| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2005 09:07:14 PM · #76 |
From what I've seen, the best photographers are passionate about something and use photography to show that. You aren't going to take good pictures of something you aren't passionate about.
I get the impression on-line that a lot of people are passionate about cameras and photography and this shows in their pictures.
What are you interested in ? Find that, then take pictures and see how you do... |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:19:02 PM · #77 |
The 'eye for photography' is something that is developed over time.
You can teach someone about aperture and shutter speeds, ISO and white balance, but you certainly can't teach them how to have the eye for it...shoot long enough and it will slowly come around -- that's just my opinion anyway, and I'm just hoping that it comes around for me some time soon :-D
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 10:11:14 PM · #78 |
Granted it's something that develops with practice, yes, but there's some people who pick up a camera and can produce something like this:
And then, there's others, who pick up a camera, refute "matrix dot" pictures, and take pictures like this:
: ) |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 03:32:25 AM · #79 |
Eye for what?
Art-type photographs? Sports photographs? Good portraiture? Catalog work?
Each is different in some way. ONly a very few photographers will make much of a mark at the first category. Many will make a fine living and never make 'art'.
As for composition, the background, etc. - that can be taught. Some people have more innate ability and need fewer lessons.
I once took piano lessons. I made sounds (i wouldn't call it music much less art). It was hard work for mediocre results at best. I have a friend that have never had a lesson in his life and can play most any instument passably well, and some very well. He can hear a song and play it back for you, note for note.
I have proven that i can attempt to copy a ribbon winner and fail. I blamed the camera...and my eye. I'd like to think my technical abilites are above average, but that depends on what gradeschoolers i can get into the average I suppose.
Education. Practice, practice, practice.
In photography it is not your batting average but the home runs that count! Last year i took about 5500 pics. I estimate 10-15 really good ones. I am hoping to improve that average AND hit a home run or two this year.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 04:58:56 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Karvey
How can a person 'see' what constitutes a good image if they've never been taught what a good image is? |
Originally posted by uctopuk:
Who taught the first person what a good image is? How did they "know" it was good? It all had to start somewhere. Yes, it is helpful and easier to learn it from someone else with experience, but anything can be learned on one's own if the motivation is there.
And defining a "good image" is so full of subjective thought that "teaching" others what "good" is can hardly be more than passing one's opinion along in an authoritative manner. |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
All the tabla rasa BS is just that. I did a paper on it years ago. How does a beaver build a dam? Is it taught? How do twins that were separated at birth often think alike and have seemingly identical tastes. Was it taught? Innate knowledge, knowledge one is born with, is rarely identifiable at birth and so the argument goes that it does not exist. But I have seen too many things in my life that would strongly suggest otherwise. |
I have to agree that there IS a certain ability to recognise a good image that is inherent in a lot of people. Again, what I'm talking about here is that very broad definition of "good" that is universal - people who have grown up in different cultures with very different artistic styles can often all agree that some images succeed for all of them.
I think most people can be taught most things regardless of their starting point but I DO believe it's true to say that some people have a head start because they do have an innate skill already.
I have always been able to naturally mimic the speech patterns of others, from a very early age. That has made it easier for me to learn languages and to be able to speak them with very authentic accents. And yet many others around the world have certainly been able to learn those same languages and communicate in them. Some of them sure found it harder though and some were never able to get the accent quite right.
In the same way, I have some limited experience of abseiling. I was able to do it, to release the rope in the way I was taught and to get myself down the cliff. But I have quite severe vertigo and the rather severe dizziness that it gave me certainly had an impact on how well I could do this activity compared with those who didn't suffer from it.
I think that, as with most things in life, no one should ever be put off from trying just because they don't have an instinctive feel for something. If that were the case, we'd so seldom try anything new. I would always encourage people to give things a go and to apply themselves to them as enthustiastically as possible.
But I do think it's not being nasty to say that some people certainly do have innate qualities that make some things easier for them and that there will always be some who simply don't find themselves able to pick up the skill even after their best attempts.
Like I said, I'd never discourage anyone from trying!
It's Kavey not Karvey, btw, but no worries.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 05:21:21.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 05:02:33 AM · #81 |
I think you can learn about techniques and how to improve your work, but to be a genious (in whatever subject) you´ve to born as a genious.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 08:08:52 AM · #82 |
Who taught the first person what a good image is?
uctopuk
The point is, the definition of 'good art' is defined by a group. The 'first person' probably didn't know what a good image was. He probably painted a shape on the cave wall and got grunts of approval. He probably modified his paintings depending on how others reacted to it - reinforcing things that got approval and dropping things that didn't. In other words, he was taught what the community liked by their reaction, and painted accordingly.
