# Are you born with it?



## jackiex_x (Aug 23, 2011)

I would love to be able to take artistic shots like you all here. But is it something you learn our are you born with the ability of spotting a good shot? I think the most expensive equipment in the world would be wasted if you didn't have a keen eye.


----------



## oldmacman (Aug 23, 2011)

jackiex_x said:


> I would love to be able to take artistic shots like you all here. But is it something you learn our are you born with the ability of spotting a good shot? I think the most expensive equipment in the world would be wasted if you didn't have a keen eye.



Some people are definitely more intuitive when it comes to creativity and composition. Sadly, I have to work at the ideas and look at a setting from several different angles. It does get quicker and easier with practice.


----------



## analog.universe (Aug 23, 2011)

I think maybe you're born with the desire to be creative?  Spotting a good shot comes from looking at, studying, and taking tens of thousands of shots.  There are a lot of influences on the viewer's perception of a shot (in addition to whatever technical considerations need to be perfectly executed).  Spending the time to learn about the effects of composition, color, light/shadow, etc...  and the psychology of visual communication is what makes it possible to spot amazing shots.  The more you do it, the better you get, because you're constantly re-evaluating your own work against new stuff that you learn.  Every time I go out shooting, something about my technique changes because of little details I remember from my last round of processing.  Something that feels like an amazing shot when I take it may turn out to have flaws I never considered while I was out... but I'll certainly consider them next time.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 23, 2011)

jackiex_x said:


> I would love to be able to take artistic shots like you all here. But is it something you learn our are you born with the ability of spotting a good shot? I think the most expensive equipment in the world would be wasted if you didn't have a keen eye.



Yes. Everyone has inate abilities, that like everything in life, falls on a scale. Zero being no talent and 10 being genius talent. Everyone falls within that range. Education and practice can bring out, and grow these abilities. But rarely can a 1 turn into a 10.


----------



## analog.universe (Aug 23, 2011)

There's also the philosophical side...

I feel like Lao Tzu has had more influence on my photography than Bryan Peterson, if you know what I mean.


----------



## joealcantar (Aug 23, 2011)

Maybe , but it can be taught. 
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## jackiex_x (Aug 23, 2011)

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep practicing.


----------



## KmH (Aug 23, 2011)

Those that have some inate photography ability (eye) sometimes come up short, because at some point the path to the next level requires having a technical understanding of how a camera, lens, and photograph work.

By the same token there have been, and are, many talented photographers out there unable to make any money doing photography because they don't know anything about business, marketing, and promotion.

While I agree with Bitter a 1 can't become a 10, I'm living proof a 1 can become a 7 or 8.


----------



## jackiex_x (Aug 23, 2011)

KmH said:


> While I agree with Bitter a 1 can't become a 10, I'm living proof a 1 can become a 7 or 8.



That's encouraging for a novice, thanks


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 23, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> jackiex_x said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to be able to take artistic shots like you all here. But is it something you learn our are you born with the ability of spotting a good shot? I think the most expensive equipment in the world would be wasted if you didn't have a keen eye.
> ...



I thought like bitter until I read this book.....Amazon.com: Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (9781591842248): Geoff Colvin: Books

Practice....Practice....and Practice. That will get you where you want to be.  It has to be the kind of practice that challenges you otherwise you wont improve. But a 1 can become a 10 if you put in the time.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Aug 23, 2011)

I agree.  I think anyone can do anything if they immerse themselves in it.  The problem, I think, most people have is they get into something, get pretty good at it then get bored with it and do something else.  They never become masters at anything.


----------



## jackiex_x (Aug 23, 2011)

Higgs Boson said:


> The problem, I think, most people have is they get into something, get pretty good at it then get bored with it and do something else.  They never become masters at anything.



Yes, I do that a lot


----------



## Compaq (Aug 23, 2011)

"What I lack in talent, I make up with practice."

A good saying, but I don't know from who. Anyway, I've always learned fast. Technical/theoretical stuff come easy to me. Practically, however, comes a more slowly. I'm studying chemistry, and only this spring my lab partner decided to change lab party as I was so clumsy... I, erh, may, accidentally, have tumbled over the bottle of concentrated sulfuric acid.........


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 23, 2011)

Higgs Boson said:


> I agree. I think anyone can do anything if they immerse themselves in it. The problem, I think, most people have is they get into something, get pretty good at it then get bored with it and do something else. They never become masters at anything.



Yeah to get really good, it gets really hard.  And sometimes its just not enough fun. For me thats most sports....chemistry....angry birds.....
But for photography I will go stand in the ocean all night or climb mountains for practice getting the shots I want


----------



## Railphotog (Aug 23, 2011)

Read something somewhere supposedly attributed to golfing great Arnold Palmer.  When he made a great shot, someone mentioned how it was a lucky shot, and Arnold replied "Yes, the more I practice, the luckier I get".   Or something along that.

Practice, practice, practice!


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 23, 2011)

It's all relative. Yesterday's know-nothing is today's genius. It takes an audience's opinion to make you what you are, not necessarily what you are doing. Obviously there is a technical side that feeds into that. You can't just be a 2 yr old with a paint brush and make art...

Oh wait...

Toddler fools the art world into buying his tomato ketchup paintings | Mail Online

If you are worried about being revered as an artist when you pick up a camera... you are doing it wrong.

Just take pictures for you, and not for anyone else.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 23, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> If you are worried about being revered as an artist when you pick up a camera... you are doing it wrong.



Ding!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 23, 2011)

There are some gifted photographers as there are gifted musicians, race car drivers etc. There is a part of photography that I don't believe can be taught. It has been said that the late Nascar driver Dale Earnhardt could see the air.  There are photographers that do have that gift of being able to really see light.  If the average person with a camera is a 1 and the most skilled experienced photographer is a 10, what is it that makes that person a 10?  Does that mean they are gifted with the ability to really understand light? 

I know where I see myself on the scale, I really understand light and how to use it, but I also know photographers that are more skilled and experienced than I am, but in different fields. I learned about light from the first day my Dad handed me a camera, and as photographers go, my Dad is a 10 on that scale.

Ballistics said it well with "just take pictures for you". Be happy with what you shoot, some will never aspire to the top of the scale, and so what, you do the best you can with what talents you have.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 23, 2011)

Yes and no.  Someone born with the ability to "see" the perfect shot may not have the ability to "light" the perfect shot.  I was reading an article the other day where for an audi interior shoot, the photographer took 14 images, each with 7 lights, etc.  So there is a balance between being born creative and learning.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 23, 2011)

When I talk about seeing light, it's avaliable light, not setting up lights, that can be taught.  Being able to use the light that is avaliable to everyone but not seen by everyone.


----------



## mishele (Aug 23, 2011)

Are you born w/ the will to learn?? That is the real question!!


----------



## KmH (Aug 23, 2011)

Word! &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593;


----------



## WesternGuy (Aug 24, 2011)

Here ya go - test yourself to see where you are on the scale? Fun to try anyway...

Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test at The Art Institute of Vancouver

Cheers,

WesternGuy


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 24, 2011)

This is a pretty complex and difficult one to answer well.

I would say that yes, some people are born with the ability to be superior photographers.

That being said, it takes a lot of time and practice to realize your full potential.

I have read about racing greats like Michael Schumacher, and most of them started racing early in life. Schumacher for example started racing when he was 6 years old.
Was he &#8220;born with it&#8221;? Of course, but what if he hadn&#8217;t started racing till he was 20 years old? Clearly his career in F1 would have turned out differently. See what I mean?

The difference between F1 and photography though is that one requires immense physical conditioning and a young body, while the other really doesn&#8217;t. You can still be a great photographer when you are old, but not so with F1 drivers.

I was watching Rambo last night, and remember something Trautman told him that was pretty wise.

&#8220;Let me tell you a story, John. There was a sculptor, and he found this stone: a special stone. He dragged it home and he worked on it for months, until he finally finished. When he was ready, he showed it to his friends and they said he had created a great statue, and the sculptor said he hadn't created anything. The statue was always there. He just cleared away the small pieces. 
We didn't make you this fighting machine. We just chipped away the rough edges. You're always going to be tearing away at yourself until you come to terms with what you are. Until you come full circle.&#8221;

This is what I think about natural talent and ability. Some people are &#8220;born with it&#8221;, but it will require removing the small pieces as Trautman said before their full potential is realized.

Neil


----------



## Overread (Aug 24, 2011)

In my view a lot of people who are "born with it" are more the case that they simply showed a great interest/were encouraged into the subject from a very young age. When we are young we soak up info really easily and as we get older that ease slows - oh we can be very studious, but our minds don't quite soak it up the same.

In addition if you spend 10 - 15 years up till your 20odd learning and doing something, well you've all those years experience to draw from already before you're 20. Modern life seems to devalue the under 20's age group in some way with regard to learning a trade, we seem to do it after 20 (or at least after 15).


So I think its more a case that some are not necessarily always born with the skill, but are born with the desire to develop in a certain direction and are lucky enough to have the opportunity and support to allow that development to be realised. 

That does not however preclude anyone else from learning the skills either, nor from them learning them to a very high degree = it just means if you start at 20 you've a ways to go before you've got that 10 years experience to draw from; and you might find you need to work that bit harder at the start to get the info to stick.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 24, 2011)

I think it's a bit of both.  But I think in this case, the eye is born before the artistic tweaking.

For instance, my strong point is photojournalism style shots.  I can "sense" when something is about to happen.  My husband on the other hand, just has a knack of DOF and lighting.

I struggle with posing, and do much better when things just happen.  I have to work at what my husband is naturally good at, and he in turn has to work at what is naturally easy for me.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 24, 2011)

I think its a mixture as well. I think everything can be taught if a person is willing and able to learn. However, I think some people are born predisposed to pick things up faster than others, whether its because they learn motor skills faster, or problem solve faster or whatever. Its a little subjective when we start talking about "Art" as well as "skills". Art doesn't really have a concrete definition. It can be anything to anyone in a sense. One mans art is another mans garbage. Skills you can learn. As Keith stated, there is a technical side and a formula to many things ( not just photography ) that can be learned and performed. There are many people shooting school portraits that just do the same mundane formula day in and day out. There is no artistic creativity going on, but they are making money and doing what they like in a field that is often considered "Artistic". Also, if you want to really dig down to the nuts and bolts of things, in a sense, many of us are just copying what others have done. I mean who was the first person to selectively color? Is anyone else using that technique less creative or artistic because they didn't come up with it first? I guess how you apply techniques and ideas to shots is where your artistic side comes into play, but then again, that's only if its received as art by the viewer. So now you have two variables, not only do you have to attempt to be creative and find your only reasoning or method to your madness, whoever is the viewer ultimately has the end say in whether you are a "genius" or a "hack". So perhaps most of it is based on you figuring out what your viewer will see as artistic or creative. Even if to someone else its not .  Case in point, I can do some gaudy overbaked HDR shot and show it to my co-workers and they will think I am a god among men, however, if I showed it on this thread, I would be considered a hack. So really there is no answer to this question since there is no concrete answer as to what "artistic" even is.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 24, 2011)

After pondering it more, in terms of photography perhaps being "artistic" is simply dependent upon the skills/tools at your disposal. I mean, once you learn techniques ( contra jour, selective coloring, HDR, backlighting, silhouette, cross processing, panoramas, black and white etc etc etc ) you then have to have the mindset to look at a scene and run through that rolodex of skills/tools and choose the best, or best combination, that fits. That simple decision, which is unexplainable ( although you may be able to rationalize your decision to a degree ) would be the one spot where art comes from. The more skills/tools you LEARN, the more chance you have at being deemed "creative"


My head hurts now. Thanks guys.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 24, 2011)

Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle".  Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves. 


