# Skills vs Talent



## The_Traveler (Mar 20, 2016)

If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 20, 2016)

Yes.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Mar 20, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Yes.
> 
> Joe


agreed> someone other than adams though perhaps not.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 20, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?


Substantiate your contention that Adams' work is "good".


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 20, 2016)

Given any equipment you wanted could you take photos as good as Neil Leifer?

Joe


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 21, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Given any equipment you wanted could you take photos as good as Neil Leifer?
> 
> Joe


Sure.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 21, 2016)

If you had the same musical gear and number of people could you produce the music of the Beatles?


----------



## Tim Tucker (Mar 21, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> If you had the same musical gear and number of people could you produce the music of the Beatles?



There are lots of cover bands that do exactly that. But then they only copy whats already there, none of them were the creative force that shaped the early days of pop music and none will ever be because that moment has come and gone.



The_Traveler said:


> If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?



Ever notice how many shots with over processed skies that are taken from Tunnel View on photographic forums? I'm sure that with enough time patience and effort you could copy that work, and do it extremely convincingly. But "Clearing Winter Storm" was shot in 1937, so the question would be more like: Would you have the creative vision and technical excellence to shoot that in 1937 with the equipment and materials available at the time if Ansel Adams had not been there to show you how it was done first?

These are original thinkers at formulative times in their chosen crafts. Would pop music be in the same place without the Beatles? Yes, probably, but with different band names associated with the journey. Would photography be in the same place without Ansel Adams? Again, probably yes.

What Ansel Adams did has to be taken within the context of the time in which he did it. Re-creating it now with 80 years of technical advancement is neither as original or as difficult. Really you only need to read his book.


----------



## fmw (Mar 21, 2016)

Adams was a good photographer but probably not a great one.  In the darkroom, however, he was true genius.  So while it would be fairly simply to take a large format camera into the California wilderness and make good images, creating prints like Adams created is beyond the capabilities of most photographers including me.


----------



## SquarePeg (Mar 21, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?



I'm going to assume that your question is more about talent vs. skill/technique than it is about whether or not Ansel Adams is good, since that is subjective.  I would have to say no.  Intense effort and scrupulous technique and excellent equipment cannot fully substitute for having talent (inner vision?  the eye? creativity? a unique viewpoint?).  There is a certain something that the truly talented have that cannot be learned no matter how hard someone is willing to work or how much they are willing to spend, be it time or money.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 21, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?


What is good? If one would go to all that effort, I hope it would be used towards finding there own style.  

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## sashbar (Mar 21, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?



You do not need talent to reproduce or copy something, all you need is skill. 
Sometimes you need a considerable skill, sometimes very limited skill is enough. Sometimes you do not need any skill at all to copy a masterpiece . 

You can copy Black Square by Kazimir Malevich tomorrow and hang it on your wall. It will be a perfect copy.  All you need is canvas, black paint and the knowledge that the original is 106 mm х106 mm.,  but nobody will offer one million dollars for it, unlike THAT Black Square, and you know why.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 21, 2016)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?
> ...



I didn't say he was good in any absolute sense, just asked if you could produce work as good as his?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 21, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


 IMO?  Absolutey!  In yours, or anyone else's?  Who knows (highly unlikely though).  Note that your question doesn't mention anything about reproducing Adams' work, even creating anything similar.  I could produce a series of urban landscapes taken with a Holga on X-ray film and they could be "as good" as Adams' work..


----------



## runnah (Mar 21, 2016)

I could recreate the work but not the impact it had. 

Most revolutionary work is not so because of the skill but because of the way it changed the world in which it exsisted.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 21, 2016)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If you spend lots of time and intense effort with scrupulous technique and excellent equipment in the same terrain, could you produce work that looks as good as Ansel Adams'?
> ...




Because he says it is, and I agree with him!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 21, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Given any equipment you wanted could you take photos as good as Neil Leifer?
> 
> Joe


Yep.


----------



## sleist (Mar 22, 2016)

There are a lot of technically excellent dull photos.  Too many actually.


----------



## Overread (Mar 22, 2016)

With the right gear, location and reference material - sure anyone can copy-cat. Indeed to copy-cat is part of how many of us learn. We see what others have achieved and we head out to copy that method/effect/style/whatever. We copy so that we learn the skills; if only at a technical level, as to how to achieve that end result. 