Isn't that what we're doing here?
The phantom 'first person' didn't have an in born knowledge of what a good image is. That's ludicrous. Great artists over the centuries have argued 'good' and 'bad' art, often to extremes. The definition of art and beauty are taught: our parents, cultures and our environment teach them to us. That's who taught your 'first person'.
nsbca7
Was it a good paper? *grin*
Papers are papers are opinions. Pick a topic. Bet we can find papers that reason the extremes of every topic. I'd rather stick to reason than mysticism.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 08:11:09. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 08:37:18 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
DO YOU THINK 'HAVING AN EYE' FOR PHOTOGRAPHY/ART IS INBORN OR CAN IT BE TAUGHT/LEARNED?
|
I sure hope it can be taught :)
At the moment composition is something I can recognize when I see it in a photo, but not something I can call up on demand when I'm shooting. So I shoot a lot and hope for the best. Not the most efficient way of doing this.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 08:47:43 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by swagman:
Who taught the first person what a good image is?
uctopuk
The point is, the definition of 'good art' is defined by a group. The 'first person' probably didn't know what a good image was.
Papers are papers are opinions. Pick a topic. Bet we can find papers that reason the extremes of every topic. I'd rather stick to reason than mysticism. |
The first person probably did know what a good image was. Most people can tell the difference between a poor photo and a great one regardless of thier education or lack of it, culture, sexual orientation, religion, tribal status, or social class. certainly there are varying oppinions of taste, but a truely great photo transcends all bounds. Why?
Photography is a univeral language. The most uneducated child, raised up somewhere in a jungle in Borneo, can look at Steve McCurry's photo Afgan Girl and would feel the same impact as a professor of physics in Russia or a ballet teacher in Philadelphia.
As far as the paper, it was the product of months of research based on hard facts and case studies, not mysticism. The only argument I could find to back up the proponents of tabla rasa is that a child can't tap dance at birth.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 09:02:23 AM · #85 |
Most people know what a good image is, but taking one yourself is totally different.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 09:18:57 AM · #86 |
nsbca7
truely great photo transcends all bounds.
Only to the people who will agree a paricular image is 'great', perhaps. I think you're offering opinions on a universal scale with no proofs. Cosmic truth with a capital 'T'. Not the most effective technique of debate. To prove that comment you'd need a hell of a study done, and as I said, you'd have to find an image everyone agrees is 'great'. Until that's done, it's an opinion.
Many people think Yoko Ono's crap is 'great'. I still see it as crap. Literally and figuratively.
The comment on your paper was meant as a friendly jest, but I'm willing to bet I can find authorative works that disagree with yours. Not to knock your work, but it's still an opinion based on your research.
Time to agree we disagree *grin*.
Most people know what a good image is, but taking one yourself is totally different.
Then why is there such a range of differences in the challenge ratings? Perhaps it's because people have different views of constitutes a good image is? |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 09:27:19 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by swagman:
you'd have to find an image everyone agrees is 'great'. Until that's done, it's an opinion.
|
I gave you an example. Show me one person that thinks that image is crap.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 09:35:26 AM · #88 |
I gaurantee that here at dpc you would get the following comments:
* Seems a little soft
* Too much grain/noise
* I would have liked to see more texture in the hair...seems a little dark
* I wish I could see the background a little more.
* I don't see a waterdrop? Am I missing it?
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 09:36:12.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 10:35:29 AM · #89 |
Indisputably "great" picture, no need to discuss composition, technique, cropping, anything...
//www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm12.html
another:
//www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm22.html
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 10:38:16.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:00:57 AM · #90 |
The first one is NOT art, it is photojournalism, and in that category is a good picture. It is not something that is worthy of a museum/calendar/coffee table book, and not just because of the subject matter.
The second one is art, in the same sense as digital art - therefore not in the same realm as true phtographic art.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:10:04 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
in the same sense as digital art - therefore not in the same realm as true phtographic art. |
Bullsh*t
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:10:17 AM · #92 |
While I think bear_music's examples and nsbca7's example are great photographs and in my mind should never be disputed as such, the irony is that this is exactly the site where they would be disputed.
