Why are some people good at photography while others arent?

K

koven

Well-known
Local time
7:06 AM
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
500
Well photography is a pretty big spectrum but Ill just say taking a picture.

Why are some people good at taking pictures while others aren't?

I feel like the ability to take a picture is something you have or don't have. Its something natural. I wouldn't say you are born with it but its an aesthetic eye you develop over time. I think that's the reason why some people can just pick up a camera and shoot amazing stuff.

I feel like its a sensitivity to certain things and moments.
 
Some people buy plane tickets, hotel rooms, taxi rides, and, umbrellas. Others buy gear :D
Conclude as you will from this comment. i have been on both sides as have most photographers :D
 
It's like everything else in life. My girlfriend can't drive or take a photo for ****. She can however sketch a building by hand and design it in auto-cad that conforms to all state and federal regulations for earthquakes, ADA, occupancy, zoning etc.

Some people are better at certain things than others.
 
I think the good photographers have a) talent b) commitment c) ability to criticize themselves ... just my two yen though ...
 
pdexposures said:
It's like everything else in life. My girlfriend can't drive or take a photo for ****. She can however sketch a building by hand and design it in auto-cad that conforms to all state and federal regulations for earthquakes, ADA, occupancy, zoning etc.

Some people are better at certain things than others.
Click to expand...



I kind of see where your coming from but its really hard to compare the two things. Drawing something, and taking a picture.
 
I've always been talented with all things mechanical and was able to dismantle and reassemble most things successfully from an early age. I was told by someone that this comes from having good spatial ability and you're born with it ... or not.

My father however appeared to be born with five thumbs on each hand and broke many more things than he repaired. Perhaps he would have been a good photographer? :p
 
I do believe that some just have the eye for it, but I would place practice/commitment higher than talent.
 
Lartigue must have had some talent. But even he would not have got good at it if he wasn't interested. The technology put many off before it got so easy. That girl friend above would have become very good if she had been interested. All the evidence is that it's those 10,000 hours or 10,000 photographs that make you good. It used to be liking the gear and the film and the process. Painters like paint. Writers like sentences and ink.

Exposure to nice things, books, books of photographs, nice interiors, fine gardens all inform the eye of the child before she becomes a photographer. Talent is a concept under attack lately. I used to think that its dismissal was overdone, but I am less and less sure of that.
 
When I first started taking pictures I sucked. I had No Talent. I believe it is determination to learn, a determination to observe good photography, And a determination to apply successful Techniques. If you have an eye For photography, That is a big plus. But composition can also be learned. Then there is seeing a photograph where none Exists.

I think the biggest factor is Wanting to make a commitment to learn it. That does not mean you will be the best photographer. But your skills should improve From where you started.
 
Nothing magic about photography. Many people can talk, few can give good speeches. Many can write, few are good authors. Many can run, few are Olympians etc etc
 
Why are some people good at photography while others arent?
Why are some people good at their job while others are not?
Why are some fathers good fathers while some are not?

Simple, some care, some don`t. Just like everything else - no need for angst about it though, it is only picture taking.
 
koven said:
I think that's the reason why some people can just pick up a camera and shoot amazing stuff.
Click to expand...

Well, it can't be quite that easy considering that there is barely any agreement as to what constitutes "amazing stuff".
 
The cliche, 10% inspiration and 90% transpiration, is valid here.

Apply yourself, which I haven't done lately, and allow your talent to grow.
 
I think that with art, there is a space between that which is so personal that self-criticism impedes expression and just personal enough to demand care and constructive self-criticism.
 
George Bonanno said:
Photography has nothing to do with art. It's a mechanical reproduction like a Xerox machine.
Click to expand...

Funny how the art world itself decided that you were wrong a century ago. You probably think etching and lithography aren't art either. When I see photographers posting such tripe on the internet, I wonder what is sadder: their ignorance of history, or the fact that they have so little respect for photography when they themselves are photographers.
 
Access and social confidence are important in creating good photographs as well. I think anyone with some basic know-how and practice can form a technically good picture. But that doesn't make an interesting picture, which is much more important.

I find the more successful photographers these days especially are those that are portraitists, and the cooler/more unusual/attractive their subjects are has a large bearing on their success. I personally feel i can take a photograph that I am satisfied with technically. You could liken that type of person to Ansel Adams. But I'm not successful because I don't have the nerve or the connections to shoot interesting people (or places really) that would blast me into the Avedon / Leibowitz / McGinley / Richardson stratosphere.

Koven, I admire your work because there are always interesting personalities in them...and while you are techbically proficient, when I look at your images I don't need them to be technically good. The subjects and the way you depict them speaks wonders for your photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top