A Natural Eye?

StephenM said:
A question.

There have been several people posting on the side of "it's a natural talent that you either have or haven't got". How many of those consider that they have "the eye"?
Click to expand...

It would be logical that they all did, otherwise by their own reasoning, they'd have been wasting their time and energy for the entire duration of their photographic experience...
 
skysh4rk said:
but it's completely different to say that it's preordained from birth that you will be a good basketball player, plumber, or accountant. There is simply no one that will be an expert at photography, basketball, football without significant practice.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comment but you read me totally in the wrong way. I have never say that i believe in destiny neither have i said that someone can be a genius at something without even having practicing it. I have said "[...]it is clear that there is some people with better predisposition. (which you agree with in a previous post) [...] Of course without the hard work, practice, perseverance and trust in yourself, nobody will became good at anything". I was saying that you may be looking at the word too closely some people are just amalgamating predisposition and "natural talent".

skysh4rk said:
No, it's not better. What would even constitute a good eye for photography? Why would someone have a good eye for photography? In evolutionary terms it wouldn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
I am obviously not talking about the organ. I think again you are looking at the words too closely. Words usage can and often derive from their original definition. A good eye for photography as nothing to do with the organ but is an expression to fit to some people which have a set of skills, artistic preferences, feeling,... A good eye for photography doesn't have to be a pre-birth predisposition but can be learn at different speed at any time of life.

What i'm intrigued it's at the difference between peoples predispositions/abilities which are evolving during the life and different between person to person. I am just intrigued at seeing my genetically identical twins nephews which are evolving in such different way.
 
It seems to me there is a confusion about being\or achieving to be.. a competent photographer and one that has the eye.......I'm sure most of have said when seeing an excellent shot "why didn't I think of that" an example would be in taking our children's photographs and am sure we can all take a competent shots and so can these shop studios with fixed lighting setups.
But to me this is an example of a photographer that just doesn't take the run of the mill shots but excels and IMO is beyond just a competent photographer:- http://www.billgekas.com/p1014938437
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
... to me this is an example of a photographer that just doesn't take the run of the mill shots but excels and IMO is beyond just a competent photographer:- http://www.billgekas.com/p1014938437
Click to expand...

And to me, based on looking at the first three pages or so of the gallery they're technically accomplished shots, nicely lit and executed, but are mainly pastiches of typical "old master" portraiture - so, I'd argue that they're in the same bucket (albeit at a higher quality than mine) as most of my still life stuff... Nice, but lacking that "something" that makes them truly creative or artistic in their own right...
 
Last edited:
Lemaildetom said:
Thanks for your comment but you read me totally in the wrong way. I have never say that i believe in destiny neither have i said that someone can be a genius at something without even having practicing it. I have said "[...]it is clear that there is some people with better predisposition. (which you agree with in a previous post) [...] Of course without the hard work, practice, perseverance and trust in yourself, nobody will became good at anything". I was saying that you may be looking at the word too closely some people are just amalgamating predisposition and "natural talent".
Click to expand...

Yes, but I am not saying that people are predisposed to doing or being good at photography, I am saying that they might have characteristics or traits that could be well suited for learning photography. This is a very important distinction. These characteristics/traits might also be beneficial in other tasks as well, are not necessarily specific to photography, and might require extensive training/experience/learning to exploit.
 
skysh4rk said:
Yes, but I am not saying that people are predisposed to doing or being good at photography, I am saying that they might have characteristics or traits that could be well suited for learning photography. This is a very important distinction. These characteristics/traits might also be beneficial in other tasks as well, are not necessarily specific to photography, and might require extensive training/experience/learning to exploit.
Click to expand...

Yes we do agree!
 
TheBigYin said:
And to me, based on looking at the first three pages or so of the gallery they're technically accomplished shots, nicely lit and executed, but are mainly pastiches of typical "old master" portraiture - so, I'd argue that they're in the same bucket (albeit at a higher quality than mine) as most of my still life stuff... Nice, but lacking that "something" that makes them truly creative or artistic in their own right...
Click to expand...

