Eye For Photography

mant01

mant01

Suspended / Banned
Messages
849
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Just wondered if people think that you either have an eye for taking good pics or you dont? Is it something natural that some people have and others dont or if its just a process where you get better over time.
To me it seems some people have a natural talent for it and and although you can learn where you should put things in the frame etc that if you dont have an eye for photography then they wont ever be quite as good. What do you think?
 
You have to have a natural talent - you can only be taught so much but if you don't have the 'eye' for a picture you'll never pass a basic level.
 
I don't think it's an eye for photography so much as an eye for what looks good in an image of any kind. You can learn about light (some people struggle with that even, though), and you can learn about the 'rules' of photography, but unless you have an eye for how to create an image with impact then I do think your work will only ever stay at a lower level.

I often think of this in terms of a musician - you can learn all the technique, but unless you are musical and have the ear for it, your music will only ever be technically good, there will be no soul to it.
 
I think some people are born with the ability to see things, my sister is a graphic designer, great at art but has little photographic training yet can produce some really creative photographs.
However, I think that you can learn to see better (as opposed to being taught), by practising, looking at the work of others and studying composition, etc. It certainly worked for me anyway! :)
 
I think there's no black and white really. Some people are better than others at spotting photos, some are better at spotting photos in a certain style of photography, some people are quite good at photography and just ok a spotting a photo. I even think some people "find" their eye for photography, like something clicks with them while they learn.

Me? I don't know if I have an eye for it or not. I think what I sometimes stuggle with is converting what I'm seeing in my head to a photo on a camera. I'm not sure if that means I do or don't have an eye for a photography... being able to see the photography but being blind as to how to take it :shrug: :lol:
 
It's an interesting question! I have a friend who is a famous artist, his paintings are brilliant, yet he can't take a decent photo of anything! I've always found that strange.
 
I think you probably need some basic innate ability but a lot of it can be learned too. I'm sure the best people probably have lots of innate ability AND have worked really hard.
 
I know how to play snooker. the rules are simple. I probably know the rules as well as any pro snooker player... But I still cant win a game..

Yes i think I ahve the eye ...moreso to see a good picture within a picture :)
 
I think it helps if you can "see" things image wise on something you'd like to capture. Most people can take a decent picture every now and again those with an eye for it do it consistently.

You can learn all the basic stuff and composition "rules" and they help. It's always a good thing to keep practising regardless of how good or bad you are.

Some people take photographs really well techncially and others really well artistically -it's great when you can do both
 
Someone once asked me on a product shoot - "So what makes a good photographer then?" I replied I think that there as many answers to that as there are good photographers!

A good eye is about psychology. What makes 'us' feel that something is "good" or "right" to look at? There are so many levels to that which are impossible to define.

I know that something is bad when I see it and I know what is good. But that is just me and I guess I may or may not be representative. Compositional rules can be learnt; they are there as accepted practices which feel right when observed by the majority. They prevail as the "rules of composition" because they are tightly bound with our generally accepted psychology and perception/reaction to the world.

I believe that you can learn the compositional rules but unless you have an emotional reaction, or an empathy with them you will struggle to be a good photographer in the eyes of others.
 
I think everything can be learned. Everything can be analyzed and then retaught. The problem is that it can go into such detail that's simply hard to bring it all together. But eventually, whether now, or 100/10 000/100 000 photos later, everyone can get an "eye for photography."
Music is no different. You can most certainly learn where to play that right note and learn how to play it with feeling.
Saying that someone is a "natural" or "has an eye for it" is simply ignoring everything that person did in the past or experienced. And everything could have (some sort of) influence. (imagine sleeping next to a ticking clock for most of your life, then applying that even ticking to music = better sense of even timing).
But it so much easier to say that someone is a natural than to analyze their past and bring it down to individual bits and pieces of their life story that come together to form one product.
 
Markk said:
I think everything can be learned. Everything can be analyzed and then retaught. The problem is that it can go into such detail that's simply hard to bring it all together. But eventually, whether now, or 100/10 000/100 000 photos later, everyone can get an "eye for photography.".
Click to expand...

absoloutly 100% disagree..
 
its natural but can be aquired and strengthened by study and practice
i think there are folks who are natural at things so photography...and art...composition..draughtsmanship etc are signs
 
All it really means is that you don't need to learn the rule of thirds or be told to put space in front of a subject and all that malarkey, in order to look through a viewfinder and pick the right shot.

There's a level above just being technically competent though where only natural talent can create...well...creative shots.
 
KIPAX said:
absoloutly 100% disagree..
Click to expand...

and I absolutely 100% disagree with your 100% disagreement :lol:

I beleive, just like Markk, that you can learn anything, it may require additional time for some people than others but given the right access to the right methods of learning for the individual I do believe we are all capable of learning anything. It's certainly not all about techniques or rules there is an element of learning how to recognise the feeling of success. Let's face it the rules of photography all stemmed out of analysing what looks good and trying to understand why that was. There are always two elements to success, what we do and how we do it, most training only focuses on the what. The creative side of photography is in the how.

I don't think that everyone who attemps to learn will succeed though but I think this will be down to a combination of not trying long enough, not finding the right way to learn, not having access to the right information.
 
KIPAX said:
absoloutly 100% disagree..
Click to expand...