From there we've got the technical skill; how we use those tools that we develop is up to us. Indeed how we learn those very tools can be critical - if you learn how, say, Adams shot a certain shot, but only learn in so far as how that shot was taken you might well have only 1 tool - how to take that shot in that light and that situation.

If you learn the components of those tools; the justifications and even the alternatives and the series of choices that made up the end result then you've gained a LOT of tools. Further you've gained them in a way that allows you to separate them into individual components that you can then pick and choose.



Skills are like a toolbox - if you've a big box full of lots of stuff you've got a lot of potential; whilst if you've only got one or two you might have a harder time. Of course experience in using those tools is key and its just a possible to have a huge box full of tools and know only how to use a few well; or to have only one or two but know how to use them really well. 

And in the end how we bring it all together and achieve the final end result of a photo is part of what makes us individual. Some part theory; some part luck; some part experience; some part the experience of others etc... All adding up in no defined order nor relative amounts.


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 22, 2016)

I myself? No! Someone else? Possibly and even better than Adams.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 23, 2016)

No.

Not everyone can in the same way that no matter how much training someone has, some people will never be fast enough to run in the olympics. You can vastly improve above the average, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same potential.

Photography requires a certain amount of visual and technical intuition, as does most art. Some people have more capacity for it than others.

That being said, someone who isn't very innately talented at something can become better than someone who is talented but never practices.

I might be able to master the technical side of why Adams takes a certain photo and why it is good, but that doesn't mean I "see" in the same way as he does both in the field and in the darkroom.


----------



## sleist (Mar 23, 2016)

This popped into my head:

Technical Competence  ----->  Technique  ----->  Style  ----->  Art​
Different people will progress along the continuum to different degrees and at different levels of consistency.   Someone may have consistently excellent technique but never create their own unique style.  Some people get technically competent/proficient but are never able to use it as a technique to create a predetermined result.  The art part is tough because its in the eyes of the viewer as well as the artist, but I think it's safe to say that you have greater chance of creating art the further you progress along the line.


----------



## zombiesniper (Mar 23, 2016)

Should I be ashamed that I could care less what some guy did a long time ago with a camera?
Now I would say given enough time and the drive to do so I could probably learn how to copy anyones work in any art medium. Am I unique. No. I think anyone can do it.
Do you know what the biggest limiting factor is for most (myself included sometimes)? The drive to do so.
Almost everything you need to learn that will allow you to copy almost anything is on the net.

So what's my point. Learn the techniques used and the why's behind them......

Then forget that picture/piece of music or other masterpiece and create your own thing.


----------



## zombiesniper (Mar 23, 2016)

P.S.
I have no skill or talent. I run with persistence and luck.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 23, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> P.S.
> I have no skill or talent. I run with persistence and luck.


you know some of these great photographers we speak of you might see the same fifty or a hundred shots they took over and over again. What you may not see is the fact they spent forty years and took thousands of shots you will never see.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 23, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> P.S.
> I have no skill or talent. I run with persistence and luck.




that's exactly how I roll at work.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2016)

It does sort of make one wonder, though how much is talent and artistic vision and how much is just right time, right place.  Not to take anything away from Adams, mind you, but I have to admit I wonder if his work would be held in such high esteem if he just start shooting it today.

I wonder if Adams work would ever reach such an esteemed status decades from now if the first of his works were seen today, as opposed to years and years ago.  Would it be considered as stunning, as iconic - if he were a complete unknown showing these images for the very first time?

Kind of an interesting thing to think about really.


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 23, 2016)

After every shot I like to say "take that Ansel Adams". Probably due to the fact that, like many kids into cameras, I received Ansel Adams posters, books, and such as presents at christmas and birthdays. 

Oh, I was reading these letters of Ansel Adams the other day:
Letters From Ansel


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2016)

Dave442 said:


> After every shot I like to say "take that Ansel Adams".



Lol.. I can just imagine the sort of looks I'd get at the zoo if I started doing that.  Not that I don't get enough stares as it is.. 