Even having the eye it must be very difficult to take a shot that's so different from millions of photographs taken. But if you are thinking of the type of shot last year that went for a £millions, of a plain sandy shore halfway up the print and the other half was a plain sky...as having the eye, then I consider it crap but then I'm sure many would disagree, so that's the problem with the thread in that no one can agree.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
It would be logical that they all did, otherwise by their own reasoning, they'd have been wasting their time and energy for the entire duration of their photographic experience...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on their aims? I think it's perfectly possible to take a superb record shot without having any "eye" at all for artistry. Arguably, a more artistic photographer would fail at this task because they wouldn't leave nature alone and put their own interpretation on the subject.

It's coming back to what sort of a photographer one is, and what sort of a photographer one would like to be.
 
StephenM said:
Wouldn't that depend on their aims? I think it's perfectly possible to take a superb record shot without having any "eye" at all for artistry. Arguably, a more artistic photographer would fail at this task because they wouldn't leave nature alone and put their own interpretation on the subject.

It's coming back to what sort of a photographer one is, and what sort of a photographer one would like to be.
Click to expand...
Fair comment Stephen, I suppose I just discounted the option of aspiring to be a competent record photographer as an end in itself, as everything I've done photographically since coming back to shooting has been to move away from that way of working. Not that there's anything wrong with it, just that for me, it's not satisfying... Other people's mileage may vary.
 
skysh4rk said:
I am saying that they might have characteristics or traits that could be well suited for learning photography. This is a very important distinction. These characteristics/traits might also be beneficial in other tasks as well, are not necessarily specific to photography, and might require extensive training/experience/learning to exploit.
Click to expand...

So whats the difference between your "trait" and my brain wiring, because it seems science is just trying to boil it down to something measurable, I mean how do you measure a trait, quantify "a little" teaching and then quantify "a lot" of teaching.
Some people are born and can do things with little teaching, and for others it takes a lot more teaching to do the same thing, I don't see this learning and teaching thing to be the key to it all.

I'm saying, some people don't even need to be taught, being specific about photography, some people who have never picked up a camera before are able to produce engaging/pleasing/call it what you will pictures with no training at all, I don't believe that is a product of upbringing, environment, education, social interaction or anything else, sure they may be factors but without that initial "trait" "wiring", they are not going to be able to do that straight off the bat.

Honestly, I hardly think we're more than a half inch apart, but science wants to be able to measure it as a fact and I am not at all motivated to try..

I'm surprised we've gone 4 pages and nobody's played the gay card yet..:)
 
joxby said:
I'm saying, some people don't even need to be taught, being specific about photography, some people who have never picked up a camera before are able to produce engaging/pleasing/call it what you will pictures with no training at all, I don't believe that is a product of upbringing, environment, education, social interaction or anything else, sure they may be factors but without that initial "trait" "wiring", they are not going to be able to do that straight off the bat.
Click to expand...

The evidence suggests that no one is producing engaging photographs without some sort of learning.

Why would someone be naturally inclined to take a good photograph? What would be the evolutionary basis for being good at photography?

If photography is a natural gift, why did it take modern humans 149,850 years to come up with the art? If photography were a naturally gift, then seemingly a lot of humans have missed their calling...

joxby said:
I'm surprised we've gone 4 pages and nobody's played the gay card yet..:)
Click to expand...

What?!
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
There is no one producing engaging photographs without some sort of learning. Why would someone be naturally inclined to take a good photograph? What is the evolutionary basis for being good at photography?

If photography is so natural for some folks, why did it take modern humans 149,850 years to come up with the art? Apparently a lot of humans have missed their calling...

What?!
Click to expand...


what ?!

I dunno what you're talking about anymore
 
joxby said:
what ?!

