A Natural Eye?

excalibur2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But according to RedRobin he would have had a natural talent for it when he was born. But as it didn't exist how could he have?
 
RedRobin said:

....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.
Click to expand...
It comes down to whether you believe science can (and should) be able to explain Everything. The fact that it cannot doesn't prove science wrong, it just suggests it hasn't got there yet. However it is also somewhat ironic that the more we know through scientific discovery, the more we realise what we don't know. Scientific discovery actually leads to more questions than answers.

On a personal level, I seriously think that I would not enjoy art if I thought about its creation and my enjoyment of it as a biological process which can be 100% rationalised....maybe I'm a hopeless romantic, but for me that would almost defeat its purpose.
 
Enough, we have talked the toot for many a long hour and time has come to return to the real world. My idle musings were not meant to cause acrimony or dissent and so I declare the subject closed. If even the massed brains of f and c cannot decide the answer then answer there is not.

Here endeth the first lesson. Roberts fetch the port and canapes I am in need if sustenance and succor.:D
 
Is it really the case that having an eye for a photograph and being talented are the same thing? I nearly typed "a natural eye" there which really answers the question - natural, not something that can be trained. Or does it? I believe from experience that people can get better at this - I've seen it happen, as I suspect most of us have - and from that that if people can improve at seeing then it can be taught. There are things I've learned to do that make it a heck of a lot easier for me, and I see no reason why others can't learn them too.

This isn't the same thing as saying that everyone can learn to be a genius; just that everyone can learn to be better. At anything. There are some sportsmen that no matter how hard you train you won't beat (even assuming the same level of fitness). But I do recall one commentator remarking of a tennis match that the winner would be the one who most wanted to win. You don't put in the effort required unless you really want to win, and that is possibly more important than any natural talent. Determination can make a big difference.

When it comes down to likes and dislikes, I don't like beer, cheese and garlic. I am an arachnophobe and I love cats. I am aware that all of these things can be "trained" away (there was a program which I didn't see on curing an arachnophobia on TV) but I'm not motivated to want to like these things. I see photography - or the more artistic side of it - in the same way. If you don't have the motivation, I'm not convinced you'll make the effort. And if you start out by believing it's a waste of time because it can't be done, I suspect few would be prepared to waste their time doing it.
 
TheBigYin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah the thread is going around in circles then.....how does a competent photographer take a shot that is outstanding and different to anyone else. :rolleyes:
 
excalibur2 said:
Ah the thread is going around in circles then.....how does a competent photographer take a shot that is outstanding and different to anyone else. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps because you've missed the actual premise behind this thread - that it's NOT necessarily JUST about technical competence for some of us... I learned what the controls DO on a camera within the first couple of weeks of owning one. Within a month I could set it "by clicks" so I didn't have to take my eye from the viewfinder. Within a few months I was "Technically Competent" to operate a camera. The other 35 years I've spent in pursuit of something more than technical competence.

I'm finding it rather depressing today to find that I've been told I've wasted my time because "it wasn't there at birth" and that I'm technically competent (i.e. I've stagnated for the last 35 years...)

It's a shame that I've actually found minds more open to the idea of being able to develop talent in a thread that originated in the Business section. Frankly, I expected more of the denizens F&C...
 
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...

....That depends entirely on what your individual aspirations are. You can be good at what you do and not necessarily have 'the eye'. The term 'having the eye' means having a natural talent for the artistic aspects of photography but, as we all know, there are many aspects and no-one is suggesting that someone is a failure because they don't happen to have the eye.

I rather think that those who feel they don't naturally have 'the eye' are keen to learn to have it but they can only exploit it if it's there, perhaps dormant, in the first place. I think it's genetic combined with life's circumstances.

If someone has to rely on things like displaying the 'thirds' grid to adhere to, then they don't have 'the eye' naturally but so what. Be happy with whatever talents you do have.
 
RedRobin said:
I rather think that those who feel they don't naturally have 'the eye' are keen to learn to have it but they can only exploit it if it's there, perhaps dormant, in the first place. I think it's genetic combined with life's circumstances.

If someone has to rely on things like displaying the 'thirds' grid to adhere to, then they don't have 'the eye' naturally but so what. Be happy with whatever talents you do have.
Click to expand...

Jeez, I really hope that I have this amazing 'eye' that you speak of! I don't want to be doomed to rely on the rule of thirds for all of my life!
 
TheBigYin said:
Perhaps because you've missed the actual premise behind this thread - that it's NOT necessarily JUST about technical competence for some of us... I learned what the controls DO on a camera within the first couple of weeks of owning one. Within a month I could set it "by clicks" so I didn't have to take my eye from the viewfinder. Within a few months I was "Technically Competent" to operate a camera. The other 35 years I've spent in pursuit of something more than technical competence.