So, sure, practice of technical stuff, makes perfect. But there is still that something else that is much harder to grasp, and attain. That is what I feel is innate talent. As mentioned here a couple times, some people naturally pick stuff up quickly, while others will spend ten times the amount of time to achieve the same level. That is natural talent.

I think sports is a poor example of talent. Sports is mainly practicing a skill.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 24, 2011)

Thank you Goonies and Bitter for another wonderful philosophical conversation.  (Damn, wish I could spell!)
I always enjoy what you guys have to say, whether I personally agree or not.  You guys make me think and ponder things.

Love having you guys here.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 24, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle".  Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves.
> 
> 
> So, sure, practice of technical stuff, makes perfect. But there is still that something else that is much harder to grasp, and attain. That is what I feel is innate talent. As mentioned here a couple times, some people naturally pick stuff up quickly, while others will spend ten times the amount of time to achieve the same level. That is natural talent.
> ...


 I agree with you I think. I feel that the technical knowledge lays the foundation for you to maximize your creative potential when you have more tools to employ. However, some people, when given enough time to screw around, will come up with something. Thats not always creative though as much as it is dumb luck. I also agree with KmH about making a 1 into a 7 or an 8. I also agree with you and feel being a 10 is reserved the idiot-savants and geniuses.  Creativity or "Artistic ability" is really very hard to define given that its all so subjective. Imagine a gallery with 10 photographers works hanging up and a group of critics walking around critiquing each one. They may like certain ones more than others, for technical reasons or deeply personal reasons or whatever. However, all of the photos are artistic and creative. So what constitutes one being a "4" and the other being an "8" ?? Is it those critiques? The Gallery Patrons? The local newspaper that does a review? Who knows! LOL 

Another thing that I think factors into how "creative" you are, could be the environment you grow in. Somethings come natural to people given their culture, or surroundings, that may seem unique and creative to other people who have never been in that environment. Lets say a war photographer shoots from these sweeping low angles all the time and people just LOVE his "style". "Its so unlike anything out nowadays" " I love the way it makes the soldiers look larger than life". Maybe he is just trying to not get shot while taking his pictures? To him, thats normal common sense, to someone else, its assumed genius.


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 24, 2011)

I still believe that you can get to be a 10 with practice, you just have to practice your weaknesses and be able to handle lots of failure.  Bitter can attest to some of the beatings I took from CPS judges 
I think a lot of the "omg he learned so fast he must be a genius" is due to skills from other areas.  Perhaps they are used to dealing with technical devices at work all day (like me) so learning how a camera works from the technical side is easy because I have hours of practice on similar machines.  Same for composition if a painter transitions into photography, they would have a leg up over the other beginners because they already know the rule of 3rds etc....  So much from outside experience plays into how rapidly you can progress I think its more complicated then just saying they are savants.  
I think you can train yourself to be creative too, its also just frustrating work.  One of my other hobbies is inventing things...which is creative since its doing things no one else has done (or at least documented.....). I find the more I practice it, the easier it gets and the better my ideas get. I think it works the same in photography.  Thats why a lot of the classes will tell you to pick a scene and practice working it to death, shoot every possible angle.  They want you to work on seeing in a more creative, non standard way.


----------



## jackiex_x (Aug 24, 2011)

Wow (OP here), that's some interesting reading. What have I started? Lol. Very helpful tho.


----------



## daarksun (Aug 29, 2011)

If everyone had that keen eye that made it big as a photographer I don't think these fashion guys would need to take a 1000 shots just to get one or two shots worthy of being in a magazine somewhere.  Getting the "eye" isn't something any can learn. You have it or you don't.  However, anyone can learn to be a great photographer. You learn the equipment and what it takes to get the right image. composition which is so important to a great photo can also be picked up on as anyone learns.


----------



## Karensworld (Aug 29, 2011)

From my point of view, as mentioned by the others, creativity is (unfortunately) not something that cannot be learned.. Either you have it or not.. 

Regarding the artistic shot, I think it is possible as we should not forget that art is a form of expression that may be reflected by every individual in a personal way.. The aesthetic may be argued but art is objective!! 

I agree with what you said about the most expensive equipment in the world being a waste without a keen eye. 

So for me there are two important (compulsory) points that play a crucial role on in spotting a good shot which are:
*Knowledge of techniques - 

*It is obvious that to be able to take a good shots, there are some steps to follow. Managing a camera is one thing, but knowing how to control all its features and being able to influence the effect and result is another thing. 

*Experience - *

Once the techniques learned, experience is an on-going process that gradually leads you to improvements as learning from errors or even appreciating your work from a critical eye helps to reach the next level which can only be achieved with time and practice.

​


----------



## jackiex_x (Aug 29, 2011)

Well so far I have learned a lot from this forum, like when you give C&C on other's shots, lots of handy tips there. We will see how I get on next week. Faulty battery in my camera atm, have ordered new one so can't use it this weekend grrr.


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 29, 2011)

Karensworld said:


> From my point of view, as mentioned by the others, creativity is (unfortunately) not something that cannot be learned.. Either you have it or not..
> 
> Regarding the artistic shot, I think it is possible as we should not forget that art is a form of expression that may be reflected by every individual in a personal way.. The aesthetic may be argued but art is objective!!
> 
> ...




I think creativity CAN be learned though, and sort of have an experiment going with my wife.  I grew up in a very creative environment, and so am somewhat creative because thats the way my father pushed me to look at the world.  My wife on the other hand grew up in a very uncreative environment, no critical thinking, no art, etc. We have been together 10 years now and she has trippled her level of creativity because I have been pushing her to practice at it. But I think creativity is hard to practice, because its hard to measure.  How do you quantify creative?  Someone taking an image of a tree upside down?  Inverting all the colors?  Lying in the dirt for a strange angle? An overshot subject from a different vantage point?  So I think the nebulous concept of creativity provides an illusion that it cant be learned / improved.​


----------



## mishele (Aug 29, 2011)

I think EVERYTHING can be taught and learned.:greenpbl: But I also believe that some people have a "talent". By a "talent", I mean that there is something that comes from inside that can't be taught. 
I know sports aren't exactly in the same category but they are a good example of "talent". I coached vball for a couple of years and have been around it for the greater part of 25 yrs. There are just some girls that could work as hard as they wanted to and become great players, but never meet the level of the girl w/ talent. You would see it all the time.


----------



## vfotog (Aug 29, 2011)

I definitely don't believe a 1 can become a 10 solely by practice. Creativity and artistic talent are inborn. Left brain/right brain functioning isn't something that you can rewire.  I wasn't born with music. I could take decades of lessons and I would never have the abilities that some people are born with. I've seen it with my daughter and with many musicians I've known. They've developed their skills, but they always had innate talent. It wasn't a choice. OTOH, I've always been an artist. I've always been able to draw. Well before I ever studied it in school, I had natural abilities well above my classmates. I see more precisely. I see differences in color, I see light and it's effects and I can create from it. I can make something from nothing. I was born with an eye. So when I started photography, it came _really _easily to me. I learned the technical stuff, but the eye and the creative way of thinking was already there. I've had less creative people want to take advantage of my creativity more than once because all though they had the money for the best of equipment, the imagination, the creative spark, just wasn't there. You can teach the technical aspects. of course, with modern smart cameras that do a lot of the work for you, possessing technical ability is less important. Having monetary success at artistic endeavors is another issue entirely. Business sense and creativity are pretty far apart; I've seen many people with brilliant abilities that aren't financially successful. Radically different skill sets.  Having been around artists and musicians all my life, I know that the blessing and curse of natural talent is something that we are gifted. Nurture it? Sure. Master the technical aspects? Sure. But to go from having no creative abilities to being a 10? I think that would take a change in brain function. Of course, I personally would never have the ego to claim to being a 10 in anything.


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 29, 2011)

most of my family are artists, musicians, writers....very creative types and I have gotten to watch them all progress over the years. Theres no innate talent there, lots of hard work and dedication, especially to make a living off it. Everyone can believe what they want of course, but I will stick with the science and know I can make myself an expert at anything if I want to put in the hard work. If you dont believe in yourself and dont want to push yourself...fine by me, less competition at the top!


----------



## jake337 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle". Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves.
> 
> 
> So, sure, practice of technical stuff, makes perfect. But there is still that something else that is much harder to grasp, and attain. That is what I feel is innate talent. As mentioned here a couple times, some people naturally pick stuff up quickly, while others will spend ten times the amount of time to achieve the same level. That is natural talent.
> ...



I'm sorry but athletics is a great example.  Many, including myself trained and trained and trained, just as hard as any other peer in the same sports(bseball, soccer, football, hockey) and would never achieve the same skill and talent as those who went past highschool sports, college sports into pro sports.

Some are born with more talent in a particular field in life.

An old friend used to tell me "Some people are born with a book in their hand, some are born with a hammer"


----------



## Railphotog (Aug 29, 2011)

I agree that artistic talent is mostly something that one is born with. I've done artsy stuff most of my life, I can remember getting in trouble in grade school for sketching airplanes during class. We never had art classes in school way back then, so it appears what I was doing was a distraction in class rather than a talent to the teachers.

Im my pre-teen years I started in model railroading, and as a teen my modeling was equal to or better than most of the adults in a club I belonged to. I had no problem making my own model buildings from cardboard and balsa wood, mostly because I didn't have money to buy expensive kits.

My first attempts at photography involved taking photos of my model railroad, using really crude equipment. With a friend we added a pinhole aperture to a camera and took some fairly decent photos, developed the film and making contact prints in a temporary darkroom in our basement. None of my contemporary friends did anything along these lines, it was just something that I was able to figure out how to do on my own.