I just think it's kind of interesting to think about though, would Adams ever become a world renown, revered artist if he were just starting out today and competing with the millions of other shots on instagram, facebook, photo sites, etc...

Or would his work pass into mediocrity, lost in the noise?  

Or perhaps would he succumb to the instagram/500 px peer pressure and switch from landscapes to taking pictures of cats doing silly things or wearing silly outfits?


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> It does sort of make one wonder, though how much is talent and artistic vision and how much is just right time, right place.  Not to take anything away from Adams, mind you, but I have to admit I wonder if his work would be held in such high esteem if he just start shooting it today.
> 
> I wonder if Adams work would ever reach such an esteemed status decades from now if the first of his works were seen today, as opposed to years and years ago.  Would it be considered as stunning, as iconic - if he were a complete unknown showing these images for the very first time?
> 
> Kind of an interesting thing to think about really.



As someone mentioned before, Adams' work doesn't stand out so much today, but then again, it's probably because of a lot of people since him HAVE copied him and his style. He had the vision, the talent, and the dedication to create something new in his time - something new that also heavily influenced both his contemporaries and generations of photographers after him. If he were starting out today, he wouldn't necessarily be shooting the same shiny, smooth-water, saturated landscapes that we see so often, but just better than everyone else. If he was enough of a visionary in his time to be original and unique, why wouldn't he be so if his time were now instead of then? And no, perhaps it wouldn't be in landscape photography but in an entirely different genre. Maybe he shot landscapes because he saw a gap, a need for landscape photography to be pushed in a new direction. Perhaps he'd see a different need today.

Who the hell knows, is what I'm saying


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 23, 2016)

In addition to what Leonore said, Adams' work is accessible by anyone.  A mountain is a mountain, etc. So if someone who knew nothing else saw his pictures, they could easily understand the picture and recognize its better-than-human-eye reproduction. Someone like Weston just isn't as easily accessible by the average joe.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 23, 2016)

Ansel Adams was a decade or so ahead of his time.  Adams spend half of his time in the darkroom perfecting his development and his printing to reflect his exposure and the other half in the field perfecting his exposures to match his development and printing.

This is what Adams did, back in the 1940's (IIRC), when Alfred Eisenstaedt, then chief photographer for Life Magazine, first saw a portfolio of Adams' photographs, he was amazed and speechless.  Remember that Eisenstaedt was one of the primere photographer/photojournalist of his day ... Yet he was stunned by the quality of Adams' work. Adams invented an exposure/development system which is sorta like a combo today of histogram and curves. Adams took the photograph places where other professionals of his day never thought a photograph could go. (For clarity as who Eisenstaedt was, he photographed John F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchhill and the Navy guy kissing the Nurse in Times Square on VJ Day.  Eisenstaedt is who Henri Cartier-Bresson wanted to be. "When I have a camera in my hand, I know no fear," Alfred Eisenstaedt.)

So how big is Adams?  Eisenstaedt, who was a giant in his day was humbled by Adams photographs.

In perspective, yes any/most/some of us can, 50+ years later, duplicate an Adams photograph, but can any of us create/craft a final image which is a decade better than what is being produced today? I say not.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 23, 2016)

As to Neil Leifer ... On any Sunday.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 23, 2016)

To me it is pretty simple.  It comes down to:


----------



## Overread (Mar 24, 2016)

Gryph wait are you saying that we are all sled dogs running in harness along a predefined pathway selected by some godly power that issues out free food?


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 24, 2016)

Overread said:


> Gryph wait are you saying that we are all sled dogs running in harness along a predefined pathway selected by some godly power that issues out free food?


Ok, so now I'm sitting here hoping we didn't accidentally create a new religion of some sort.

I guess my thought is this, would someone of Adams talent get noticed today and recognized the way he was, or would it be a case where we see so many images everywhere that they just wouldn't stand out well enough to the masses to ever receive that level of recognition?



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Mar 24, 2016)

Overread said:


> Gryph wait are you saying that we are all sled dogs running in harness along a predefined pathway selected by some godly power that issues out free food?


 No I'm saying that if you ain't the lead dog the view never changes. Nor the smell.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 6, 2016)

Yes but many forgeries are actually better than the originals.


----------

