Your take on this

Froggy · February 3, 2006

To be a profesional Photographer are you God gifted born with the talent or can it be learned.

Let me explain, The technicalities of photography can be learned by anyone that can read and comprehend the subject matter, like playing guitar, but only a select few have the God given talent to make serious money at it.

My point is this, if we are happy with our work then it's good to us, but, is it really good.

Technically speaking it may have all of the rules in place but the image doesn't grab you emotionally, so, that ability to capture the emotion, the angles the lines the right moment becomes more artistic than technical.

Are we all artists some better than others, my question is this then, is it the true artist with God given artistic talent that make a truely great photographer or is something else.

Steve

wxwax · February 3, 2006

I think you're confusing two issues.

1/ Can anyone make a living as a photographer?
Yes, with the proper training and dedication.

2/ Are the best photographers born, not made?
Yes. Talent is something you're born with, not something you make. You either have The Eye or you don't. Those who have it can develop it and become the best. Those who don't have it can train themselves to get close and can make a living. But they'll never achieve what someone born with The Eye can.

Tessa HD · February 3, 2006

born with it.
My brother is a computer programmer. I COULD be a programmer, but he picked it up in a few months, it would take me a few years. His mind works in a way that mine doesn't. But you know what, my mind works in a way his doesn't. He is artistically challenged. I think he could learn what I know, but it would take him longer. He'd always have more flare in his technical thinking than I ever could, and I'd have more flare in my artistic thinking than he would.

Rules, shmules. If you've got a talent, you're going to break rules and set your own, that's the flare I'm talking about.

I need to get me some flare...

rjpat · February 3, 2006

There is a series of articals about this very subject Here

shatch · February 3, 2006

I agree with what has been said above with a small twist.

If you have been born with the talent and you have the passion and ambition for the execution of the talent, you can rise to "expert" levels. However, there does exist a group of people that the passion and persistence take them there. Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics in my mind was one such individual. He couldn't jump, his shot looked technically awkward, etc. But he is one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

In my business, real estate sales, there are individuals who really shouldn't be in the business. I cringe on some offers I see from them. Their clients are vulnerable to some pretty heavy consequences, yet their persistence and passion for what they do bring them $250,000/yr plus incomes.

So back to the original question, I agree with wxwax that there are two specific items to your question. In regards to running a business, you can be brilliantly successful now if you have the right plan, a burning passion, and consistent persistence. In regards to the "creative side", I still believe you can get there even if you weren't born with the talent. It will require great passion and persistence, but without the "God given talent" it will take more time and a lot more frames, just like Larry Bird had to spend more time in the gym and shoot more shots than others. It can be done. So the question then becomes, do you have the burning passion and the unwavering persistance to push through the trials and failures?

Scott_Quier · February 9, 2006

Tessa HD wrote:

My brother is a computer programmer. I COULD be a programmer, but he picked it up in a few months, it would take me a few years. His mind works in a way that mine doesn't. But you know what, my mind works in a way his doesn't. He is artistically challenged. I think he could learn what I know, but it would take him longer. He'd always have more flare in his technical thinking than I ever could, and I'd have more flare in my artistic thinking than he would.

Rules, shmules. If you've got a talent, you're going to break rules and set your own, that's the flare I'm talking about.

I need to get me some flare...

I am a "computer programmer" (actually a Software Engineer, if I want to try to impress someone - but that hasn't worked yet

:) and I can directly relate to the "artistically challenged" attribute - that's me in spades.

In regards to the "creative side", I still believe you can get there even if you weren't born with the talent. It will require great passion and persistence, but without the "God given talent" it will take more time and a lot more frames, just like Larry Bird had to spend more time in the gym and shoot more shots than others.

I tried to do the photography thing with film about 20 years ago and found that I couldn't afford the habit. Now, film is free so I take a lot of frames, bracketing stuff all the time and trying to analyze each mistake to figure out what went wrong. And, because the cycle time, between exposure and analysis, is so short I am actually starting to learn some things. But, I sure am glad the film is free (after the expense of the equipment) because I sure do capture a bunch of images to get just a few that I like.

I hope to someday be able to see the artistic. I am starting to see images around me and I am actually perceiving rather than just seeing. That, I think is a step in the right direction. I am persistant and I really enjoy the time I spend creating images. I hope to some day be very good. I know, because of the way my two gray cells work, I will probably never be great but I do persist.

JimM · February 9, 2006

My Take
This is a tough question to answer.... I think it depends on the type of images you are speaking of.... let me try to explain...

I think there are certain subjects and shots that don't really require the artistic sense to grab good images. These shots take try/error and lots of film.

I don't want to upset anyone, but I will try to use a personal experience... I am not a very "artsy" person, I more technical and less creative. When I was in high school, I would shoot for the yearbook/newspaper... film was free. I learned to shoot sports and got pretty good at it. You get some decent equipment, learn the "rule" of lighting in different environments and practice and you get pretty good results. Takes trial and error. You learn to shoot the faces, not the ball. You learn to pre-react to the shot, to "guess" where the play is going, etc. I think this is an example on how a less artistic person can get good at shooting a more technical type of shot.

On the other hand, I think things like landscapes take the "eye". I find it incredibly difficult to get really good landscapes. I think portraits are extremely challenging also. I have been trying to grow as a photographer, learning to shoot portraits.

I hope this makes some sense..... Basically, there are two completely different aspects of photography, the technical and the creative; but since there are many types of subjects and directions to go, people of all levels of these two "skills" can achieve great results.

Your take on this

Comments