I later got into 35mm photography, taking photos at a local drag race track and selling them to the racers. Much of my hobby interest was devoted to making extra money, something a teen always needs!  I bought an airbrush and a compressor and started painting car designs on t-shirts at car shows, using my sketching ability. Later got into silk-screening designs too, again all self taught.

In my early twenties, photography was my main hobby and of course raising a family took lots of my time. In my thirties I started part time wedding photography, did lettering on race cars and commercial vehicles, and longed for model railroad subjects I could photograph with my 35mm gear, hoping to see a photo of mine in the hobby press. I submitted photos to the magazines, and have been greatly successful in the past 25 or so years with over 850 of my photos published, including around 30 covers. 

So most of my life I've been involved in some way with "artistic" activities, and I never had any art training at all nor were there any art activities in our home on in schools I attended. I assume it was just something I was born with.

It's been a great ride so far!


----------



## vfotog (Aug 29, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> most of my family are artists, musicians, writers....very creative types and I have gotten to watch them all progress over the years. Theres no innate talent there, lots of hard work and dedication, especially to make a living off it. Everyone can believe what they want of course, but I will stick with the science and know I can make myself an expert at anything if I want to put in the hard work. If you dont believe in yourself and dont want to push yourself...fine by me, less competition at the top!



Does your family know you think they're untalented? I find your statement extremely hard to believe. "creative types" certainly implies that they had some talent that led them to get training and work hard. I assume you know the whole story then of their youth and what they showed ability in or not. I don't know any "creative types" that had no innate ability that led them to pursue the arts. And "making a living off it" has nothing to do with the topic of whether someone is born with creativity and talent. Business sense is a whole other kettle of fish. Van Gogh sold 1 painting in his lifetime but his creativity is unquestioned. I find it funny that you say you want to "stick with science". I think you would be hard-pressed to find ANY science to back up your position of creativity and talent not being innate to some extent... and of course, you may want to read some science on left/right brain.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 29, 2011)

jake337 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle". Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves.
> ...



I agree that sports is a good example, when you look at players like Wayne Gretzky and Sidney Crosby in hockey, yes they all practiced, but even at a very young age they were heads above players their own ages and had more skill than most players older than them, many athletes are definately born with the a skill.  It's not a creative or artistic skill like photographers, artists, jewellers or musicians, but a physical skill.  Most of the "artists" are born with a mental skill, it may take the right outside influence to open that mental window, but it is there.  Not everyone is born with the same mental playing field, many through hard work can get there, but it is still harder work than the "gifted" ones.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> Most of the "artists" are born with a mental skill, it may take the right outside influence to open that mental window, but it is there. Not everyone is born with the same mental playing field, many through hard work can get there, but it is still harder work than the "gifted" ones.



:thumbup:


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 29, 2011)

vfotog said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > most of my family are artists, musicians, writers....very creative types and I have gotten to watch them all progress over the years. Theres no innate talent there, lots of hard work and dedication, especially to make a living off it. Everyone can believe what they want of course, but I will stick with the science and know I can make myself an expert at anything if I want to put in the hard work. If you dont believe in yourself and dont want to push yourself...fine by me, less competition at the top!
> ...



Sure my family knows that its not talent, but hard work. And I only included "making a living off it" so that you know that they have achieved a level of recognition beyond ordinary hobbyists.  My cousin even got 2nd place on America's Got Talent a few years ago.  But his "inborn talent" was thousands of hours of practice as a child.  When I was putzing around on computer games, he was practicing piano....for hours and hours. 

I have read plenty on left brain/right brain and my wife is fascinated by such things so I hear about it often (more often than I would like but shhh dont tell her). For scientific analysis there is a great book I read called _Talent is Overrated _which is full of examples and case studies of how people get really good at what they do. Its a very interesting read and re-oriented my thinking on talent (as I used to think that it was mostly inborn as well). There are several other books on the subject as well....but they are still in my reading que.


----------



## jake337 (Aug 29, 2011)

WesternGuy said:


> Here ya go - test yourself to see where you are on the scale? Fun to try anyway...
> 
> Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test at The Art Institute of Vancouver
> 
> ...



Fun test.
Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test - The Art Institute of Vancouver

Left BrainRight Brain43%57%


----------



## mishele (Aug 29, 2011)

Left BrainRight Brain38%62%


lol athlete and artist
*You are more right-brained than left-brained.* The  right side of your brain controls the left side of your body.  In addition to being known as  right-brained, you are also known as a creative thinker who uses feeling and intuition to  gather information.  You retain this information through the use of images and patterns.  You  are able to visualize the "whole" picture first, and then work backwards to put the pieces  together to create the "whole" picture.  Your thought process can appear quite illogical and  meandering.  The problem-solving techniques that you use involve free association, which is  often very innovative and creative.  The routes taken to arrive at your conclusions are  completely opposite to what a left-brained person would be accustomed.  You probably find it  easy to express yourself using art, dance, or music.  Some occupations usually held by a  right-brained person are forest ranger, athlete, beautician, actor/actress, craftsman, and  artist.


----------



## Overread (Aug 29, 2011)

Left Brain..       Right Brain
56%.........                   44%

"Some occupations usually held by a left-brained person include a lab scientist, banker, judge, lawyer, mathematician, librarian, and skating judge."

Darn it I can't be a photographer! But I can judge creative skating performances?


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 29, 2011)

Wow - I was 50% Left, 51% Right.  Pretty much an even split.

Not only am I more normal that you guys, but I'm smarter too, since my numbers added up to 101%.  :lmao:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2011)




----------



## pixilstudio (Aug 30, 2011)

as a licensed art teacher... yes you can do it. take an art class any art class all the principles are the same for all mediums


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 30, 2011)

I got left brain 57% and right brain 43%

But I dont think thats 100% correct since I usually see the big picture not the parts. My wife sees the parts, and we have a hard time explaining things to each other.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 30, 2011)

37%-63%  I guess I fit into my career and athlete.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 30, 2011)

I'm not really sure if this is good or bad.....LOL!

Left Brain: 26
Right Brain: 74

I think the study, while fun, (thanks Westernguy!) says that I am an absent minded idiot drawn to shiny things.  My husband would agree.

Here is the link to my results if anyone is interested:
Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test - The Art Institute of Vancouver


----------



## Compaq (Aug 30, 2011)

Left: 53
Right: 47

I'm studying chemistry, and am competent in maths and logic thinking.. Interesting test. Much fits, some doesn't.

http://www.wherecreativitygoestoschool.com/vancouver/left_right/rb_results.pl#Logical


----------



## bennielou (Aug 30, 2011)

Holy Cow Bitter, we had nearly the same score!  No wonder I adore you.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 30, 2011)

So basically, the people here who don't believe in innate talent or creativity, are of the new mindset that everyone is a winner, or can be, and simply nobody is special in any way. That anyone can be or do whatever they want if they just put their mind to it and practice. Bull.


I work in a building that is the historic jewelery distric in cleveland. There are 3 other trade shops that do exactly what I do. All 3 have been doing this, for at least 10 years longer than I have. 2 went to the same school as I did, and one was taught by his father. ALL THREE are complaining about being slow, and struggling, and hope the economy improves soon. In the meantime I work 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and am raking in the dough. I have have fixed jobs for each of these three other jewelers, that the customer was unhappy with. One comes down and picks my brain to figure out how to do jobs. Then there is me. I am repeatedly referred by other jewelers TO other jewelers. I repeatedly get work that other jewelers refuse to do. I went on my own, opening a business when the economy was down, and gold is at an all time high, and I turn away work because I DON'T HAVE TIME. Others are struggling. My prices are higher than than everyone elses. Why am I so succesful? Because I have something others don't. I am head and shoulders above those who have been doing this for longer, have had much more time for practicing and refining their skills. I am slowly being compared to some of the old jewelers who are at the top in this city. I am not the best yet.  


Not everyone has the same critical thinking abilities, nor creative thinking abilities. Not everyone has the ability to create a tool to solve a problem. Nor can everyone be nutured to the point of genius as so many are suggesting here. You can't ignore brain chemistry, hard wiring, or genetics. 

As for the licensed art teacher...yeah, you can teach the mechanics all you want, but you are only addressing a small portion of the bigger picture.

Why is it so wrong to think that some people are just special, talented, or gifted? Why is there a need to pretend everyone can be equal in all ways?


----------



## bennielou (Aug 30, 2011)

I agree Bitter.  I try to learn math but I'm just not hard wired for tha.........
oh wait, I just saw something sparkly.........
I'll be back.....
Maybe.....


----------



## vfotog (Aug 30, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So basically, the people here who don't believe in innate talent or creativity, are of the new mindset that everyone is a winner, or can be, and simply nobody is special in any way. That anyone can be or do whatever they want if they just put their mind to it and practice. Bull.
> 
> 
> I work in a building that is the historic jewelery distric in cleveland. There are 3 other trade shops that do exactly what I do. All 3 have been doing this, for at least 10 years longer than I have. 2 went to the same school as I did, and one was taught by his father. ALL THREE are complaining about being slow, and struggling, and hope the economy improves soon. In the meantime I work 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and am raking in the dough. I have have fixed jobs for each of these three other jewelers, that the customer was unhappy with. One comes down and picks my brain to figure out how to do jobs. Then there is me. I am repeatedly referred by other jewelers TO other jewelers. I repeatedly get work that other jewelers refuse to do. I went on my own, opening a business when the economy was down, and gold is at an all time high, and I turn away work because I DON'T HAVE TIME. Others are struggling. My prices are higher than than everyone elses. Why am I so succesful? Because I have something others don't. I am head and shoulders above those who have been doing this for longer, have had much more time for practicing and refining their skills. I am slowly being compared to some of the old jewelers who are at the top in this city. I am not the best yet.
> ...



kinda weird, ain't it? why some people want to think that we are all identical is beyond me. We are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses. It was obvious by elementary school I could draw much better than my classmates. It wasn't work or lessons or practice: the ability was inborn. My daughter has innate musical talent. It was there to nurture. Do some people really think with some lessons they can be as brilliant as Einstein or paint like Da Vinci or sing like Streisand or write songs like Dylan? Really? You can improve skills but you can only work with what you have. Why the fear of acknowledging our individuality?


----------



## Overread (Aug 30, 2011)

Bitter - I don't see many saying that everyone can achieve equal status, but more that they are saying that most people of sound mind can achieve a similar standard of decent performance in many crafts in life, provided that they are receptive to and learn the content (ie put in the effort). It's more the respect of the fact that a good standard in most things is possible by most people - granted they might well lack the flare of talent to push the boundaries of their craft or to refine its process; but will at least be able to do a passable job. 