I'm finding it rather depressing today to find that I've been told I've wasted my time because "it wasn't there at birth" and that I'm technically competent (i.e. I've stagnated for the last 35 years...)

It's a shame that I've actually found minds more open to the idea of being able to develop talent in a thread that originated in the Business section. Frankly, I expected more of the denizens F&C...
Click to expand...
I don't think any of us are really saying that you can't develop talent, that would be silly, and nobody specifically said that you didn't have it at birth, Mark. Since I believe talent does exist, I am allowed to say that I think that you clearly do have it.

It's also clear to me that whatever we want to call this...talent, eye, predisposition, attributes for success, that learning effort and determination are also key factors for 'success'. There are no great photographers who have achieved greatness by being lazy and just snapping away.

The fact that any one individual may be dissatisfied with their artistic output.....like most of us....is actually a good thing to be harnessed, not a cause for giviing up. I don't think many artists are ever entirely satisfied with their work.
 
Last edited:
Well
TheBigYin said:
Perhaps because you've missed the actual premise behind this thread - that it's NOT necessarily JUST about technical competence for some of us... I learned what the controls DO on a camera within the first couple of weeks of owning one. Within a month I could set it "by clicks" so I didn't have to take my eye from the viewfinder. Within a few months I was "Technically Competent" to operate a camera. The other 35 years I've spent in pursuit of something more than technical competence.

I'm finding it rather depressing today to find that I've been told I've wasted my time because "it wasn't there at birth" and that I'm technically competent (i.e. I've stagnated for the last 35 years...)

It's a shame that I've actually found minds more open to the idea of being able to develop talent in a thread that originated in the Business section. Frankly, I expected more of the denizens F&C...
Click to expand...

Well I thought we are mainly amateurs here and photography is a hobby....but I spent years trying to copy all the top portrait photographers and spent hours reading magazines and books and after all that can still only produce competent portrait shots that are very good but would never win any competitions, so I've accepted my limitations and that's that for me.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
I don't think any of us are really saying that you can't develop talent, that would be silly, and nobody specifically said that you didn't have it at birth, Mark. Since I believe talent does exist, I am allowed to say that I think that you clearly do have it.
Click to expand...

I am; I don't believe that talent exists to even be developed. I believe that we might have natural characteristics that might prove useful in certain tasks (e.g., photography, football, etc.) and we develop the relevant skills for that task, but we don't have 'talent' like you're saying.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well


Well I thought we are mainly amateurs here and photography is a hobby....but I spent years trying to copy all the top portrait photographers and spent hours reading magazines and books and after all that can still only produce competent portrait shots that are very good but would never win any competitions, so I've accepted my limitations and that's that for me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but by accepting that you'll never be that good, the research suggests that you've potentially limited how good you could be.
 
skysh4rk said:
I am; I don't believe that talent exists to even be developed. I believe that we might have natural characteristics that might prove useful in certain tasks (e.g., photography, football, etc.) and we develop the relevant skills for that task, but we don't have 'talent' like you're saying.
Click to expand...
Natural characteristics....aptitude.....talent......"eye". Semantics?
 
I find that I am seeing eye-to-eye with Francesco's @TheGreatSoprendo posts in this thread :D
 
skysh4rk said:
Yes, but by accepting that you'll never be that good, the research suggests that you've potentially limited how good you could be.
Click to expand...

Well it could be I don't have the eye to improve my shots as really all I'm doing is basically taking portrait record shots of what i see in front of me, and would say there are plenty of wedding photographers that can do the same and then there are those that have the eye and produce something different that we all praise.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Natural characteristics....aptitude.....talent......"eye". Semantics?
Click to expand...

I think that talent implies something greater and more developed than natural characteristics does, which represents a critical distinction.

We could have some natural characteristics that are relevant for developing what people call the 'eye' (which I do not think exists in the form discussed in this thread), but not natural talents for the 'eye, I would say.
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
I could learn what is popular and go and take those pictures myself but I know the work would just be imitation, lacking originality.
Click to expand...

A common misconception spread by camera clubs and photo forums that taking a photo somewhere popular is somehow less original. Take your photos wherever you feel like, be inspired by others and feel free to go where and do what you want. Who cares if its been done to death , I have found many glorious moments of contemplation and satisfaction sat on the rocks at Dunstanburgh Castle and i know everyones done that for years but so what its beautiful and i capture the way i want and see it, and just love being there.
 
@Andrew Davies Photography - I suppose the point I was making in the context of this thread is that presumably part of having a "Natural Eye" is the ability to see a new composition. I agree that taking your own photo of a common scene is as valuable as anyone else's.
 
skysh4rk said:
I think that talent implies something greater and more developed than natural characteristics does, which represents a critical distinction.

