Is an 'eye for a good photo' something you can learn?

D

dissatisfied

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
Natalie
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,

I am new to the board, initially joining to ask a question about a professional I had paid, but you all seem like a nice bunch so I may stick around if that's ok?:wave:

I must start off by saying that I am a complete novice but I absolutely adore photos and would love to learn how to take better photos. I am only really interested in taking better photos of my children. I do not even own an SLR camera, but I have bought a bridge camera (I know its not the same!) so that I can learn the functions and the basics before I invest in a DSLR.

I am interested to know if people think that an 'eye for a good photo' is something that you naturally have or is something that can be learned? Whilst I can appreciate the difference between a good and bad photo in terms of composition, I can't tell why the photo is better or worse.

I have read up on some tips for better photography and come across things such as the thirds rule (hope that is right?) and have tried to follow the tips but I still don't know if I am getting good composition. I usually judge whether my photos are good or not by whether my kids look cute in them!

Are there any tips people could give to a complete beginner? What are the most important things to remember when you are just starting out?

Thanks in advance:)
 
I don't think its something you are born with, no. The best tool a photographer has is your eyes. Just start looking for a subject that has that attraction that makes you want to take out your camera. What do you like about it? Don't just spray a bunch of photos at it, try pinpoint what it was that caught your eye and make that the focus of the image. Try out different angles and place the object in different positions in the frame until you find something that just feels right to you. I wouldn't really worry too much about the rule of thirds yet (Although its nice to read up and understand some of these basic "rules"). After you start to actually look at your subject and understand what the light is doing and how its effecting your subject you will find your photos will start looking better and better over time. It's not something you can learn overnight, but keep at it, and keep your eyes peeled for that "perfect photo". Most of all have fun and take photos for you, not your critics!
 
Define 'good photo' :shrug:

Yes, there are technically proficient shots and those that clearly lack the simple ingredients to be considered acceptable to the majority, but what is a 'good photo' exactly?

Everyone's perception and answer to that would, likely, be different in some way, so 'having an eye' is subjective at best, and a throw away compliment offered by those less able to take a photograph at worst.

Granted, some people have a better understanding of light, how to use it, and how to set their camera up to capture the scene, but that's not a natural gift, it's years of hard work and practice and often no more than repeated shooting of the same scenarios and events.

Take any photographer over the last 60 years, and I'd wager you will find equal number of those who do and those who don't believe them to have produced good photos in terms of having 'the eye'.

Learning their craft and how best to capture scenes presented in front of them, however...
 
I think the more photos you take and the more you learn about photography and how your camera works then the more scope there is for your photos to improve. Understanding light, colour and composition can allow a more creative nature come through and for a beginner I like the series of dvds by Karl Taylor, check him out on youtube.

Past the good technique it becomes more subjective though I think, as to what a good photo is. I regard a good photo as one that impacts on me and that doesnt necessarily mean it has to be technically perfect.
 
I think as far as an 'eye for photography' its like anything else. For example some people naturally pick up learning an instrument quickly because its how their mind works but others work very hard and become as good or even better and its the same with photography. Some people that appear to have a good eye may be lazy and not progress but someone that's determined to get better can often quickly overtake them
 
Welcome to the forums. I agree with most of the above, and there's nothing wrong with bridge cameras. I have a Minolta Dimage 7i, and bought it because I couldn't afford a DSLR - of course that was just a few months before Canon brought out the 300D, the first affordable one, at about the same price - and it still takes good photographs, although I don't use it very often now.

Some people do seem to have an "eye for a photograph" - my daughter does - but it's more about practice and getting some experience, and what makes a "good photograph" is very subjective. Just hang in there, it'll come!
 
Why not post a few of your examples up here and ask for comments on them? That way you will learn quicker.
 
Tricky question - I think that developing "a good eye" is possible up to a point but personally I think that there's a degree of natural ability involved that probably makes the difference between a good photographer and a great one. I also think that it doesn't apply generically to all genres of photography, some photographers do seem to excel in one particular area be it landscapes, portraits, street etc, I don't think this is just due to practice I think it's a natural ability they have.