Which is why we have our average workers - our builders - doctors - lawyers - and (dare I say it) artists who grind and work away at the general level. Once in a while they might well do some excellent work and - through experience - improve with time. 

This does nothing to discredit the fact that we also have those people who are capable of taking things "to the next level" who find it easier to work in certain areas than others and who are able to perform to a higher standard or to push things further or in new directions.


----------



## vfotog (Aug 30, 2011)

Overread said:


> Bitter - I don't see many saying that everyone can achieve equal status, but more that they are saying that most people of sound mind can achieve a similar standard of decent performance in many crafts in life, provided that they are receptive to and learn the content (ie put in the effort). It's more the respect of the fact that a good standard in most things is possible by most people - granted they might well lack the flare of talent to push the boundaries of their craft or to refine its process; but will at least be able to do a passable job.
> 
> Which is why we have our average workers - our builders - doctors - lawyers - and (dare I say it) artists who grind and work away at the general level. Once in a while they might well do some excellent work and - through experience - improve with time.
> 
> This does nothing to discredit the fact that we also have those people who are capable of taking things "to the next level" who find it easier to work in certain areas than others and who are able to perform to a higher standard or to push things further or in new directions.



actually, several of the posters indeed did say that there is NO innate talent, that it's all hard work and practice. and that you could even achieve a 10 based solely on work and no natural abilities. I don't think anyone mentioned having just "decent" results.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 30, 2011)

vfotog said:


> actually, several of the posters indeed did say that there is NO innate talent, that it's all hard work and practice. and that you could even achieve a 10 based solely on work and no natural abilities.


 Oh my god! There are even studies and books written proving that, and that all other books and studies suggesting otherwise are wrong!


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 30, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > actually, several of the posters indeed did say that there is NO innate talent, that it's all hard work and practice. and that you could even achieve a 10 based solely on work and no natural abilities.
> ...



Thats awesome you have achieved such success bitter, and clearly it is realated to a great work ethic and having business skills. What caused you to get better than your competitors? Was it practicing things you were bad at to improve and increase your market share? (artistic skills) Was it working to build a good reputation and happy client base? (business skills). These are skills that can be learned and taught and improved. Your competitors could theoretically do the same, why dont they? I argue it isnt because you were born more talented, its because you have a drive to succeed and improve yourself. Perhaps they dont want to put in the time to re-invent their business, or just dont care that they are mediocre. What sets the best achievers apart from the ho hum achievers is the amount of practice they put in, and how dedicated they are to push themselves onward when it gets hard. 

For people who are top of their game, this isnt an insult to you it just means that YOU work harder/smarter than your competition.  Shouldnt that be more fulfilling than "I was born with it"?

So if you want to say some people are born driven.....I may agree with that. Although I have seen anectdotal evidence that drive can be mainly a product of your environment.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 30, 2011)

Oh hell.  We just started a whole NEW conversation......how to take inate talent, pair it with technical logic, and then throw some business skills into the mix.
My head (or at least the 74% side) will now surely explode.  I'm an arteeeeest damnin!  (Or so the survey said)


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 30, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Oh hell. We just started a whole NEW conversation......how to take inate talent, pair it with technical logic, and then throw some business skills into the mix.
> My head (or at least the 74% side) will now surely explode. I'm an arteeeeest damnin! (Or so the survey said)



yes...ugh business. 

At least I do landscape photography and the "Business of Photography" book I was looking at in Barnes & Noble only had a paragraph on the subject.  I think maybe perhaps possibly I could learn that much......


----------



## bennielou (Aug 30, 2011)

Heck if we throw business into the mix, we have a whole other bag of tricks.

Over the last decade, the last few years especially, I've seen some STRONG people go out of business.  I don't know if they didn't know how to sell (doubtful because they have been selling for years), got burned out, didn't roll with the punches regarding the newer photography styles, didn't fit their market to the fit the new economy.....I don't know.  I was seriously dumbfounded to see many of my friends go out business this year.

However, I will say, knowing how to sell is JUST as important as the photography aspect.  After all, you won't be shooting squat, for any amount of reasonable money (anyone can GIVE IT AWAY), if you don't know how to close the deal in the first place.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 30, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...


 I have rather poor business skills. And never took a business class or economics class in my life. Maybe it just came naturally?  I actually have had terrible work ethics, and make poor choices and put myself in a bind all the time. What you are doing is making all kinds of assumptions to prove your point. Metal work came pretty natural to me. I can't say that I had to "work hard" at getting good at it at all. I never struggled to get better. I've learned a lot of skills on my own just by "figuring it out". I never had to work hard to get A's in any various art medium in school. What I did struggle with was acedemics. I had to work hard to get C's.



> For people who are top of their game, this isnt an insult to you it just means that YOU work harder/smarter than your competition. Shouldnt that be more fulfilling than "I was born with it"?


 I still say you are making assumptions. It is just as easy to assume that there is just natural talent. I can't say that I worked harder than anyone. How do you quantify that? What if what I don't see as hard work, or intense drive, is to someone else. That tells me it just comes naturally. I would say I didn't work hard to get where I am at all. I just worked. Long hours doesn't equate to hard work. 

As far as your study with your wife...I find it flawed. Because she shows improvement, you will naturally say it supports your claim that it is practice and hard work, while I would say she already had some innate ability, and you are opening that door. To do this study properly, you need to take a larger sample of people, and give them equal time and practice, and they should all achieve the same results in regards to getting better. But then, we can look at schools and education...primarily at the college level, where people tend to select their majors according to their passions and interests...some fail, some are average, and some succeed, all given the same material, same teaching, same time....


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 30, 2011)

Fantastic discussion, BTW.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 30, 2011)

Some people are born lucky; having success or advantage especially when it is unexpected. So yes, I think you are born with it.


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 30, 2011)

If I made assumptions, my bad.  However the success of your business Bitter clearly defies your own description of your business skills. 

A case study to ponder, Laszlo Polgar (László Polgár - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a psychologist who wanted to run an experiment about talent, actually recruited a wife and raised 3 daughters to be highly ranked chess players.  He trained them from a very young age and Susan was olympic chess champion, Sofia is an international master, and Judit is an international grandmaster (by age 15!). 

there is some data to noodle over, and doubters better produce statistical data showing the liklihood of 3 sisters being chess masters


----------



## mishele (Aug 30, 2011)

Ok, let's look at it this way.....savants are extremely gifted "talented" in certain areas, while they lack greatly in others.
These type of things happen over and over in extreme cases. Why can't we suggest that they happen on a regular basis in every individual, just to a lesser degree?


----------



## vfotog (Aug 30, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> If I made assumptions, my bad.  However the success of your business Bitter clearly defies your own description of your business skills.
> 
> A case study to ponder, Laszlo Polgar (László Polgár - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a psychologist who wanted to run an experiment about talent, actually recruited a wife and raised 3 daughters to be highly ranked chess players.  He trained them from a very young age and Susan was olympic chess champion, Sofia is an international master, and Judit is an international grandmaster (by age 15!).
> 
> there is some data to noodle over, and doubters better produce statistical data showing the liklihood of 3 sisters being chess masters



it doesn't prove anything. they were trained from a very young age. it's not even remotely random, so statistical data on the general population would be meaningless. they were programmed from a young age, so it doesn't prove your point at all. no one has said that you can't improve your skills. that's not the same as your denying that people have innate talent to build upon. you tend to ignore most of the points people make. to basically repeat the question I asked before, you're saying if you worked hard enough, you could possess the skills of Bach, Sinatra, Picasso, Hawking all at once? Wow. Do you remember being a child? Taking an art or music class? Hell, any class? Where some kids were, before all the years of motivation, hard work and training you talk about, better at some things than the other kids? Some that could draw or sing or do math better than the others? Can you honestly say that all the kids were identical in talent and skills and abilities and speed in learning _everything_?


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 30, 2011)

vfotog said:


> it doesn't prove anything. they were trained from a very young age. it's not even remotely random, so statistical data on the general population would be meaningless. they were programmed from a young age, so it doesn't prove your point at all.



But it does prove the point, they practiced in a methodical and deliberate manner (because their father found to qualms with using his children as an experiment), and as a result all 3 ended up being at the top of their field.  The point of this discussion is going from a 1 to a 10 in photography, if you can train your children from a 1 to a 10 in chess, why not with a camera?  



vfotog said:


> no one has said that you can't improve your skills.



And I havnt been arguing that, Ive been trying to show people that they shouldnt sell themselves short because if they put in the work they can become a 10. 



vfotog said:


> that's not the same as your denying that people have innate talent to build upon. you tend to ignore most of the points people make. to basically repeat the question I asked before, you're saying if you worked hard enough, you could possess the skills of Bach, Sinatra, Picasso, Hawking all at once? Wow.



The case I outlined shows that you dont need innate talent, you can train to be the best (if you want to put in the work).  I dont think anyone would be able to argue a 2 yr old is a chess genious, but its at that age their father started training them. 
If you had unlimited free time and didnt have to worry about work, friends, raising a family....sure you could become like Bach, Picasso, Hawking...etc.  Practice for hours a day for 30 years and I'm sure you would be world class. 



vfotog said:


> Do you remember being a child? Taking an art or music class? Hell, any class? Where some kids were, before all the years of motivation, hard work and training you talk about, better at some things than the other kids? Some that could draw or sing or do math better than the others? Can you honestly say that all the kids were identical in talent and skills and abilities and speed in learning _everything_?



I remember as a child I was told I was quite good at music, but it wasnt any fun so I didnt pursue it. Some kids were better, and the ones who really excelled in band practiced a lot, and they practiced what they needed to improve.  My mother on the other hand plays piano at a decent level, but she never practices to improve only for enjoyment so hasnt gotten any better in the last 10 years.  She might then improperly conclude she doesnt have the knack for it. 

All kids are of course not identical in skills, but you need to look broad.  What are the crossovers between different skill sets?  If a parent loves baseball and drills their child constantly he will improve of course.  Now if he switches to basketball and is better than his peers, is there the assumption oh is was born with talent in basketball! No, he learned to control his body and improve his coordination playing baseball and a large chunk of that knowledge was transferrable.  Same with painting to photography, or martial arts where I have 10 years of experience.  The first style was difficult to learn, but by the 4th I had developed enough coordination to be able to pick it up very quickly.  Was I "gifted" in kung fu vs tae kwon do?  Not likely. 

I enjoyed this article: The Real Reason Why You&#8217;ll Never Be Mozart&#8230;or Victor Wooten | Deliberate Practice For Musicians
Especially this: "Most people like to believe in the &#8216;born talented&#8217; concept because it gives them an excuse to fail."


