How much natural talent do you need to become a good photographer these days?
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 at
9:36 am
It seems like these days you don’t need to have much natural talent to be a good photographer. I mean, take some classes, buy a really good camera, and practice a lot, and you could get really great, without much natural talent.
But that’s just my opinion. I don’t claim to know a whole lot about photography.
What do you guys think? How much natural talent do you need to become a good photographer?
newborn baby photography blogs
- Capps Won’t Deny Claim :: FITSNews
- What makes a photographer a ‘professional’?
- Dodgeblogium
» One dead spy and a whole lot of intrigue.
Tagged with: natural talent • photographer • photography • t claim • whole lot
Filed under: Baby Photography
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
natural talent or the "eye" – i dont believe in them or give them any credit
does the "eye" or natural talent ensure perfect exposure everytime? does it arrange lighting? does it come with photography school knowledge and training?does it know about off camera flash? can it proform simple flash equations like gn22 @ F22 = 1 meter coverage?
the "eye" and natural talent are the sayings of people who also think money buys skill, they say such things as "i have the eye and a really expensive camera why arent my images looking professional?" ???????????
how much natural talent does one need – in my case none – i went and studied for years – like all skills study and knowledge and practice are key – never seen "natural talent" or "the eye" get anyone anywhere without knowledge of light, lighting and "phototgraphy" – the arty ones on my course failed off camera flash because their expensive cameras didnt do it for them
a
People take pictures for years trying to get the perfect shot. Acculy you have to also know how to photoshop. Wich is very hard. Look at my account on Deviantart im 14 and have been doing this for 3 years i think im pretty good for only being 14 years of age….http://starxkandi.deviantart.com/
This link should explain it all.
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
The only natural talent you need is for both your left and right hemisphere of your brain work together … Highly evolved technical skills and an excellent cognitive and visual sense.
Everything else requires intensive schooling, experience and balancing your vision with your technical skills.
A camera cannot compose and choose the right time to actuate the shutter .. no matter how advanced.
A camera and photoshop can only take you so far. If you can’t visualize the shot and capture it at the optimal moment, it doesn’t matter how good your camera is. I agree advancements have made many aspects of photography much "easier" in certain terms. I still find that those who have a natural "eye" for composition and a knowledge found w/ years of experience are still some of the most impressive artist. I found that some of my most enjoyable photography was when I was working with film in the darkroom…making the actual print can be just as rewarding as capturing it on film.
Under most circumstances, anyone can achieve their goals with hard work, practice, and perseverance.
Most people lack the drive to apply all of the above. 99% of "talent" is the drive to do those three things consistently.
A photographer’s eye can be developed and trained, and technical skills, timing, and more can be improved upon.
I would say that pure talent only accounts for that top 1%… the geniuses that innovate and change the way we look at the world. Everything below that pinnacle can be achieved through hard work, patience, and perseverance. And that top 1% would not be at the top without the three qualities I’ve mentioned in addition to their "eye."
Those three qualities are so rare as to be special unto themselves, though.
Notice that I didn’t say anything about the good camera part? That’s got next to nothing to do with being a good photographer.
A friend’s colleague volunteered to take photos of the hospital director (they’re in the military)–and she went out and bought Canon 30D with 24 – 105 mm L IS USM lens. It was a total disaster. Half of them were out of focus. Many were too dark. The rest were too bright. She never had a camera before that afternoon and never took the time to read the manual.
A good photographer needs a decent, working camera and I agree with the others who have answered your questions. It doesn’t have to be anything fancy or expensive.
Give someone with no talent a Leica M8 would be like letting me play a Stradivari.
Experience is the best teacher, and you have to have both asense of composition and attention to detail. Unfortunately many people call themselves "photographers" but have no conception of what is involved. It is not getting a good camera and just shooting.
Ansel Adams used to get a large piece of black cardboard and cut a hole in in the size of the negative he was shooting. He used this for composition.
Understanding of the physics of light, aperature and shutter speed relationships are key.
Keep a notebook and write down what the conditions are on that day, what time it was, coudy or not, time of year, your film speed, aperature, and shutter speed – everything you can to help you UNDERSTAND how that picture turned out.
Ansel also said that his picture of Half Dome did not look like the print – he did that magic in the darkroom – it was this part of the process that made him famous.
To be good in photography you must study study study. You must shoot 100 photos a day with notes. You should understand darkroom techniques.
Any one who tells you it’s the camera or it’s easy is a shlep.
Ther are good books out there, but many many bad ones. You must become a master of light and shadow and how to use your tool, the camera, to it’s most potential.
It has been my experience that "natural" talent will give a person a head start. But that’s pretty much it. Without out dedication, natural talent will lead to nothing. I once knew 2 professional singers (studying at Juilliard on NYC). One had natural talent but she would often show up without practice. The second has smaller body and her voice would not project as much. But she was always prepared and practiced.