Just for a sec I read that as you 'agree' Kip - and thought you'd lost it :lol:

I totally disagree too

I've attended my local camera club for over 10 years, and some of those members have been there much longer than that. Several have been photographers for over 30 years, and seen thousands of good, great, amazing images in those years - often as close as at the club itself

Yet many still turn out crap month after month

Then a new girl starts, just 15yr old, picks up dad's camera and on fully auto (she has no idea how it works) turns in a set of 'fashion' look images of her mates far better than these experience codgers could ever do

While I do agree you can learn a Hell of a lot about composition and all the other techie stuff of imaging, some have an aptitude for it (an 'eye') and some don't and never will

DD
 
SimonTALM said:
and I absolutely 100% disagree with your 100% disagreement :lol:
Click to expand...

And I 100% absolutely disagree 100% with your disagreement of 100% with Kipax's 100% disagreement :D

EDITED TO REMOVE KIPPAX'S EXTRA P - SORRY KIPPAX :)

Phew

DD
 
Anyone can be taught to take a photography parrot fashion, you need to have some natural ability and creativity to take it to the next level.


so i 100% agree with DD's 100% disagreement of SimonTalms 100% disagreement of Kipax's 100% disagreement :nuts:
 
can people start taking the p out of kippax please :)

its kipax .. i am not a small village in leeds or an old stand at main rd :)
 
Aye, I think you need an 'eye' for photography, but I think there is different 'eyes' for different genres of photography, while I might be able to shoot a passable landscape , all my macros end up looking like Mr Blobby, regardless of what I shoot, and it's not down to technical ability, I just haven't got the 'eye' for macro's (and a whole load of other areas also)

A good friend of mine, who is a superb bird photographer, suggested I had a 17mm eye, that is I could look at a scene, and generally put the elements together to make an acceptable image, while on the other hand, he has a 300mm view, he can make sense, and produce incredible images from a very narrow view.

I remember seeing some images in a magazine from Andy Rouse, who is a top class wildlife photographer, whose images never fail to impress. He'd shot some landscape type animal images, showing the animal in a 'wider' environment, the images (for me) didn't really cut the mustard, as I don't think he has a 'wide' eye for an image , or perhaps wasn't developed enough?
 
SimonTALM said:
and I absolutely 100% disagree with your 100% disagreement :lol:

I beleive, just like Markk, that you ...
Click to expand...

Amen! ;)

DiddyDave said:
Just for a sec I read that as you 'agree' Kip - and thought you'd lost it :lol:

I totally disagree too

I've attended my local camera club for over 10 years, and some of those members have been there much longer than that. Several have been photographers for over 30 years, and seen thousands of good, great, amazing images in those years - often as close as at the club itself

Yet many still turn out crap month after month

Then a new girl starts, just 15yr old, picks up dad's camera and on fully auto (she has no idea how it works) turns in a set of 'fashion' look images of her mates far better than these experience codgers could ever do

While I do agree you can learn a Hell of a lot about composition and all the other techie stuff of imaging, some have an aptitude for it (an 'eye') and some don't and never will

DD
Click to expand...

There a quote/question in motorcycling that also focuses on aged veterans who have been riding motorcycles for 30 years but who's technical skill is below a rider who's been riding two years. It's
"Have you been riding 30 years or 1 year thirty times(?)"
Same could apply to photography. If you never try to improve (for example never fully learn the relationship between ISO, Shutter and f-stop) then you never will...irregardless of how many years you've been investing.

Mid_gen has it right. One person has to consciously learn the rule of thirds whereas another may not have ever learned it formally, but may have noticed that all his (her) favorite photographs have straight horizons placed on a 1/3 and thus follows that 'style' and thus his pictures look better. Is this natural talent?

Because if that's what natural talent is being defined as, then you could argue that it's really someone's inquisitive nature that lead to the 'discovery' above. And that inquisitive nature could have been nurtured by parents/surroundings/etc. But maybe being born and influenced by your surroundings is a 'natural' process of life?

Ultimately, we may be arguing over something that we all don't share the same definition of.

I unfortunately have to stand 100% by the 'there is no natural talent' where natural talent means "I've never had any contact with anything that may have influenced my photography what-so-ever and my images just seem to turn out fantastic...I don't know how it happens" ;)
 
Rovers_Andy said:
we always take the p out of you :p
Click to expand...

:agree:

And as you can see here and above - I've edited the extra P out for you

EDITED TO REMOVE KIPPAX'S EXTRA P - SORRY KIPPAX :)

Cheers

DD

(Or is that about to become DDD :suspect:)
 
I think alot of what we call 'having an eye for a shot' is down to confidence. In the same way that confidence effects almost everything we try to achieve. It's not just about believing you have the ability to get the right shot but more about having the sheer bloody mindedness to obtain the shot at whatever the cost, monetarily or physically.
Confidence can also take you out of your comfort zone when it comes to processing too, if you worry that not everyone will like your photo then there's a good chance neither you nor anyone else will truly love your photographs. Sometimes it's just better to split opinion than it is to pander to everyone.
That said, it's very rare a great shot will emerge from someone who has no knowledge of their equipment so I would say that is almost as essential.
 
Seeing the world differently to others, and taking the kind of photos that others don't see (or have the confidence to take) is what often sets apart more creative photographers. Often it's a case of not settling for the obvious shot, but using a different lens, a different perspective, a different angle, or composing it differently to give it more meaning or more context. These are the kind of things that quite often set apart the snapshots and the competiton winners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top