- Messages
- 99
- Edit My Images
- No
Fair point, but the scene is still there to interpret.
Perhaps some people have a natural gift for seeing photography as more than record shots . 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.
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...)
I agree with you but this has never been a debate whether photography is or isn't art?
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.
But are there any degrees of creativity in your opinion, or are we all equal in that regard?
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 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?
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.
...Creativity is an entirely different thing, and I am not even starting on that one, there are already threads running on that thorny issue
Or a gifted photographer might choose not to release the shutter .... because they couldn't see the material for a photograph?... and often wondered how a gifted photographer would take that shot ...
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.
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
Or a gifted photographer might choose not to release the shutter .... because they couldn't see the material for a photograph?
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......
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
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?
Different question, different thread. But I've got my own ideas on it.
They're in my book, so another extract may be forthcoming.
Or a gifted photographer might choose not to release the shutter .... because they couldn't see the material for a photograph?
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.
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.
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?
And the way we look at things isn't? Of course it's comparable.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.
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
its all about opinions
even if it was based on intuition, and it isn't, its perfectly reasonable to do so, you just don't think so
Life experience is my evidence.........
This thread has gone around in circles so many times now....
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.