----------



## jake337 (Aug 30, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> If I made assumptions, my bad. However the success of your business Bitter clearly defies your own description of your business skills.
> 
> A case study to ponder, Laszlo Polgar (László Polgár - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a psychologist who wanted to run an experiment about talent, actually recruited a wife and raised 3 daughters to be highly ranked chess players. He trained them from a very young age and Susan was olympic chess champion, Sofia is an international master, and Judit is an international grandmaster (by age 15!).
> 
> there is some data to noodle over, and doubters better produce statistical data showing the liklihood of 3 sisters being chess masters



Ok, out of those 3 girls which one is the best chess player?  That one would have the most innate talent of the three.


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 30, 2011)

jake337 said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > If I made assumptions, my bad. However the success of your business Bitter clearly defies your own description of your business skills.
> ...



I believe it was the youngest, which would make sense from the point of view that their father had perfected his training methods on the older two. 

Another fun article which compares talent to practice: INNATE TALENTS: REALITY OR MYTH?

"We began this target article by describing the widespread belief that in order to reach high levels of ability a person needs to have an innate potential called talent. Because the belief in talent has important social and educational consequences, affecting selection procedures and training policies, it is important to establish whether it is correct. Belief in talent may also act as a barrier to further exploration of the causes of excellence in specific domains of ability. 
...
The evidence we have surveyed in this target article does not support the talent account, according to which excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts. This conclusion has practical implications, because categorising some children as innately talented is discriminatory. The evidence suggests that such categorization is unfair and wasteful, preventing young people from pursuing a goal because of teachers' or parents' unjustified conviction that they would not benefit from the superior opportunities given to those who are deemed to be talented. "


----------



## kiwizak (Aug 30, 2011)

I am of the firm belief that there is room for improvement in EVERYBODY therefore nobody can ever be a 10. But EVERYBODY should strive for a 10.


----------



## Overread (Aug 30, 2011)

10 only exists in the classroom - once outside in the "big wide world" it quickly becomes apparent that things don't remain on the linear scale any more.


----------



## AntishG (Sep 2, 2011)

Karensworld said:


> From my point of view, as mentioned by the others, creativity is (unfortunately) not something that cannot be learned.. Either you have it or not..
> 
> Regarding the artistic shot, I think it is possible as we should not forget that art is a form of expression that may be reflected by every individual in a personal way.. The aesthetic may be argued but art is objective!!
> 
> ...




Actually i agree with you karen. As we say practice makes perfect. We, photographers, spend a lot on equipments to keep in touch with new technologies, to improve ourselves through our pictures (but like you mentioned creativity either you have it or not, it depends on the individual as everyone is creative in his or her way, some more than the others and others less, no one is to be blamed.) Experience is a great way to improve one's picture. I have been taking pictures for 3 years and i can say that i improved a lot from where i stood when i began. All this through practice and innovation.

A photographer must make one with his camera, just like a married couple, as his camera helps him to earn his living. He or she has to know all the functions on the camera by their finger tips, as this might help him to improve his pictures. But not to forget that nowadays, there's a lot of those so-called photographers with point and shoot cameras, taking any kind of pictures, put them on Photoshop to enhance them and claim they are professional photographers. We have a lot of them here in Mauritius. They invest more on the software than the hardware and they criticize you as if you are the outsider preventing them to earn money, when you sacrificed a lot to buy your camera and equipments.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

AntishG said:


> Actually i agree with you karen. As we say practice makes perfect. We, photographers, spend a lot on equipments to keep in touch with new technologies, to improve ourselves through our pictures (but like you mentioned creativity either you have it or not, it depends on the individual as everyone is creative in his or her way, some more than the others and others less, no one is to be blamed.) Experience is a great way to improve one's picture. I have been taking pictures for 3 years and i can say that i improved a lot from where i stood when i began. All this through practice and innovation.



So your statement just makes me have to ask, you have noticed no change in your level of creativity over the 3 years since you started on photography?  In that case were you an artist before hand?  I am willing to bet your creativity actually has improved, but its at a slow rate so you dont notice from day to day. Art in inherantly hard to quantify in that something that is creative to one person, is dumb to another.  But creativity can be learned, and improved, and changed, and practiced.  Why do you think one of the most common training methods for photographers I see is to pick a lens, and spend a day shooting only with that lens. You are in essence, practicing being creative by being forced to look at the world in a different way.  Your brain then remembers that, and you can incorporate what you have learned into future photo compositions.  

If you tell yourself you are at the peak of your god given talent/creativity, your only hurting yourself.  You will of course never believe someone on an internet forum, and I cant blame you for that.  But spend $15 and read one of these  books written by people much better at explaining things than myself.  Once you have the understanding that you can work and improve to be the best in your field, you will look at practicing photography in a whole new way.  I think the $15 book did more for me than buying a D3x would have. 
Amazon.com: The Talent Code: Greatness Isn&#39;t Born. It&#39;s Grown. Here&#39;s How. (9780553806847): Daniel Coyle: Books
Amazon.com: Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (9781591842941): Geoff Colvin: Books
and the main source for those books if you really want the hard science
Amazon.com: The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology) (9780521600811): K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, Robert R. Hoffman: Books
Amazon.com: The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology) (9780521730259): James C. Kaufman, Robert J. Sternberg PhD: Books


----------



## quiddity (Sep 6, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ... But rarely can a 1 turn into a 10.



Should read: "But rarely does someone with 1 talent put in the effort required to be a 10".

It's all about mindset, some people are raised with an inherently growth oriented mindset and others aren't.


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

Mindset or not..........there is also this thing called reality.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

No, nobody's born with it but from watching kids I truly believe they are naturally creative. I absolutely agree with the Picasso quote in my sig. The problem is one of environment, education, etc.

If you grow up in an art filled environment as I did, you learn and you develop the EYE. If you grow up in a mobile home with redneck parents who consider black velvet paintings high art, you'll have a tough time remaining an artist 

But every one can learn. It may take you more time and work than some but, yes, you can learn. But it does take work.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> But every one can learn. It may take you more time and work than some but, yes, you can learn. But it does take work.



I think you nailed it; improvement takes work, and its to turn a hobby you do for fun into work.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> No, nobody's born with it but from watching kids I truly believe they are naturally creative. I absolutely agree with the Picasso quote in my sig. The problem is one of environment, education, etc.
> 
> If you grow up in an art filled environment as I did, you learn and you develop the EYE. If you grow up in a mobile home with redneck parents who consider black velvet paintings high art, you'll have a tough time remaining an artist
> 
> But every one can learn. It may take you more time and work than some but, yes, you can learn. But it does take work.



I agree with most of what you said but there are always people that come from "mobile home" backgrounds that inspite of a redneck upbringing become greater than the environment they were raised in. As children they may not have been exposed to anything positive in their lives but beat the odds and aspired to be more.  Is this learned or is there something within  them when they were born that placed an amazing mind in a mentally poor background.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > No, nobody's born with it but from watching kids I truly believe they are naturally creative. I absolutely agree with the Picasso quote in my sig. The problem is one of environment, education, etc.
> ...



I think its something more like an event or way of thinking their friends/parents fostered in them that gives them the drive to work hard and put in the effort it takes to improve.  Its different for every person, and whatever drives that motivation has to sustain itself for the years it takes to improve and get good at something.  Its hard to keep pushing forward when you fail repeatedly. Of course its also hard if you start in a socio-economic environment where everything thinks you will fail so why try.


----------



## quiddity (Sep 6, 2011)

Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real. - Tupac


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

it's really obvious that some people here are confusing talent and creativity with technical ability. maybe they're so adamant because they don't have any natural talent? even as kids in elementary school, children have different abilities. why are people so threatened by that? and anyone who has actually taken an art class will know that students vary widely in their aptitudes and skills. There are students there that have amazing technical skill, often after years of "practice" but lack the creativity of some others. Technically perfect but soulless and dull and unimaginative. yes, your camera can do a lot for you, and you can master your settings, but that won't make you creative. you can use all the HDR and blending frames but it won't make your photography good. everyone can work to improve their skills and become the best that they can be, but to think that everyone can get to the same place is just delusional. Some people are born with perfect pitch; I can't sing on key. No matter how much I were to practice, I'll never be a Streisand or Sills. That's not defeatist, it's realistic. I'm more than ok with that. My strengths lie in other areas. But then, I embrace the fact that we're all different.


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

mishele said:


> Ok, let's look at it this way.....savants are extremely gifted "talented" in certain areas, while they lack greatly in others.
> These type of things happen over and over in extreme cases. Why can't we suggest that they happen on a regular basis in every individual, just to a lesser degree?



I think we all are a little bit of a savant!!


----------



## subscuck (Sep 6, 2011)

Einstein wasn't the only great Physicist of his time. He was however, the one who created a new paradigm with his theories of Special and General Relativity. Some people are wired to see things differently, to think "outside the box" better than other people. Hard work, practice, dedication et al., can achieve the occasional flash of brilliance, but for people wired for it, it's just the way they see the world every day. Money can't buy that, practice can't achieve that.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> ...there are always people that come from "mobile home" backgrounds that inspite of a redneck upbringing become greater than the environment they were raised in.



I totally agree. Just didn't want to write a book so I wrote the condensed version 

Just look at Andy Warhol. Not the greatest background but he had a mother who supported him and his ways and that makes a hell of a difference. It did take hime a while to get out of his school learned ways however and truly get creative.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

subscuck said:


> Einstein wasn't the only great Physicist of his time. He was however, the one who created a new paradigm with his theories of Special and General Relativity.



Let's not forget however that some people believe it was his wife who came up with the idea...


----------



## subscuck (Sep 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > Einstein wasn't the only great Physicist of his time. He was however, the one who created a new paradigm with his theories of Special and General Relativity.
> ...



In which case, my point would still stand...


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> it's really obvious that some people here are confusing talent and creativity with technical ability. maybe they're so adamant because they don't have any natural talent? even as kids in elementary school, children have different abilities. why are people so threatened by that? and anyone who has actually taken an art class will know that students vary widely in their aptitudes and skills. There are students there that have amazing technical skill, often after years of "practice" but lack the creativity of some others. Technically perfect but soulless and dull and unimaginative. yes, your camera can do a lot for you, and you can master your settings, but that won't make you creative. you can use all the HDR and blending frames but it won't make your photography good. everyone can work to improve their skills and become the best that they can be, but to think that everyone can get to the same place is just delusional. Some people are born with perfect pitch; I can't sing on key. No matter how much I were to practice, I'll never be a Streisand or Sills. That's not defeatist, it's realistic. I'm more than ok with that. My strengths lie in other areas. But then, I embrace the fact that we're all different.