Just my thoughts

Simon
 
simonkit said:
Tricky question - I think that developing "a good eye" is possible up to a point but personally I think that there's a degree of natural ability involved that probably makes the difference between a good photographer and a great one. I also think that it doesn't apply generically to all genres of photography, some photographers do seem to excel in one particular area be it landscapes, portraits, street etc, I don't think this is just due to practice I think it's a natural ability they have.

Just my thoughts

Simon
Click to expand...

You definietly have to see differently in different aspects of photography, being able to spot good light and composition in a landscape does not lend itself to identifying good lighting and poses for studio models.

I think to have a good photographic eye first you need to know your camera and become one with it. There's no point thinking about shooting wide angle street scenes if all you have with you is a 300mm prime, you need to adapt your eye to your gear, or vice versa.
 
There is a difference between a photographer and the general public. A photographer tends to "look" at something whereas the general public just see something. Small but important difference which one gets with experience like everything else. Just a tip, don't just take a photo, try taking the shot from different positions, and when checking the photos later on you will see which is the better angle and possibly ask yourself why thats so.

Realspeed
 
I don't think people come out of the womb with the gift of being able to 'see' a photograph. It's developed over time, not neccesarily just through actually taking photographs, but through their interest and involvement in other creative / visual arts. Improvements come through studying photos and photographs (not necessarily of the formal, classroom or book type), then practice and analysis of your own photographs. Feedback from others can also be very useful, I've certainly benefitted from some qualified feedback, but the caveat to this is many people will offer up how they would do it, which may or may not be useful to you.
 
Don't only consider photography, but perhaps have a look at some art books on composition, much the same applies. Though with painting you can move things around a lot easier :D
 
From my own experiences of trying desperately to get good landscape shots.

I have read, books, forums, looked at some excellent landscape shots on here, gone and tried to emulate them,failing miserably. Coming back, reading again and absorbing all the information I can. I still cannot get results i`m happy with.

Yet I go out walking with the wife, we take shots of a similar scene and hers are fantastic, mine are crap. Sometimes we are only yards apart taking the same scene, so why are hers so much better than mine?

She has been into art and painting all her life, I think she either got the eye at birth or learned it better over many a year of painting. Maybe i`m wrong,I don`t know. But I do know that she has a far better,natural eye than I have.
 
OK, this is just me and my own opinions, but I'll share them FWIW. We see things in three dimensions, in fairly wide angle, and with all our senses contributing to our perceptions of the scene. A photograph is just a two dimensional record, or representation, of the scene without the sensory input.

It's not very difficult to take good, well composed, properly exposed and sharp photographs. That just takes practice and experience, but the trick - or one of them - is to capture the image in the scene in such a way that you convey the emotion and experience to another person.

Think of the standard, and rather clichéd, image of a steam locomotive hauling carriages up an incline. A postcard shot. Now imagine yourself taking the shot so that the person looking at it imagines the sound and power of the grunting, labouring, locomotive; the smell of the smoke and the excitement of the people on board, having an experience that is rare today. That's a lot harder, but worth trying for. What about Steve McCurry's photograph of Sharbat Gula (the Afghan girl) taken when she was about twelve? Just a portrait, yes, but the searing intensity in her eyes (possibly enhanced), and the thoughts of what she might have experienced, echoed around the world. From my own past, a photograph from a few years ago. My wife was living in rural Scotland, and I was due to fly back to South Africa for six months, early the following day. We walked up the far side of Loch Ken, behind her house, that evening. I took a couple of sunset shots of the loch, which was like glass, with the mountains and forests mirrored in it. It was technically good, but that's all. I missed something. I couldn't put the birdsong and the fragrance of an early summer evening into the shot, but I could have tried harder, and I could have put my wife into it, sitting by the side of the loch looking across the water. It would have been better.

Good photographs can tell stories, if we let them.
 
One of only five landscape shots that I have taken over the years that I am happy with.