Not only that, I'm still certain they're examples of having a mind or heart for photography...all of those photos could have been captured by somebody who had to 'learn' the eye, rather than having been gifted with it from birth.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:17:17 AM · #93 |
| Everyone's eyes perceive art differently, so it's a practically a moot point to try to ascertain whether or not the elusive sight of a "photographer's eye" can be taught or if it's inborn...each "photographer's eye" is different in it's scope and vision. Each eye has been shaped to see what he/she perceives is beauty, pain, spirit, isolation, courage, despair, and a whole host of other iconic emotions. I read a great little excerpt from Life's book called 100 Photographs that Changed the World that really makes a lot of sense to me, especially the very last statement... It is, in the end, a personal relationship between viewer and image. The power of a picture is in the mind of the beholder. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:18:11 AM · #94 |
I wasn't categorizing them, dude. Somneone said, is there any image we could all agree was great? These two came to mind. Re: the Lennart Nilson not being "photography", that's insane. 40 years ago the man found a way to take pictures inside the human body, and came away with some of the most stunning photographic images of all time.
They literally changed the way we look at the world...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:31:38 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Not only that, I'm still certain they're examples of having a mind or heart for photography...all of those photos could have been captured by somebody who had to 'learn' the eye, rather than having been gifted with it from birth. |
Some people could never capture anything like the McCurry photo if they had the best teachers in the world and spent all of their life trying. It was not just a matter of trying to reproduce a photo like that, but the seeing of it to begin with.
Some people can tap dance at three years of age and some could never find the rhythm to do it no matter how hard they tried.
It is the same with photography, or any visual art for that matter. Most can be taught the mechanics of photography no problem. And many can be taught to find the eye for photography if it is already in them. But for some it will never be acquired and for others there is no teaching necessary.
Look at me, I'm tone deaf. Really. My sister is a professional musician who as a child could pick up any instrument and learn to play it in less then a week. She can̢۪t draw or take a photo to save her life. And then look at some of my photos. My technique has improved greatly over the years, but the basic compositions of what I shoot now are really not that much different then when I bought my first 35mm.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 11:38:58.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:40:06 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
in the same sense as digital art - therefore not in the same realm as true phtographic art. |
Bullsh*t |
And the inside of you looks like outer space too i suppose? Stars, stardust, blackness...the background was replaced. On this site, that is digital art, not photography.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:41:21 AM · #97 |
Did Hellen Keller have the innate ability and talent for communication, or did she develop it with the help of a very devoted teacher?
I̢۪m also reminded of a television program I saw some years ago on thalidomide babies. Thalidomide was a drug used in the 60's that obstetricians were prescribing for their pregnant patients as a way to deal with morning sickness. Many of the women who took the drug wound up giving birth to severely malformed babies with horrible birth defects such as no limbs, or flippers for arms. Anyway, this program tracked the lives of 3 babies and how they overcame their handicaps. In particular, I remember one of these people who was born with flippers (hands directly attached to the shoulder socket with no intervening arms). He had a mother who did not raise him like a handicapped child. In her eyes, he was normal, but "different," and she treated him like any other kid growing up at that time. Turns out this man learned to play piano with his feet! With his feet!!! If I remember correctly, this man became so good as to become a concert pianist.
Point here I'm making is that while a person with innate ability comes born with the "hard wiring" of the neurology of the brain already formed, the brain can also later "rewire" it's pathways to allow for the connections to be made allowing for activities and thought processes that didn't exist (or seem not to exist) before. The human body and brain is not static, but always evolving and adapting. A lot of hard work and concentrated effort may be required to make the changes, but I believe they are possible.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:42:34 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Look at me, I'm tone deaf. Really. My sister is a professional musician who as a child could pick up any instrument and learn to play it in less then a week. She can̢۪t draw or take a photo to save her life. And then look at some of my photos. My technique has improved greatly over the years, but the basic compositions of what I shoot now is really not that much different then when I bought my first 35mm. |
Then let's get to the point. How do you ascertain whether somebody has this "eye"?
Where is your threshold? Did Cartier-Bresson have the eye? Who else? Who didn't?
If your answer is that it is not for you to determine who has the eye, then I ask you, who does determine this?
If you say it is an objective thing (either have the eye or do not) then by what reference point do you claim it can be determined whether one has the "eye" or not?
And if a critic disagrees with you and says that a certain photographer did not have the "eye", then does that mean that the critic does not have the "eye" for the "eye"?
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:47:14 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
then does that mean that the critic does not have the "eye" for the "eye"? |
eye eye capt'n |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 11:51:14 AM · #100 |
Prof,
Nilsonn's images were not manipulated in the way you suggest. The "stars" are backlit bits of material, I believe. Life magazine actually demanded independent veridication of these images before they'd publish them. There were 16 pages of them.
Robt.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:04:02 PM EDT.