Talent and creativity are a technical ability.  I agree I have no natural talent because it does not exist. I worked for every achievement I have earned, and its been a lot of hard work.  How would you go aboue teaching someone engineering, my profession.  Its not that you weed them out in kindergarden and say Oh that one has talent for it! No, it requires 4 years of very hard college work plus 5-10 years of industry experience to become "expert".  This isnt something that is inborn, and its not something certain people have a knack for. Its 100% hard work and effort.  If you havnt done it, then you probobly dont understand.  I imagine you would get the same response from a doctor, laywer, research scientist, athlete, etc. 

I am so adamant because I see a lot of people stiffling their chance to grow and achieve because of their own incorrect assumptions and conclusions based on heresay or old wives tale.  People used to believe earth was the center of the universe too. If you can look at the data in a critical manner and then tell me there is proof talent is inborn......I am waiting with baited breath.  All of the research I have read shows the exact oposite, to many researchers suprise.  

Last week I visited an art gallery and talked with the owner.  He was clearly enthralled by the work in his gallery and just gushed about it. He loved art and said it was his calling.  When I asked if he did his own he said no, he didnt have the talent for it.  Here is a man who clearly would get great great great fulfillment out of his life if he could learn to paint.  But based on societal assumptions about talent he may never put forth the effort to learn because he thinks its pointless. 

Thinking that everyone CAN get to the same place is not delusional, it is a scientific fact.  Thinking that everyone WILL get to the same place, now that is delusional.  But whats stopping them is not the inability to gain skill, its different life priorities etc. 

Just so you know you could sing like Sills, just go to vocal coach Linda Septien and work hard.


----------



## addicted2glass (Sep 6, 2011)

For Me

I learned that in art the ability to be happy with what I had created was a major plus for me.  Later my next creation was more appealing than the previous. 
I was never happy with my sketches because I expected them to look like photographs it was more about my self confidence.
My last drawings were with crayola crayons and I did it because I enjoyed creating these drawings.  

For me Photography, loving to take my camera around and keep snapping practice shots and opening them up on the computer screen and look in amazement at the detail was extremely encouraging.  

Experimenting using low light situation a candle in the dark, or trying to take a clear picture of the moon helped me learn more

Photoshoots with models (I'm being honest - first shoots it was difficult not to simply just see attractive females)  I eventually began to have ideas about what make up work should or should not look like and develop ideas about style I never had before or thought I would have.  

(I am now into film and darkroom)

Oh and having expensive high end lenses and a camera body you like helps a lot too...


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > it's really obvious that some people here are confusing talent and creativity with technical ability. maybe they're so adamant because they don't have any natural talent? even as kids in elementary school, children have different abilities. why are people so threatened by that? and anyone who has actually taken an art class will know that students vary widely in their aptitudes and skills. There are students there that have amazing technical skill, often after years of "practice" but lack the creativity of some others. Technically perfect but soulless and dull and unimaginative. yes, your camera can do a lot for you, and you can master your settings, but that won't make you creative. you can use all the HDR and blending frames but it won't make your photography good. everyone can work to improve their skills and become the best that they can be, but to think that everyone can get to the same place is just delusional. Some people are born with perfect pitch; I can't sing on key. No matter how much I were to practice, I'll never be a Streisand or Sills. That's not defeatist, it's realistic. I'm more than ok with that. My strengths lie in other areas. But then, I embrace the fact that we're all different.
> ...




wow. you have NO concept of what it takes in the arts whatsoever. no art or music educator is ever going to agree with you. I'm now embarrassed for you. Engineering isn't a "talent" like art or music, so your example is utterly irrelevant. silly, even. we're talking creativity. OTOH, an aptitude for math might be useful to become an engineer. To think logically might be nice but apparently isn't necessary in all cases. I know someone with dyscalculia. It's quite a stretch to think she could be an engineer. OTOH, she decided to take up the clarinet to be with her friends in the high school marching band. after one semester, not only did she make the band, she was co-teaching beginning instruments at the school. She wasn't a musician but a singer. The point is that she could ALWAYS sing. Before lessons. It didn't take years of work. I specifically mentioned Sills because she was performing professionally at the age of 4. She always had musical talent. Of course, she further developed her technique, but the gift, the voice, was already there. You've obviously never been in an art class because you don't seem to display any knowledge of creativity or artistic principles. If you are serious about photography, perhaps you should take one. Mastering the buttons on your camera won't ever make you an artist. It's just silly that you can't accept that some people have innate talent which displays itself even at a young age. It's so well documented. In the US, talent is clearly recognized by our government and educational system. In California, we have the Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE). Other countries have gifted and talented programs too. So they're all wrong and you're right? uh huh....  :lmao:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 6, 2011)




----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...



Wow, you have no concept what you are talking about. I'm now seriously embarassed for you.

You may be correct in that the average engineer is not much of a creative type. However that is also true of the average architect, scientist and, yes, photographer. But, thank god, not all engineers are average and it is the creative ones that have moved us forward where engineering is used. Your response makes me think you do not have much of a chance in photography because you are so stuck in this little box of negativity...

Stop posting stupid responses and go read a few hundred books.


And by the way, GATE is the biggest joke. Why are we promoting GATE at the same time we are cutting funding for all art programs in HSs? And before you spew some more knowledge, let me tell you, I spend quite a few years fighting, at the national level, the cutting of spending in art education in our schools so don't you throw some BS at me.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

Bitter, stop stuffing your face and jump in.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Bitter, stop stuffing your face and jump in.


Nah. I said what I have to say on the subject. It's pointless to argue about it. Cuz you know, god does not exist.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter, stop stuffing your face and jump in.
> ...



:lmao:

You're right. I'll just go and make myself some popcorn...


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

quiddity said:


> Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real. - Tupac



Tupac is DEAD.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> quiddity said:
> 
> 
> > Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real. - Tupac
> ...



but not what he said.

Aren't we still talking about fooking Shakespear?


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...



I think you are both very wise, off to the popcorn machine!


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

(VFotog-  I actally first read it VFog, and that was probably most correct, because your logic is beyond foggy.)

AGAIN!  What a wonderful discussion!

Now to get into this whole engineering vs art thing, I'm going to disagree with you VFog.  My husband is extremely methodical and technilogical, but he can shoot shots that make you cry.  Most of my shooters have been from highly disciplined backgrounds, and they rock it.  If they didn't I wouldn't hire them.

Now, do they see things the way I see them?  No.  And that is the beauty of it.  They see things so differently that it's magic to me.  While I see my world in whimsy, and leading lines, and facial expressions, they are seeing it more classically. And classics are classics for a reason.

And I agree that anyone can come from ANYWHERE and be a great photographer.  Trailor shmalor.  I've seen some wicked great photogs who grew up in the slums of India.  So that whole arguement is bull****.

And you have to be trained from birth to be good at something?  LOL.  That is beyond nuts.  I never owned a camera until my late 30s, and many of my fellows have the same experience.  The one thing we all had in common was a love for arts and crafts, critters, and people.  And we all used to be really good at imagination as kids.  We dream very vividly.  (I asked my photog friends after this thread started so it's a kind of weird informal study.).


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > spacefuzz said:
> ...



Guess you didn't learn any manners though, huh? Calling me stupid and telling me not to post isn't exactly mature or civilized. Mr. Fuzz was saying engineering doesn't require any talent, just hard work. I have friends who are engineers; I agree totally that creativity is part of what makes a great engineer. Creativity is a good thing, and essential in the arts. well, duh. I pointed out that GATE exists cos he seems to think that the majority of the world, science, etc all support his position that there is no such thing as innate talent. Obviously, government arts and education programs refute that position. Part of GATE *IS *arts education. I do find it funny that you say you're an advocate for arts education while jumping on ME for saying there is artistic talent. When kids have artistic or musical talent, without arts education or programs like GATE, they don't have many options. I don't think it's negative to stick up for talented people that already are limited in their choices by the undervaluing of the arts. Judging me or my future and your perceived lack of promise because I don't agree with someone is just plain petty and misinformed. I have a lifetime spent in and around the arts: art, photography, music. Sorry you felt the need to take the low road.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...



VFog, just where was your civility in your initial comment?  THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION.  No one told you not to post.  Post away.  Just don't ask everyone to agree with every breath you take.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 6, 2011)

Wait. You are citing the government as proof?


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> (VFotog-  I actally first read it VFog, and that was probably most correct, because your logic is beyond foggy.)
> 
> AGAIN!  What a wonderful discussion!
> 
> ...



and so you need to stoop to name calling too? beyond foggy? wow, guess petty is contagious. and really, we don't disagree. in your post after namecalling, you present a viewpoint that is entirely the opposite of what the "no inborn talent" folks are saying. Engineers can be creative, of course. But you can't be an engineer without years of training, whereas you can be an artist or singer without that. I don't see what the point of jumping on the bandwagon is when you're basically saying what I am. lol.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> VFog, just where was your civility in your initial comment?  THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION.  No one told you not to post.  Post away.  Just don't ask everyone to agree with every breath you take.




wow, float from side to side and now join the bullys. apparently you missed where c.cloudwalker wrote: _"Stop posting stupid responses and go read a few hundred books._"


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > (VFotog-  I actally first read it VFog, and that was probably most correct, because your logic is beyond foggy.)
> ...



Ok Dfog, now you are pissing me off.  This could have been a nice conversation, but you want to fight.  So get ready to fight.

You don't think that artists spend years honing their craft? I might not have used a film type medium my whole life, but believe me, I have been working with my abilities for as long as I can remember.  It might have been something I worked with my kids, doing a finger painting, but I was RIGHT THERE.

And don't get it twisted.  I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.  Have I made that clear enough?  That's why I started thinking of you as DFog in the first place.

I have degrees.  Actually more than one.  So don't take me for a dummy.  And I could NEVER have learned what I know now in some class.  And I've been to A LOT of classes.

You learn to be an artist from the moment you are born.  Don't for one moment think that you need a peice of paper to confirm that.  You CLIENTS with their WALLETS confirm that.

Just how frustrated are you?


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Wait. You are citing the government as proof?



well, Mr. J, it's clearly proof that it's not true that the majority of people, institutions, etc, agree that there's no such thing as talent. It's fine for someone to say that they don't believe in talent and innate abilities. They have the right to think that. But when it's misrepresented as some huge fact that is supported by the bulk of science, etc, then it's not so cool. btw, I rather like jewelry and I think it takes some talent and creativity to be a really good jeweler too.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > VFog, just where was your civility in your initial comment?  THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION.  No one told you not to post.  Post away.  Just don't ask everyone to agree with every breath you take.
> ...