We could have some natural characteristics that are relevant for developing what people call the 'eye' (which I do not think exists in the form discussed in this thread), but not natural talents for the 'eye, I would say.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a big distinction, to be honest. Maybe we agree after all :exit:.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
I don't think there's a big distinction, to be honest. Maybe we agree after all :exit:.
Click to expand...

A natural characteristic could be something like being tall, which would be useful for learning to play volleyball or basketball, but being tall would certainly not constitute a talent. I think that makes it an important distinction.

That said, diet plays a role in height, so even being tall might not necessarily be completely natural.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well


Well I thought we are mainly amateurs here and photography is a hobby....but I spent years trying to copy all the top portrait photographers and spent hours reading magazines and books and after all that can still only produce competent portrait shots that are very good but would never win any competitions, so I've accepted my limitations and that's that for me.
Click to expand...

Yes, photography is one of my hobbies; but I still want to be as good at it as I can given the amount of work I can put into it.

From my perspective, your problem is probably that you've been trying to copy top photographers, rather than putting the effort into trying to understand why their images work instead. As to books - well, it depends what you read. Most of the titles that I've seen recommended on amateur forums I wouldn't give houseroom to, because at bottom they are providing images to copy not principles to follow. They simply don't train you to think, which is what is really needed. Magazines - well, I can only think of a couple of articles I've read in the last 20-30 years that actually provided the sort of information you need to develop. Perhaps age has dulled my memory.

Natural talent - I think it's more natural interest. Just as liking garlic is natural to some. Probably because they have been exposed to it from an early age. The same as with many food likes and dislikes. But people who disliked something have come to like it, because for some reason or another they ate it until they came to appreciate it. I think the photographic eye is the same. If you haven't been exposed to the appropriate influences, it probably won't have developed. If you have no interest, you won't try very hard and it won't develop. If you think that you either have it or you haven't, then after the first failed attempt (or two) you'll conclude that you haven't got it, and attempt (if you do attempt anything) to rise to a level of mediocrity. But if you believe that you can be taught or shown how to really see, then perhaps you'll go on looking until you find someone or some book that can show you how to do it.

Problem solving may come easier to some than to others; but techniques can still be taught; approaches that are likely to lead to success. Photography is no different in this respect.

In summary (of the whole thread): I believe that different people have different abilities, and some will always be able to outstrip others if they all put in the same directed effort. But everyone can - until they reach that level - continue to improve, and be taught how to do so. We all have the same natural talent that we can develop.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
A common misconception spread by camera clubs and photo forums that taking a photo somewhere popular is somehow less original. Take your photos wherever you feel like, be inspired by others and feel free to go where and do what you want. Who cares if its been done to death , I have found many glorious moments of contemplation and satisfaction sat on the rocks at Dunstanburgh Castle and i know everyones done that for years but so what its beautiful and i capture the way i want and see it, and just love being there.
Click to expand...

Interesting philosophy as I wont bother to take shots of structures in London as I just go on the net and there are 100's of better shots than I took (or would take)......but what interests me is shots say of family and maybe London buildings in the background......which is all personal and nothing to do with having the eye, but all about taking shots that you enjoy..like you.
 
Why not look at the structures and find a new angle or new "take" on them? There are always new ways of seeing things, if you look for them. Are you overly influenced by "look and copy"?
 
StephenM said:
Yes, photography is one of my hobbies; but I still want to be as good at it as I can given the amount of work I can put into it.

From my perspective, your problem is probably that you've been trying to copy top photographers, rather than putting the effort into trying to understand why their images work instead. As to books - well, it depends what you read. Most of the titles that I've seen recommended on amateur forums I wouldn't give houseroom to, because at bottom they are providing images to copy not principles to follow. They simply don't train you to think, which is what is really needed. Magazines - well, I can only think of a couple of articles I've read in the last 20-30 years that actually provided the sort of information you need to develop. Perhaps age has dulled my memory.

Natural talent - I think it's more natural interest. Just as liking garlic is natural to some. Probably because they have been exposed to it from an early age. The same as with many food likes and dislikes. But people who disliked something have come to like it, because for some reason or another they ate it until they came to appreciate it. I think the photographic eye is the same. If you haven't been exposed to the appropriate influences, it probably won't have developed. If you have no interest, you won't try very hard and it won't develop. If you think that you either have it or you haven't, then after the first failed attempt (or two) you'll conclude that you haven't got it, and attempt (if you do attempt anything) to rise to a level of mediocrity. But if you believe that you can be taught or shown how to really see, then perhaps you'll go on looking until you find someone or some book that can show you how to do it.

Problem solving may come easier to some than to others; but techniques can still be taught; approaches that are likely to lead to success. Photography is no different in this respect.

In summary (of the whole thread): I believe that different people have different abilities, and some will always be able to outstrip others if they all put in the same directed effort. But everyone can - until they reach that level - continue to improve, and be taught how to do so. We all have the same natural talent that we can develop.
Click to expand...