It has been now about 15 years since then and the second singer (vocalist) now travels the world and headlines in international operas. The first (the natural) is no where to be found.
===
But many of the top arts have both natural talent and dedication. They are the one define what art is. But not everybody needs to be that great.
Good Luck.
Hello, I believe, that no matter what to do you need talent, but talent is not something you are born with, you build it.
But taking a photograph is not pushing a button. Take a look of Ansel Adams and think that he had a wood box wit a lens. THATS TALENT. The talent is making the best you can with the less you have. So, any good person that claims himself photographer must take a look back and think of what a good photographer in the year 1920 had to do…
If one does have the courage, try to do it, and if you can manage all that without lossing your mind and achieving to have 1 decent picture. THEN YOU DEFINITELY ARE
Im a novice, but here is what I know.
Ability to
1. Visualise the elements that will make a better photograph.
2. The environment : Time of day, angle of the shot, the condition of the atmosphere (cloudy, sunny, raining etc)
3. Processing the digital picture on Photoshop, thats an art too.
One can experiment a lot but talent would talent would make a difference at the end of the day because talent creates new and interesting photographs.
you have to have education first of all. not necessarily a degree, but know fstops, shutter speeds, lens types etc. But it takes you have the eye—you have 2 people taking the same image and its all in the composition of the image. And you have to have the love for it… too many people out there are just doing it because it brings in money and thats not good.
All I’m gonna say is AMEN! to Antoni and fhotoace.
All the thumb downers of Antoni’s answer need to do a reality check, seriously.
It is somewhat of a misconception that to be in the arts you simply need natural talent. Certainly if you do have natural talent that is aesthetic sensibilies sans school, then you will certainly have an advantage over other people.
However, if you have studied art of the 20th century you will see a trend especially towards the later 20th and 21st century, that is an increase of schooling. Talent alone these days is not enough to get recognized by major art institutions from museums to major galleries. Although I am not saying it doesn’t happen a lot of recognized artists of the later 20th century hold higher level degrees that is MFA’s and with fine art photography it seems the push will be for PHD’s as several recognized schools for fine art photography are creating such degrees.
So in terms of how much talent do you need to be a good photographer, it all depends upon who you are being judged by. Like I said, if you are marketing yourself to museums and the major canons that dictate art history then you better have lots of schooling as well as lots of pure talent. On the other hand if what you are doing is marketing yourself to the general public, then perhaps you don’t need much talent at all. In general most peoples sense of art and aesthetics are low-brow. I don’t mean to be rude but simply look at what people are submitting to yahoo answers for reviews, and the general applaud they are receiving for their work. Its the same low-brow aesthetics that create artists such as Thomas kincaide who spew out this re-hashed post post impressionist paintings that grandmas go crazy for in the malls.
So to answer your question, you don’t need much talent if all you are simply trying to satiate the aesthtic tastes of the lowest common denominator.
SEEING PHOTOGRAPHICALLY
"No matter how we want our picture to function, as photographers we must also think of our image in terms of what our tools and materials can do. Practically speaking, we must understand how photographic materials and processes work in order to visualize our picture. To Edward Weston, the photographer, this was "seeing photographically," a process by which we concentrate on an object or observe an event, decide what kind of image we want to make from it, and then see the image in our mind as a picture. Although great photographs occasionally result from accident or chance, most are created by photographers seeing and visualizing the image beforehand."
From "OBJECT & IMAGE: AN INTRODUCTION TO PHOTOGRAPHY, THIRD EDITION" by George M. Craven, Chapter 1, pp 8 & 9.
You should have some talent for anything, but, as most of the posters here have said, without practice all the talent in the world won’t do you any good. Talent is not formed ability.
How much talent do you need to become a good photographer? It is less a matter of talent than of mastery of the medium. How good you are as a photographer really reduces to that.
I recently did some shots for a car lot. They had hired a young kid who had just finished photography school in college to do the shots for them. Frankly, they were terrible. Why? It had nothing to do with talent because I saw the shots he presented to get the job. He is good, but he doesn’t know how to think about the things he had learned in the real world yet.
I redid the shots, at a lot more money, and they were fine. Why? Not talent, but practiced experience. I used essentially the same equipment he did, but I used it differently. My good shots were the result of all the bad shots I had taken and learned from. That is the key, learning.
There is natural talent, but it relates to a way of seeing and broad creative thinking. Those photographers are the ones that you look at their pictures and you go ‘I would never have thought of shooting it like that!’ To a greater extent than people think, you can even learn to do that, but you have to know photography inside and out to make it a useful thing.
Vance