Cloud has been my friend for years because we normally agree on things.  Cloud told you like it is.  You just don't agree.  Stop taking everything as a personal attack.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Wait. You are citing the government as proof?
> ...



Ok, I want to see these studies......


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 6, 2011)

Could you cite the government to prove god exists, because the government trusts in god? It's printed on all the money, it must be true.


Sorry, citing what the government has determined to be "true" is not proof. The government is slow, stupid, and is always late.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...



huh? the name calling is sad. this is a discussion about creativity and whether it exists naturally or whether it is all learned. the "other side" says there is no innate talent so when you say you used your abilities, they say those abilities don't exist. you say you've learned a lot that wasn't in a class. well, they say it's all work, not ability or talent. I say that people have those "abilities" which they further develop. the anti-talent crowd says there is no natural talent at all. you seem to be saying you have natural abilities, from the moment you're born. that's totally the opposite of what spacefuzz and co. are saying.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...



calling people stupid, or rude little names, or saying they have no future in photography are personal attacks. which you have participated in. be honest enough to admit that.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 6, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Could you cite the government to prove god exists, because the government trusts in god? It's printed on all the money, it must be true.
> 
> 
> Sorry, citing what the government has determined to be "true" is not proof. The government is slow, stupid, and is always late.



so is this fighting for the sake of it day or let's gang up on one person day? I notice that originally most of the people in this thread were in support of the idea of talent and spacefuzz took over the thread and they all got chased away. I stood up to him and now I get bullied? 

did I say anything about the government determining anything to be true? no. but space was misrepresenting his position as the predominant one. clearly, it's not the position of governments or educational institutions. does that mean you all want to dismantle all the arts programs and schools, cos talent is a given there?


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

Oh good god.  Pick your panties off the floor.  JUST HAVE A DISCUSSION.  You can have your own opinion, and it's ok.  Someone might disagree with you, and I promise you won't die.  Someone might actually call you DFog.  And you won't die from that either.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog you are being quite rude.  You are more than capable of disagreeing with me, but you didnt have to say that because I share a different opinion I am obviously a terrible photographer.  Also at some point you said you had a friend who has (I think you meant) dyslexia, and so couldnt be an engineer.  I have dyslexia, and got my engineering degree, just fyi.  If I had followed my high school teachers advice I would have a much less fulfilling life. 

I would be curious to see your slew of studies stating that talent is real, but make sure they are recent (aka past 15 years).  If you have an opinion based on more than heresay, I would love to start a lively discussion comparing the validity of several studies. 
And I agree with bitter in that you cant take what the government says at face value.  *shudder* high school curriculums for example.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...



Ok, I can see now that I have to baby you.  Where in the above post did I tell you that you were stupid or that people had no future in photography.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

vfotog said:


> did I say anything about the government determining anything to be true? no. but space was misrepresenting his position as the predominant one. clearly, it's not the position of governments or educational institutions. does that mean you all want to dismantle all the arts programs and schools, cos talent is a given there?



All I believe is that my examples cited the prevailing opinion of research scientists working in the field. I make no assumptions about any one else. I know that in general talent as innate is the prevailing public opinion, I was just trying to show people that they shouldnt doubt their abilities.


----------



## Overread (Sep 6, 2011)

You've all got a few posts to get this thread back onto a debate about the topic at hand and to drop the personal insults/snide remarks etc.. or I'll simply lock it.


----------



## jackiex_x (Sep 6, 2011)

I shall intervene as I feel partly responsible for asking this question in the first place lol.

After a few weeks in my newbie status, I definitely think it can be learned . I am starting to look at the world differently and from different angles and ever searching for a good shot, and I think I'm improving already.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 6, 2011)

So we all practice to improve our abilities, regardless of wether its inborn or developed over time, we all go out and shoot pictures.  There are many very skilled photographers on TPF and I would love to know how you practice?

For me lately I have been attempting to get better at shooting seascapes in manual mode with GND's.  I go stand in the water, set up my comp, take several test shots.  Look at the histogram and adjust exposure accordingly. Then I look at my composition and try to be really critical, does it look like what I had pictured in my mind?  Is there any sort of water movement that I need to get just right to complete the mental image?  If I am looking for water streaks for flow I will then adjust my ISO and aperature to get the shutter speed I want.  Do more test shots and try to time the waves.  Review the comp and histogram every few minutes and make sure its still what I want.  

After thats done I go home and download them.  I look at them on the big screen and again try to be critical about what I missed. Perhaps I was too slow on the shot, or too early.  Or maybe I botched my focus. Or the lens flare from the sun was worse than I realized etc. After being as critical as my level of knowledge allows, I then process a few and put them on flickr and here looking for feedback.  And you guys are great for pointing out things I missed (which I am very grateful for, I cant fix it if I dont see it).  I also post to a PSA critique group. I will then edit the photo again if necessary and sometimes re-post for critique, or enter it in a contest to see what judges think of it. Then I take any additional feedback and try to remember that next time I am out shooting. 

What steps do you take while practicing to improve your photography?


----------



## jackiex_x (Sep 6, 2011)

I like that idea to look at the histogram while out and about then try to improve shot.


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

Ok, everyone has given their *opinion*!! Now watch this video............and let me know if you think this can be taught...........peace out.....LOL


----------



## Lux_Artifex (Sep 6, 2011)

I had to. :lmao:


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

In case you want to know his background........
Biography of Stephen Wiltshire MBE
Just an amazing story!!


----------



## subscuck (Sep 6, 2011)

There was a show about him a few years ago. BBC America maybe? I'm sure he's worked very hard to get that good...


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

subscuck said:


> There was a show about him a few years ago. BBC America maybe? I'm sure he's worked very hard to get that good...



With *practice* you too could be that good!!  lol


----------



## quiddity (Sep 6, 2011)

someday people will realize its the journey


----------



## hopdaddy (Sep 6, 2011)

quiddity said:


> someday people will realize its the journey


That comes with "Wisdom"


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

quiddity said:


> someday people will realize its the journey


So are you saying that it was his journey that made him capable of this feat?


----------



## quiddity (Sep 6, 2011)

bingo. whats really gonna throw you for a loop is the sleeping artist. growth mindset will always trump the fixed mindset.


----------



## mishele (Sep 6, 2011)

quiddity said:


> bingo. whats really gonna throw you for a loop is the sleeping artist. growth mindset will always trump the fixed mindset.



After that statement, I guess it's time for me to brake out the popcorn........lol


----------



## vfotog (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> So we all practice to improve our abilities, regardless of wether its inborn or developed over time, we all go out and shoot pictures.  There are many very skilled photographers on TPF and I would love to know how you practice?
> 
> For me lately I have been attempting to get better at shooting seascapes in manual mode with GND's.  I go stand in the water, set up my comp, take several test shots.  Look at the histogram and adjust exposure accordingly. Then I look at my composition and try to be really critical, does it look like what I had pictured in my mind?  Is there any sort of water movement that I need to get just right to complete the mental image?  If I am looking for water streaks for flow I will then adjust my ISO and aperature to get the shutter speed I want.  Do more test shots and try to time the waves.  Review the comp and histogram every few minutes and make sure its still what I want.
> 
> ...



this sounds very methodical and mathematical and not very much fun. perhaps one of the disadvantages of digital. with film, you took your knowledge and then mostly just shot and learned even more from your mistakes. spontaneity in photography can bring about some wonderful results. I can't imagine shooting with a computer on hand and spending a lot of time looking at it and histograms. in the 30+ years I've been shooting, don't think I've ever done anything like this. guess I'm old school, cos I'm really glad I learned using film. people learn differently; glad this works for you.


----------



## quiddity (Sep 7, 2011)

Lee Hadwin, the "Sleeping Artist"


http://www.dailypost.co.uk/videos-p...e-hadwin-drawing-in-his-sleep-55578-19858588/


----------



## bennielou (Sep 7, 2011)

I just love discussions like this.  Thanks for all the video and links.  Cool stuff indeed.  Really makes a person think.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 7, 2011)

vfotog said:


> this sounds very methodical and mathematical and not very much fun. perhaps one of the disadvantages of digital. with film, you took your knowledge and then mostly just shot and learned even more from your mistakes. spontaneity in photography can bring about some wonderful results. I can't imagine shooting with a computer on hand and spending a lot of time looking at it and histograms. in the 30+ years I've been shooting, don't think I've ever done anything like this. guess I'm old school, cos I'm really glad I learned using film. people learn differently; glad this works for you.



I'll disagree with this viewpoint.  All of those decisions are normal and natural for someone (and I include myself in this group) who has not yet truly mastered the art.  I've been fortunate to have observed a number of very good photographers (some are pros, some are advanced amateurs) who have assimilated the mechanics of photography to the point that is recedes into their subconscious.  They can focus on the creative part fully, because the technical part is already part of their internalized process.  I've seen them put together a series of shots in a workshop or shooting session, in a very short period of time and I know that to achieve even approximately the same level of technical quality would take me much longer.  When reviewing their shots, we'd ask why they would make this decision or that, and they'd usually answer that that was the right setting, or lighting ratio, or camera angle for that situation.  I aspire to achieve that level of comfort and expertise, but it is clear that this level of performance requires both a very sound understanding of the principles, and lots of practice.  This is similar to many other fields where skill is developed through repetition and constant practice to the point that the mechanics or basics are ingrained in muscle memory or subconciousness.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

mishele said:


> In case you want to know his background........
> Biography of Stephen Wiltshire MBE
> Just an amazing story!!



That is pretty amazing.  Cant speak about his memory but it did strike me that there was a lot of practice involved "The instructors at Queensmill School encouraged him to speak by temporarily taking away his art supplies so that he would be forced to ask for them."

So to me that explains the technical skill of his drawing.  As for his memory I dont know enough about the brain and will bow out of that segment of the debate


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

pgriz said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > this sounds very methodical and mathematical and not very much fun. perhaps one of the disadvantages of digital. with film, you took your knowledge and then mostly just shot and learned even more from your mistakes. spontaneity in photography can bring about some wonderful results. I can't imagine shooting with a computer on hand and spending a lot of time looking at it and histograms. in the 30+ years I've been shooting, don't think I've ever done anything like this. guess I'm old school, cos I'm really glad I learned using film. people learn differently; glad this works for you.
> ...



I agree that after 10 years of photography I have mountains of knowledge to still learn, which is why I practice ;p

but vfotog you say you learned more from your mistakes using film.  I dont understand how that is.  With digital you get instant feed back.  I can see on location if I blew the highlights or missed the composition.  I can then correct it immediatly and bam, learning achieved.  I guess I dont see the advantage of waiting to develop the shot and then trying to remember any mitigating factors that were involved on the shoot and try to remember to correct for them next time.  Of course would be easier for studio vs say a seascape since you have controlled lighting that you can replicate but.......  Can you explain your advantage thought process better?  I guess I also dont understand how digital reduces spontaneity.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 7, 2011)

vfotog said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...