I dunno what you're talking about anymore
Click to expand...

The natural characteristics of any living organism would ordinarily have to have some evolutionary basis. Features just don't crop up out of nowhere and spread throughout a species unless it is advantageous in some way. What would the reason be for a natural talent for photography?
 
Last edited:
Ok, I have been to the place that I like to call the pub.
This gives me insight, foresight, hindsight and a headache. Also the supernatural ability to see the truth in all things... so I have decided that everyone is right, despite the fact or indeed because of the evidence or lack of. Indeed, it would appear that not only has science won the day but that a more spiritual and natural element is also necessary to achieve a snap...

Everyone wins.....:D
 
skysh4rk said:
The natural characteristics of any living organism would ordinarily have to have some evolutionary basis. Features just don't crop up out of nowhere and spread throughout a species unless it is advantageous in some way. What would the reason be for a natural talent for photography?
Click to expand...

its a visual thing, could equally be applied to any visual art, not specifically photography, but then you know that already, I don't know where you are going with cave men and D3's or the genetic transfer of f/stop values from parent to child...
 
There is no spoon, there is no cutlery of any sort... eat with fingers, it's all good.
 
Oh, forgot to say, I love the thing I like to call the pub.
 
joxby said:
lets dance off for it, best cha cha cha wins


o_O
Click to expand...

Clever, but not clever enough as my post pub dancing is the cleverest ever dancing in the whole World.
 
skysh4rk said:
But there's far too much truthiness in the concept of everybody winning. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually what I mean is that I win..... and that's the truthiness of it.
 
skysh4rk said:
The natural characteristics of any living organism would ordinarily have to have some evolutionary basis. Features just don't crop up out of nowhere and spread throughout a species unless it is advantageous in some way. What would the reason be for a natural talent for photography?
Click to expand...

Well, the foundation of natural selection *is* that things crop up out of nowhere, and while things that get passed on have typically been advantageous, the mechanism for that is just that organisms carrying the trait in question breed more successfully. If (let's broaden it a little) a natural artistry gets you laid (even better, evolutionarily speaking, with an adulterous sexual partner) then that's how it would get passed on. I'm not saying a natural artistry exists, but your argument is begging the question.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Well, the foundation of natural selection *is* that things crop up out of nowhere, and while things that get passed on have typically been advantageous, the mechanism for that is just that organisms carrying the trait in question breed more successfully. If (let's broaden it a little) a natural artistry gets you laid (even better, evolutionarily speaking, with an adulterous sexual partner) then that's how it would get passed on. I'm not saying a natural artistry exists, but your argument is begging the question.
Click to expand...

Ha, well spotted. You're very right and my choice of words is poor. I should say that such characteristics don't ordinarily remain unless they're advantageous, not that they don't crop up, as genetic variation is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

I think that you're very much on the right track with your thinking, but I think that a natural characteristic related to artistry is too complex, yet broad. I believe that the characteristics that would develop through evolution that could be advantageous for photography would be more likely to be simpler, but very specific, if that makes sense?
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm guessing the men who first looked at a rock and saw an axe, or looked at a branch and saw a spear, definitely got laid.
 
skysh4rk said:
What would the reason be for a natural talent for photography?
Click to expand...

....Having "the eye"! Why do you need a reason for everything?

The skill is practiced, learnt, and developed but there has to be a seed of talent present to nurture in the first place.
 
RedRobin said:
....Having "the eye"! Why do you need a reason for everything?
Click to expand...

In evolutionary terms there isn't any evidence or rationale to support the existence of an 'eye' for photography.

RedRobin said:
The skill is practiced, learnt, and developed but there has to be a seed of talent present to nurture in the first place.
Click to expand...

And your evidence? This is truthiness at its finest.
 
Last edited:
Photography is cultural. As is having a photographic 'eye'. However some are predisposed towards it.
 
I've only skimmed through this thread.