Well being a top photographer's assistant would give you an enormous advantage on learning about taking shots, but would it give you the potential of original thought and doing something different (which I understand as having the eye)...maybe someone can correct me on this, but to me the schools by the old masters turned out painters that produced the same sort of work, so would a top photographer's assistant do the same. But on saying that there have been people working as assistants to producers\directors on films that have gone their own way and produced some excellent films....it's all a complicated subject and am sure all our heads are hurting. :eek:
 
StephenM said:
Why not look at the structures and find a new angle or new "take" on them? There are always new ways of seeing things, if you look for them. Are you overly influenced by "look and copy"?
Click to expand...

Well I did take a shot of Boadicea facing Big Ben 55 years ago that I though was original, and think everyone has copied me since.....as the shot is common as backsides now :D But out of interest the boring shots I did take of London e.g. Tower bridge..no one can take the same view as it doesn't exist now and would need photoshop to reproduce.
 
Last edited:
It is indeed a complicated subject and I think it is merely academic and pointless spending any more time discussing.

The subject of whether Photography is or can be Art has been debated for decades and there have even been London gallery exhibitions on the subject.

crazy.gif


Just go out and enjoy taking photographs / pictures / snaps for whatever reason excites you :)
 
RedRobin said:
Just go out and enjoy taking photographs / pictures / snaps for whatever reason excites you :)
Click to expand...
I agree with you but this has never been a debate whether photography is or isn't art?
 
RedRobin said:
It is indeed a complicated subject and I think it is merely academic and pointless spending any more time discussing.
Click to expand...

I do wish people would stop telling me what is and isn't pointless to debate. I've enjoyed this thread tremendously, and I'm still enjoying it.

RedRobin said:
The subject of whether Photography is or can be Art has been debated for decades and there have even been London gallery exhibitions on the subject.
Click to expand...


None of this thread has been about whether photography is art.
 
RedRobin said:
It is indeed a complicated subject and I think it is merely academic and pointless spending any more time discussing.

The subject of whether Photography is or can be Art has been debated for decades and there have even been London gallery exhibitions on the subject.


Just go out and enjoy taking photographs / pictures / snaps for whatever reason excites you :)
Click to expand...

I agree with Nick that that hasn't been the point of this thread.

Yes, fine, I'll also agree with going out and taking photos for whatever reason excites you. All I would question - and very, very seriously - is whether someone who wants - really, really wants - to take truly pleasing photos can ever truly enjoy the exercise if they believe that it takes an eye that they do not, through an accident of nature, possess. To believe that they can never achieve their goal except by a fluke must be incredibly depressing. I at any rate would find it so.

This discussion may well have reached a natural end; all I hope is that those who do believe that you need an accident of birth to be a great photographer might be persuaded to reconsider.
 
Jeff Watson said:
Let me give you a camera and a canvas with a set of oil paints. You'll son find the difference with photography and art.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point Jeff.
 
Jeff Watson said:
Let me give you a camera and a canvas with a set of oil paints. You'll son find the difference with photography and art.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't actually read all 5 pages of the thread, to have missed the point of this discussion so spectacularly...
 
I don't think I am missing the point. The natural eye. Seeing what would make a good image naturally as opposed to being taught what to look for.

Most successful artists have 'the eye' to create a three dimensional image in a two dimensional environment and that comes naturally - it's a gift they were born with.
The same goes for photographers. Some will see an image, quite without effort where others will struggle. That is a natural gift.

I accept that a person can learn over a period of time to spot a picture and indeed become very good at it, but I'll go back to my original statement, where the people who naturally 'have the eye' will fare better than those who don't.
 
Do you know, I have a natural gift for English. I've been able to speak it for as long as I can remember, but I really struggle with other languages. I'd never realised that before. And I believe that that is as valid a point as the one above, because both assume the point that should be proved. Or demonstrated, if you prefer that word.
 
Jeff Watson said:
Let me give you a camera and a canvas with a set of oil paints. You'll son find the difference with photography and art.
Click to expand...

Pretty poor analogy.

If you give someone a DSLR who has never used one they might eventually get a photo , would it be any good probably not. Give someone a set of oil paints and they might eventually paint something, would it be any good probably not. 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.
 
My view is that photography, as artistically as it can be portrayed, is still a poor relation to the fine artist; the artist is creating the image from a blank canvas while the photographer is recording a scene.

That being said, it would appear that we both agree that some people have a natural creativity which they were born with.
 
Jeff Watson said:
My view is that photography, as artistically as it can be portrayed, is still a poor relation to the fine artist; the artist is creating the image from a blank canvas while the photographer is recording a scene.

That being said, it would appear that we both agree that some people have a natural creativity which they were born with.
Click to expand...

Not if you see the photograph as interpreting the scene....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top