My apologies to you. I sure didn't realize I should treat you any better than you treated spacefuzz.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 7, 2011)

Hey cloud, I love your current siggy, and I think that explains a whole lot.  We are all born with this amazing imagination.  But unfortunately some people see imagination in a bad light, and sometime during our lives we try to become more rational.  Imagination gets pushed to the side.

You cant live in the imagination all the time, just as you can't live in the hard core rational world all the time.  I think it needs to be a balance.


----------



## mishele (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > In case you want to know his background........
> ...



Yes...incredible story.
But I think you missed some of the point. You can't be taught to do something NO ONE ELSE can do.......
Yes, he had a teacher that took him under his wing at about 6-7 years old.....but that was because he the incredible talent that this child had and wanted to make sure that it did not go wasted. No one taught him to see the world like he does. BTW.......try to teach a 5 year old autistic child, that can't speak, how to draw proper perspective. Let me know how that goes.
No "bow outs" on the brain part........:hug::I know I'm going to bore the hell out of people w/ the science behind this but it's interesting.
BBC News | HEALTH | Unlocking the brain's potential

In the end, I'm saying that if a savant can have an extreme talent, then the rest of us can have smaller ones.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

mishele said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...



And I'm saying why waste that energy thinking about innate talent when its scientifically clear you can develop yourself to be good at whatever you want? Dont hold yourself back thinking there is some cosmic glass ceiling you cant break through.  Have faith in yourself!


----------



## mishele (Sep 7, 2011)

Space, on that note I guess I will agree to disagree. I had a great time w/ all this!! What can we disagree about next?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 7, 2011)

Unfortunately people these days are being told what to imagine, children are told how to use their imaginations and not in the social ways I grew up with, and I'm sure many on here did as well. Computers, facebook, iphones, all the things we didn't have, kids don't have to use their imaginations anymore, there is an app for that. I grew up with cameras around me from the age of 4, 52 years later I still have cameras around me, I use them almost every day. My Dad is a photographer, I learned from him, he was never a technical photographer and I am not a technical photographer, but he understood how light worked, and I understand how light works.  Was he born with the incredible photographic abilities that he has, I don't know, was I born with abilities, I really don't know. I have been in gifted arts programs most of my life, and I was far from gifted, but I  was around friends that were brilliant in some areas of art, I have always been good with a camera.  Was the ability within me, I don't know, I know I have always shot like my Dad, our styles are mirrors, we see things the same.

I don't honestly think this question can really be answered, only that there are people gifted with greatness that came at an early age, but did it take something outside to open it up, the right "switch"


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

mishele said:


> Space, on that note I guess I will agree to disagree. I had a great time w/ all this!! What can we disagree about next?



politics?
religion?
how to pronounce potato?

endless opportunities


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz (love that name btw) and mishele, I think you guys are not really talking about the same thing. So of course you'll never agree. Except to disagree.

One of you is talking about average people (the point of this thread I think) while the other is talking about people who are wired totally differently. So differently in fact that no one that I've heard of really understands them. I think you guys are trying to compare apples and oranges...


----------



## Overread (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > Space, on that note I guess I will agree to disagree. I had a great time w/ all this!! What can we disagree about next?
> ...



You can have potato - I fully endorse a potato debate - but not the first two


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 7, 2011)

The potato is misunderstood and always get dumped on when people go on useless diets. I like potatos.  George Bush likes potatoes and probably brokkoly.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 7, 2011)

Don't forget kaliflowers.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

I am a big fan of sweet potatoes.  I hope they will liven up the spud debate.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 7, 2011)

The sweet potato is a sweet potato. I should have been correct in my George Bush spelling, he was talking about the single potato, which he added the "e" to.  I hear he likes karerotts and rudybeggers as well.

Sorry, turned this into a political food thread.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> And I'm saying why waste that energy thinking about innate talent* when its scientifically clear you can develop yourself to be good at *whatever you want? Dont hold yourself back thinking there is some cosmic glass ceiling you cant break through.  Have faith in yourself!



That's not what the article said nor is it what common sense will tell you.



> And in recent tests, five volunteers found their abilities were *improved* after the particular area of the brain was temporarily "switched off".



I could be trained to be a *better* golfer, tennis player, photographer, card player - maybe even to be good on some sort of ultimate scale but the unfortunate for me fact is that there are physiologic limitations - and I'm sure neurologic ones - that limit my ability to improve.
So while I may be able, with some considerable effort, become a good photographer, I lack the vision of great artists. Knowing that I also know that constant work, both physical and mental, can make me better than virtually every casual _patzer I might come across. 
_
The ultimate cause of the difference between my acquired skills, no matter how high, and those of a gifted artist is their higher level of talent


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> That's not what the article said nor is it what common sense will tell you.



Traveler, if you look at my post from a few pages ago you will see 4 links to science books on amazon which list a multitude of scientific studies.  One of the funnest parts about science is that common sense is frequently wrong!

Even if the current scientific data doesnt explain 100% of talent, I think it covers most of it for most people. Kind of like quantum mechanics, we know its not the whole picture but it answers all of the questions it needs to in its domain.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> The sweet potato is a sweet potato. I should have been correct in my George Bush spelling, he was talking about the single potato, which he added the "e" to. I hear he likes karerotts and rudybeggers as well.
> 
> Sorry, turned this into a political food thread.



Apparently I suck at spelling. -5 pts to my credability.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...



I think the advantage of film was because you had to learn by doing, not chimping over and over. It was too slow and costly to shoot over and over. You wouldn't shoot hundreds of frames to "get it right".  You had to rely on yourself and thinking: If I shoot this way, what will happen? If I try this, what will the results be? You had to internalize everything, and quicker. I think it made you understand photography more because you didn't have so much "help" from the camera.  It wasn't so cut and dried.With film, if you had no clue, there wasn't going to be a still pretty decent image like with digital. You hear a lot of griping now because of all the GWCs calling themselves pros.  It's happening because it's really pretty easy to shoot at least decently with modern cameras that do most of the thinking. You also had to open yourself up to the limitations and surprises of film. With such smart cameras, photography can be pretty predictable. I think that's why there's such an interest in alternative photography, where there's more emphasis on the art and less on the science.


----------



## mishele (Sep 7, 2011)

There is no god......just sayin........:lmao:


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

vfotog said:


> I think the advantage of film was because you had to learn by doing, not chimping over and over. It was too slow and costly to shoot over and over. You wouldn't shoot hundreds of frames to "get it right". You had to rely on yourself and thinking: If I shoot this way, what will happen? If I try this, what will the results be? You had to internalize everything, and quicker. I think it made you understand photography more because you didn't have so much "help" from the camera. It wasn't so cut and dried.With film, if you had no clue, there wasn't going to be a still pretty decent image like with digital. You hear a lot of griping now because of all the GWCs calling themselves pros. It's happening because it's really pretty easy to shoot at least decently with modern cameras that do most of the thinking. You also had to open yourself up to the limitations and surprises of film. With such smart cameras, photography can be pretty predictable. I think that's why there's such an interest in alternative photography, where there's more emphasis on the art and less on the science.



chimping? guess I can see how you view digital......  I shot for 5 years using film before getting a decent digital camera so I understand the learning curve, for me it was SLOW.  Gah, days to wait to see if you got a shot?  painful.  Once I got my first decent digital camera my learning curve increased by a factor of 10.  Instant feedback allowed instant corrections and instant learning. It didnt make me think about my shots any less.  By do most of the thinking do you mean that in aperature mode your camera figures out the shutter speed for you?  Not sure what camera you have, but my film camera did that too......
Anyways I will shut up and go back to potatoes, the film vs digital is a dead horse. 


the original point was how do you practice to improve yourself, what sorts of methodologies, tips, or tricks could you share and help others learn?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 7, 2011)

Well for sure, film was an economic and much less careless watchdog. It had the idea that you had only one chance to get it right.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what the article said nor is it what common sense will tell you.
> ...



This above is one of those semi-wise statements that actually don't mean crap.
I've spent a good part of my life as a scientist (including a doctorate in material science) and 'common sense' is what drives hypotheses into creation, the ability to take existing facts and string them together into a theory.

And no BS generalization that you seem to be so proud of will convince me that a 5'9" guy with the reflexes of a sloth and the depth perception of a one-eyed flounder (that's me) could ever be coached into being a great basketball player or soccer player or any other damn thing that requires the fast-twitch muscles, the good eyesight and the instinct for sport that I don't have.
I might get better, particularly compared to what I was, but I will never, ever be great.

And if you believe so damn much in the 'training as magic key' theory, why don't you disappear for a few years, get yourself trained and then come back as a great photographic artist, not a good photographer, that's just skill and experience, but a damn artist - that way you'll prove your hypothesis and we can skip all this intolerable BS you're pushing now.

Speak to me again when you're an artist.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 7, 2011)

Feel the love. eace:


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 7, 2011)

Thread reduced to p****ng match. Oh well.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 7, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Thread reduced to p****ng match. Oh well.



Threads this long rarely grow into anything else.


----------



## skieur (Sep 7, 2011)

You can build on what you are born with, but some have more to build on, than others.

skieur


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

_"Speak to me again when you're an artist. 						"_

How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Spacefuzz.  Put in your advance orders now, $49.95 per copy.


----------



## mishele (Sep 7, 2011)




----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 7, 2011)

Maybe it's maybelline.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 7, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> well since having an opinion that differs from others and trying to give people confidence to get better at photography gets me kicked repeatedly, I'm done here.


I accept your differing opinion. Frankly, I believe it is nature AND nurture, rather than solely one or the other. You can still try to help people to get better. 

But really, the onus is on them to learn. 

You can only spoon feed so much though. 

Should we start talking about intelligence, and problem solving abilities? 

Should we start by teaching logic and problem solving before we jump into something as abstract as composition and elements of design?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 7, 2011)

Why you have no friends is now proven by scientists to be genetic.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > well since having an opinion that differs from others and trying to give people confidence to get better at photography gets me kicked repeatedly, I'm done here.
> ...



I respectfully respect your disagreeing with me 

I dont know if we should talk about those things Bitter, but I think it would certainly be an interesting conversation. I love looking at photography with my wife because she looks at things very differently than me. She just approaches problems differently, and consequently approaches composition differently.  Its always fun to compare.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 7, 2011)

Eye fooly uhgry!


----------

