast and no amount of training and practice could enable me to beat him but could I with practice, training and commitment be as good a painter as Constable or as good a photographer as Ansel Adams or is there something in the brain or even the soul (sorry didn't mean to bring the soul into it) that allows the more artistic amongst us to be better than the majority?
Obviously this is a subject that cannot be proven, although I think RJ may disagree , but I suspect that it is in some respects a question of semantics. Do the things that make us who we are, physical, mental and spiritual, amount to more than just a computer like ability to learn, improve and make or do they coalesce into a natural gift for something?

I honestly don't know.

 

[skysh4rk]

Obviously this is a subject that cannot be proven, although I think RJ may disagree , but I suspect that it is in some respects a question of semantics. Do the things that make us who we are, physical, mental and spiritual, amount to more than just a computer like ability to learn, improve and make or do they coalesce into a natural gift for something?

Why can't this be proven? We can put a man on the moon, but can't understand art or the nature of human processes?

 

[Andysnap]

Why can't this be proven? We can put a man on the moon, but can't understand art or the nature of human processes?

I think that thousands of generations of humans have yet to prove it. Art still transcends understanding, why is some art popular and some not? I'm not syaing it can't or won't be understood but I really don't think we are near to it yet.

 

[StephenM]

Some of it is cultural - what we're brought up to accept as "good"; some of it is familiarity (the impressionists were reviled when their style was unfamiliar), and some of it is down to psychology - how we see, arrange and understand visual stimuli.

Some may even be down to training (or lack of it); beer is said to be an acquired taste and having once tried it I have no desire to repeat the experience enough times to like it.

 

[Asha]

There are some things in human life that us mere mortals are not supposed to fully understand and we most likely never will.

From a photography pov, if a result works then brill, if not, then not so brill.....for me that's it...simples!

I have tbh and admit then some of my better shots have been the ones that I've put least effort into trying to achieve.....how wierd is that!

Oh and as for sport, I do; and have done quite a bit, predominantly cycling and yes, tactics etc can be obtained from literature and other cyclists, and methods of how to increase stamina etc can be learnt, however it is without doubtt that some people are more natural at it than others.....state of mind etc comes into a lot of this i think and the mind is something that man will never completely understand!

 

[joxby]

I know someone who doesn't even need to think, just see's it shoots it, I hate her....lol

She shoots a 35 film or digital compact, the camera takes care of exposure or not as the case maybe, but her pictures are so engaging that technicalities of exposure and construction are completely irrelevant.

I made her take and shoot my D200 on holiday for a week last June, not high end gear but a capable shooter, she came back with 44....yeah 44 on a 16g card.......nothing pictures.
She reckons the gear is a distraction, she doesn't see the same thing with a big lump of technical knobs and buttons in her hands, even the AF focussing as she looks through the finder destroys whatever it was she saw.

I dunno what to say about that....

This lady was born with the eye that doesn't exist...

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

There are plausible, measurable scientific explanations for most things, and many more to come, but there are some things for which science does not suffice, nor is likely to IMO. Artistic creation is one, in which exists something that goes far beyond what can be (or is ever likely to be) explained by science. Love is another. If you can't measure them, how can you explain them through science? Parts of them may connect with science, chemical processes and suchlike, but science cannot explain them in anything approaching totality.

What's more, if you were able to explain these things through science, their value would disappear. So it's in the interests of anyone with an arty fartiness about them to dispute all of that scientific stuff IMO .

 

[skysh4rk]

Right, I really need to break away from this thread and get back to my own research; I just hope folks look further into the matter and don't simply settle for the 'natural ability' explanation, because it's easy. There is a lot of research out there on the matter.

As I mentioned earlier, research shows that even just believing in natural talent has negative implications for your performance, so you have been warned.

 

[Bythesea]

There are number of scientific works that suggest that artists have a higher than usual predisposition to suffering from strabismus. One aspect of this results in them seeing a scene as colours, lines and shapes and how they connect to each other. The "natural eye" could be linked to this, and possibly other eye defects. I wear glasses for distance viewing, but often remove them when perusing a landscape as it makes it easier to see how shapes interconnect rather than concentrating on individual objects within the scene.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/02/artists.aspx

 

[StephenM]

I wear glasses for distance viewing, but often remove them when perusing a landscape as it makes it easier to see how shapes interconnect rather than concentrating on individual objects within the scene.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/02/artists.aspx

One reason why using a view camera makes it easier to compose - the image is upside down, so you have fewer misconceptions about what's in front of you.

Asha - probably not very weird at all. You're using your instincts and arranging the scene according to them, rather than trying to make it fit into a preconceived and alien pattern. One of my favourite phrases is the question "composition or imposition?".

 

[Bythesea]

One reason why using a view camera makes it easier to compose - the image is upside down, so you have fewer misconceptions about what's in front of you.

Must admit that is one of the reasons I am considering LF at the moment.

 

[dinners]

There are purely physical reasons why Bolt can run so fast and no amount of training and practice could enable me to beat him but could I with practice, training and commitment be as good a painter as Constable or as good a photographer as Ansel Adams or is there something in the brain or even the soul (sorry didn't mean to bring the soul into it) that allows the more artistic amongst us to be better than the majority?

I'm pretty sure minds develop in the same way muscles do. Differently from one person to the next.

Training the mind and body will develop them but the genes you start with will have a say.

 

[excalibur2]

Is everybody out of work as there are a lot of posts in the daytime