Talent vs Knowledge?

GoofBckt

A "loaded" photography question I'd love to hear opinions on . . .
In this digital age, how much of "good" photography is talent and how much is pure knowledge? Does a professional photographer these days really need to have some degree of talent, or can one simply gain enough knowledge to become a pro? Clear as mud? lol I have my own opinion on this, but I don't want to muddy this with my own response. Fire away gang!
Things have changed so much since Ansel Adams.
(P.S. Not sure I posted this in the right place). :rolleyes

Nikolai

GoofBckt wrote:

A "loaded" photography question I'd love to hear opinions on . . .
In this digital age, how much of "good" photography is talent and how much is pure knowledge? Does a professional photographer these days really need to have some degree of talent, or can one simply gain enough knowledge to become a pro? Clear as mud? lol I have my own opinion on this, but I don't want to muddy this with my own response. Fire away gang!
Things have changed so much since Ansel Adams.
(P.S. Not sure I posted this in the right place).

This is one of the "either mother or father" questions. To bring a child up you need both. Same with photography. Exceptions happen, but they are what they are: exceptions.

pathfinder

I'm with Nik!

GoofBckt

pathfinder wrote:

I'm with Nik!

I agree with this as well. To expand a little . . I believe a person must have SOME inherent talent for this in order to even be driven enough to attack the learning curve from all sides.

Qarik

talent is "the eye"and is inherent and to an extent can be developed, knowledge is the know how to achieve that vision. Clearly you need both and there is interaction between them.

The "interaction" is where you become really good. Once you start getting ot know your lens, lighting, and camera body then your "eye" evolves. Your natural eye has no idea what the camera is capable of. The eye is an a prior aethestic guage..what looks good? When the "eye" is fully aware of the technique then it opens up another dimension.

colourbox

The basics have not changed since Ansel Adams. Just look at one of his original negatives, the finished print, and his books which are full of highly technical charts and graphs.

Without the talent, his photos would have been technically brilliant prints of uninspiring images.
Without the knowledge, his photos would have been badly executed prints of inspiring images.
He had both, so he made technically brilliant prints of inspiring images.

Digital changes nothing. I mean, just look at what people are doing with HDR.
The most powerful cameras in history...
+ advanced software
+ technical knowledge
- talent
= crappy images.

That's just talking about being a great photographer. If you want to talk about being a pro, that takes a third skill: business sense. Otherwise it won't escape "subsidized hobby" status.

Nikolai

colourbox wrote:

Digital changes nothing. I mean, just look at what people are doing with HDR.
The most powerful cameras in history...
+ advanced software
+ technical knowledge
- talent
= crappy images.

That defintely struck the nerve The amount of crappy HDRs is something.. :-)

That's just talking about being a great photographer. If you want to talk about being a pro, that takes a third skill: business sense. Otherwise it won't escape "subsidized hobby" status.

+1

TonyCooper

Let's not forget the third factor: luck.

I can improve on my knowledge, and develop my talent, but often the results are due to pure luck. Sometimes the difference between an ordinary shot and a great shot is the luck of having pressed the shutter release a half-second sooner or a half-second later.

Nikolai

TonyCooper wrote:

Let's not forget the third factor: luck.

I can improve on my knowledge, and develop my talent, but often the results are due to pure luck. Sometimes the difference between an ordinary shot and a great shot is the luck of having pressed the shutter release a half-second sooner or a half-second later.

I respectfully disagree. Luck can get you a few shots, advance your career and maybe even launch you into a stardom, but it cannot make you a better photographer...

jeffreaux2

Nikolai wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Luck can get you a few shots, advance your career and maybe even launch you into a stardom, but it cannot make you a better photographer...

+1



and...

In todays age of digital photography and it's instant feedback it is fairly simple to educate ones self on the "technicalities" of photography. Still though, some folks have an "eye" for composition and timing that others may never achieve. Of course, the desire to improve our work doesn't hurt either.

Passion is an important element in learning.

Torgado

“Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work.” -Stephen King

"I do not want to die ... until I have faithfully made the most of my talent and cultivated the seed that was placed in me until the last small twig has grown." -Käthe Kollwitz

Neither talent nor knowledge are instantly given. Both are necessarily developmental processes. Furthermore, the two together are synergistic in nature, yielding greater results combined than either could individually.

I think an interesting question to ask might be, "Talent AND knowledge? How do they work together to create a great photographer?"

Talent and knowledge cannot grow to their fullest extents without passion that feeds endurance and perseverance in any creative pursuit.

FedererPhoto

jeffreaux2 wrote:

In todays age of digital photography and it's instant feedback it is fairly simple to educate ones self on the "technicalities" of photography.