Maelstrom.jpg
 
I think you can in your words " devolop and eye for a good picture"
just by looking at some of the fantastic shoots you see by the talented people here, you can take inspiration and ideas how you would like to take pictures and how you want your shots to look:thumbs:
 
Definitely something you can learn! Even the most 'natural' photographers have to work on learning technique, composition, lighting etc. Practice, look at your shots, look at other people's shots, read websites and magazines, practice some more.

There is a lot of useful info on here so read and ask questions. :)

Digital is great as you can take the same shot from different angles and then see which one you like best and think about why.

And don't worry about having 'just' a bridge camera. You can learn a lot and take some great photos with one!
 
MartynK said:
From my own past, a photograph from a few years ago. My wife was living in rural Scotland, and I was due to fly back to South Africa for six months, early the following day. We walked up the far side of Loch Ken, behind her house, that evening. I took a couple of sunset shots of the loch, which was like glass, with the mountains and forests mirrored in it. It was technically good, but that's all. I missed something. I couldn't put the birdsong and the fragrance of an early summer evening into the shot, but I could have tried harder, and I could have put my wife into it, sitting by the side of the loch looking across the water. It would have been better.
Click to expand...

But from that you learned that a figure in the foreground can often improve a picture.

This is just one of the many techniques I had to learn but which is now so ingrained in me through years of picture taking and learning from my mistakes that I no longer have to think consciously about them at all - they just come "naturally."

In that respect I suppose I could say that I have an "eye" for a shot, but like almost every other photographer I have known that "eye" is the result of all those years, and all those mistakes - and as long as you learn from those mistakes one day you will suddenly realise that you too have finally acquired that mysterious "eye."

But like me you'll still make mistakes!
 
Last edited:
petersmart said:
But from that you learned that a figure in the foreground can often improve a picture.

This is just one of the many techniques I had to learn but which is now so ingrained in me through years of picture taking and learning from my mistakes that I no longer have to think consciously about them at all - they just come "naturally."

In that respect I suppose I could say that I have an "eye" for a shot, but like almost every other photographer I have known that "eye" is the result of all those years, and all those mistakes - and as long as you learn from those mistakes one day you will suddenly realise that you too have finally acquired that mysterious "eye."

But like me you'll still make mistakes!
Click to expand...

Sure. I should have put the figure in the foreground, but I was a bit distracted that evening because I was leaving the following day, and I wasn't really looking forward to it. It was a difficult time and I wasn't really "focused" (sorry) on the photography. I've been taking photographs for a long time and, like you, I still make mistakes too. I'm not even sure I make fewer mistakes now, but the more you learn the more you can experiment!
 
Photography isn't anything special, it's simply an activity like any other. Yes it can be learnt but some people just get it faster than others. This it's true of anything, some people can spend their lives playing the violin and then you get some 3 year old prodigy who blows them away.

Hard work pays off but in every competitive sport or activity there are examples of people getting to the top despite not being the most diligent in training or not having access to the best training or facilities.
 
Last edited:
Thank you everybody for your input and views. I probably should have made myself more clear about what I meant by a 'good' photograph. I guess as a complete beginner I am making certain assumptions about how photographers decide on their shots and how they get them right. There are times when I look at something (usually one of my children) and think 'that would make a lovely photo!', I snap it, but it the photograph doesn't look like I had imagined, and is not a good representation of what I see in front of me, desopite the fact that I ALWAYS take several shots of the same thing from different angles etc.

I am glad to hear that most people agree it's something you can learn, and at the least, if you are born with the 'eye' then you can at least improve on and work at it. I am only hoping to take shots of my children that are beyond the ordinary image and are something I can look back on and be pleased with (maybe even hang on the wall).

I don't yet feel confident enough to post some examples but I am going to read up some more on basic techniques so I at least have a better understanding of what people are trying to tell me. I don't even fully understand the interelation between ISO, aperture and shutter speed yet, nor how to properly work these settings to get the best results - I truly am starting from the very beginning! It's all feeling a little daunting at this stage, there's so much to learn! I'm probably getting a little ahead of myself by even thinking first about composition (it's just something that I have read about in articles about how to improve your photography).

Does anybody have any advice on good literature to get me started or would it be worthwhile investing in some courses?