Is one evolutionary advantage basically the ability to pick out visual detail? Hunters need to spot their dinner sooner. Those with better hearing would hear threats earlier?

Art is about communication. Bees seem to dance to share where pollen is so you can see how one thing used for one purpose becomes an end in itself. Birds song is another area as I'm sure there were studies showing some birds made noises for fun and made tunes up as it made females more interested.

Cave painting was about recording information and sharing it. The better the painter the more useful it became. Technology like photography lets us do the same but more efficiently or more reliably. Cooperation becomes the evolutionary advantage.
 
srichards said:
Cave painting was about recording information and sharing it. The better the painter the more useful it became. Technology like photography lets us do the same but more efficiently or more reliably. Cooperation becomes the evolutionary advantage.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is approaching the essence of what I'm talking about, although, in your example, I don't think that the natural characteristic would necessarily be a talent for painting, but would be a characteristic that could be advantageous for painting (e.g., more developed motor control centre in the brain, etc.).
 
Last edited:
srichards said:
I've only skimmed through this thread.

Is one evolutionary advantage basically the ability to pick out visual detail? Hunters need to spot their dinner sooner. Those with better hearing would hear threats earlier?

Art is about communication. Bees seem to dance to share where pollen is so you can see how one thing used for one purpose becomes an end in itself. Birds song is another area as I'm sure there were studies showing some birds made noises for fun and made tunes up as it made females more interested.

Cave painting was about recording information and sharing it. The better the painter the more useful it became. Technology like photography lets us do the same but more efficiently or more reliably. Cooperation becomes the evolutionary advantage.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.
 
skysh4rk said:
In evolutionary terms there isn't any evidence or rationale to support the existence of an 'eye' for photography.

And your evidence? This is truthiness at its finest.
Click to expand...


....Your approach appears to be entirely scientific and requiring 'evidence' which can only be accepted if it's evidence within scientific terms. Such an approach tends not to understand the somewhat abstract and intuitive workings of the artistic mind.

Why do you want to intellectualise and analyse what makes an artist (someone with 'the eye' for being creative) anyway?

You either have it or you don't and if you do have it it will develop either by conscious effort or simply unconsciously through practice. Photography is either a medium for artistic expression/communication or just a cold-hearted scientific record. And it can also combine the two.

Fundamentally, I personally do not believe you can learn to be talented - You can only develop a talent which are born with. Which of course suggests that there is a strong dollop of an individual's talent for all sorts of activities in one's genes.

 
RedRobin said:
Fundamentally, I personally do not believe you can learn to be talented - You can only develop a talent which are born with. Which of course suggests that there is a strong dollop of an individual's talent for all sorts of activities in one's genes.
Click to expand...
If this were true (which I don't believe for a moment), how would people excel at something which did not exist when they were born?
 
Bythesea said:
If this were true (which I don't believe for a moment), how would people excel at something which did not exist when they were born?
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense, as it's about what humans can achieve now and in the future......when Einstein was born no one could have predicted his achievements, so by scientific measurements (or even autopsy of his body) how did he become a genius.
 
RedRobin said:
....Having "the eye"! Why do you need a reason for everything?

The skill is practiced, learnt, and developed but there has to be a seed of talent present to nurture in the first place.
Click to expand...

Oh well, that's it then I suppose, best pack all my kit off to the classifieds and write Marcel my letter of resignation then, because I've obviously been wasting my time for the last 35+ years.
 
TheBigYin said:
Oh well, that's it then I suppose, best pack all my kit off to the classifieds and write Marcel my letter of resignation then, because I've obviously been wasting my time for the last 35+ years.
Click to expand...

H'mm you are a competent photographer so what's the problem......I'll never be famous but I'm happy with my shots even if no one else likes them :D
 
Brian, if I seriously thought that "competent" was the highest I could aspire to in ANYTHING in my life, I'd be standing on a bridge parapet at this very moment, not typing on a computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top