While it may be a technicallity... I'm not sure I agree with the statement you are 'educating' yourself with the LCD. A lot of times, you are just getting better at making the images you want - just be 'feel' (for lack of a better term) ... you haven't really learned how to calculate flash power/exposure, what your exact DoF is, etc....

gchappel

To me there are 3 basic types of photographers.
I see talented artists that do not have even a basic understanding of what the camera does. I find their pictures to be interesting, but often poorly done.
I see technical wizards that know essentially everything their camera and lens can do. They understand how they work, what the settings do. This group gets lucky on occasion, but I find most of their work limited. BTW- I fit in this group.
There is then a very small group of talented artists that have complete control and understanding of the physics- of the camera, the software, the printing process. They are also excellent artists with a great eye. I hate these people- actually I am just jealous. They routinely produce beautiful, moving thoughtful work.
Actually most photographers I know fit inbetween these groups- but I wish I could claim to be in group number 3.
Gary

AAABluestocking

This is a fascinating debate.

DH is the one with all the technical knowledge and understanding of cameras...and I'm into post-processing.

We've been having 'shoot outs' where DH takes the SLR & I the Point -n- Shoot. Once he sees what I'm taking with the little camera then he captures a spectacular shot. He doesn't see the potential in the shot and is amazed with what I can do with it afterwards. I don't know enough about photography to get a good capture.

So yes, it's synergy and for us it takes two people! lol

Without knowing how the camera 'sees' differently than the eye and without knowing what you can do in the computer afterwards a photographer is certainly handicapped.

Trevlan

Once a camera with two lenses is created, then everyone will be a photographer, and we'll all be out of business. Untill then, harmony is what separates the good from the bad.

For example, some days we take great shots but our post proccesing sucks, and vice versa. The closer you are to that harmony of talent and knowledge, the better your pictures will be. It was once told to me when I first started shooting, and it was here on DGrin also, your pictures look nice, but to look their best, they need some type of post processing. I doubt Ansel's shots are all SOOC.

Once flash gets involved, its an entirely new can of worms. With out the tech to know what the difference between Rembrandt, short, broad, high key, low key, etc lighting is, you can make a potentially incredible image look regular. In the immortal words of the Zohan; I've seen this, I've done this.

zoomer

First is the talent to see the photo.
Second is the knowledge to figure out how to create it in frame.
Thirdly but just as important as the first two is to have the ability to judge the merits of your own work with a realistic eye.

There are a lot of would be photographers out there with American Idol syndrome.

Wil Davis

zoomer wrote:

…snip
There are a lot of would be photographers out there with American Idol syndrome.

Shrewd observation!

…shame that it's so true :cry

- Wil

Nikolai

zoomer wrote:

First is the talent to see the photo.
Second is the knowledge to figure out how to create it in frame.
Thirdly but just as important as the first two is to have the ability to judge the merits of your own work with a realistic eye.

There are a lot of would be photographers out there with American Idol syndrome.

So true:-)

CherryChick

I'd say that neither talent, nor knowledge is enough. You've got to have a creative mind and a good camera. The last one requires some financial support cause even a talented photographer with a bag of knowledge and skills would be helpless using a shitty camera.

And speaking of creative mind. Sometimes there are beautiful shots but there's no idea behind them. In that case I'm reminded of some Hollywood movies where there's a lot of special effects but no worth message.

jeffreaux2

CherryChick wrote:

I'd say that neither talent, nor knowledge is enough. You've got to have a creative mind and a good camera. The last one requires some financial support cause even a talented photographer with a bag of knowledge and skills would be helpless using a shitty camera.

And speaking of creative mind. Sometimes there are beautiful shots but there's no idea behind them. In that case I'm reminded of some Hollywood movies where there's a lot of special effects but no worth message.

I disagree about the "good camera".

Think about it.....did any photograph taken by a camera such as a Canon 20D suddenly become disinteresting and un-creative when the 5DmarkII was released?

I think not.

Any camera that the photographer knows intimately enough how to use to the advantage of his/her creative vision is enough camera. As far as I know, there are no mega-pixel wars in creativity, and the difference in images a particular person would capture whether using a $10,000 camera, or a $1000 camera is probably negligable.

The camera has no control over what it is pointed at, and what it cost has no further bearing on that fact.

GoofBckt

Thanks for this statement, and your humble honesty. You pic is fabulous. There's hope for me yet.

benjikan wrote:

I much prefer intuitive shooters over those with pure technique. I never studied photography and learned everything by trial and error and some of those errors became my trade mark. After over 25+ years in this Biz all I can say is don't be afraid to experiment and break every rule in the book to establish your own style. If there is something specific you wish to accomplish, there are tons of sites that can give you advice that will guide you in the right direction.