BTW Fracster - that scene is stunning! See, I can tell a good photograph when I see one - just don't yet know how to achieve it!
 
A little late, but my two cents worth... :)

I definitely believe some people 'have an eye for taking a good photo.' Rather than a predetermined instinct, I think it's more of an ability acquired through experience and influence.

In my opinion, some people are able to visualise and capture a portrait or scene in a way that others cannot. This, for me, is what having an 'eye for a good photo' really means - although it may be defined differently for others. I'd like to believe that I have 'an eye' in this way, although I probably don't. But it's really not crucial - at least not in my world - to set such high standards, cos as long as I'm getting something positive and constructive from my photography, that's good enough for me. On a basic level, I do it because I enjoy it. Or to put it another way - I click, therefore I tick!

Learning 'the rules' was invaluable to me when I first began taking an interest in photography, so I would encourage others to do the same. Even if you don't (always) apply everything you learn, you will certainly benefit from having a solid foundation before embarking on your photographic journey. Sometimes simply knowing the rules can inspire you to break them as a means of achieving your desired goal. Photography contains so many variables, and this holds much of its appeal for me. Give 10 "toggers" the same brief, and you'll most likely get 10 different sets of results.

Having 'an eye' for a good photo is not crucial to being a 'good' photographer, in much the same way that having 'an eye' for the ladies* doesn't make you insatiably attractive to them. ;)

* substitute gender as preferred
 
I'm definitely of the opinion that anyone can take a photograph but some of us get more 'keepers' than others. Whether that's simply down to more experience, I don't know -creativity obviously play a massive part in this.

Knowing your gear and what it can do will obviously help you achieve certain shots and once you reach a level of experience with your kit, you are then more able to focus on creativity in terms of how you want a shot to look etc....

Some people are more creative than others but creativity alone doesn't make a good photographer.
 
dissatisfied said:
Does anybody have any advice on good literature to get me started or would it be worthwhile investing in some courses?
Click to expand...
A good book to start with is 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson, I think its about £10 on Amazon. It'll help you get to grips with ISO, aperture and shutter speed basics.
 
Last edited:
dissatisfied said:
I don't yet feel confident enough to post some examples but I am going to read up some more on basic techniques so I at least have a better understanding of what people are trying to tell me. I don't even fully understand the interelation between ISO, aperture and shutter speed yet, nor how to properly work these settings to get the best results - I truly am starting from the very beginning!
Click to expand...

I think Ed Bray made it the easiest to understand when he said that ISO,aperture and shutter speed are like the sides of a triangle,all linked and if you change the length of one side it affects all the others.

dissatisfied said:
Does anybody have any advice on good literature to get me started or would it be worthwhile investing in some courses?
Click to expand...

You can learn all you need by reading on here or other forums.Some people learn better on a one to one basis,only you know the answer to that..:)

dissatisfied said:
BTW Fracster - that scene is stunning! See, I can tell a good photograph when I see one - just don't yet know how to achieve it!
Click to expand...

Thank you,one good picture makes up for the thousands of failures..............:lol:
 
dissatisfied said:
There are times when I look at something (usually one of my children) and think 'that would make a lovely photo!', I snap it, but it the photograph doesn't look like I had imagined
Click to expand...

One of the secrets of photographing children is to take literally hundreds of shots and to always have your camera ready - usually by the time you see that great expression and bring your camera up - it's gone.

.
 
I think it's a bit of both. If you naturally have a sense for a good photo, then all you need to do is learn how to use a camera & some basics of composition, etc. But I don't think you can really teach someone to look.
 
As Joenail says it s a bit of both. The most important thing in photography is still creativity. The technical side is not that important. However you certainly can learn to take better photos if you practice.
 
I think having a good idea is part being born with an artistic eye and part learned.

andrew720 said:
I think the more photos you take and the more you learn about photography and how your camera works then the more scope there is for your photos to improve. Understanding light, colour and composition can allow a more creative nature come through and for a beginner I like the series of dvds by Karl Taylor, check him out on youtube..
Click to expand...

Thanks for this recommendation Andrew- really useful!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top