Are you born with it?

[Overread15 3]

Space, on that note I guess I will agree to disagree. I had a great time w/ all this!! What can we disagree about next?

politics?
religion?
how to pronounce potato?

endless opportunities

You can have potato - I fully endorse a potato debate - but not the first two

 

[imagemaker46]

The potato is misunderstood and always get dumped on when people go on useless diets. I like potatos. George Bush likes potatoes and probably brokkoly.

 

[jake337]

Don't forget kaliflowers.

 

[spacefuzz]

I am a big fan of sweet potatoes. I hope they will liven up the spud debate.

 

[imagemaker46]

The sweet potato is a sweet potato. I should have been correct in my George Bush spelling, he was talking about the single potato, which he added the "e" to. I hear he likes karerotts and rudybeggers as well.

Sorry, turned this into a political food thread.

 

[The_Traveler]

And I'm saying why waste that energy thinking about innate talent when its scientifically clear you can develop yourself to be good at whatever you want? Dont hold yourself back thinking there is some cosmic glass ceiling you cant break through. Have faith in yourself!

That's not what the article said nor is it what common sense will tell you.

And in recent tests, five volunteers found their abilities were improved after the particular area of the brain was temporarily "switched off".

I could be trained to be a better golfer, tennis player, photographer, card player - maybe even to be good on some sort of ultimate scale but the unfortunate for me fact is that there are physiologic limitations - and I'm sure neurologic ones - that limit my ability to improve.
So while I may be able, with some considerable effort, become a good photographer, I lack the vision of great artists. Knowing that I also know that constant work, both physical and mental, can make me better than virtually every casual patzer I might come across.

The ultimate cause of the difference between my acquired skills, no matter how high, and those of a gifted artist is their higher level of talent

 

[spacefuzz]

That's not what the article said nor is it what common sense will tell you.

Traveler, if you look at my post from a few pages ago you will see 4 links to science books on amazon which list a multitude of scientific studies. One of the funnest parts about science is that common sense is frequently wrong!

Even if the current scientific data doesnt explain 100% of talent, I think it covers most of it for most people. Kind of like quantum mechanics, we know its not the whole picture but it answers all of the questions it needs to in its domain.

 

[spacefuzz]

The sweet potato is a sweet potato. I should have been correct in my George Bush spelling, he was talking about the single potato, which he added the "e" to. I hear he likes karerotts and rudybeggers as well.

Sorry, turned this into a political food thread.

Apparently I suck at spelling. -5 pts to my credability.

 

[vfotog]

this sounds very methodical and mathematical and not very much fun. perhaps one of the disadvantages of digital. with film, you took your knowledge and then mostly just shot and learned even more from your mistakes. spontaneity in photography can bring about some wonderful results. I can't imagine shooting with a computer on hand and spending a lot of time looking at it and histograms. in the 30+ years I've been shooting, don't think I've ever done anything like this. guess I'm old school, cos I'm really glad I learned using film. people learn differently; glad this works for you.

I'll disagree with this viewpoint. All of those decisions are normal and natural for someone (and I include myself in this group) who has not yet truly mastered the art. I've been fortunate to have observed a number of very good photographers (some are pros, some are advanced amateurs) who have assimilated the mechanics of photography to the point that is recedes into their subconscious. They can focus on the creative part fully, because the technical part is already part of their internalized process. I've seen them put together a series of shots in a workshop or shooting session, in a very short period of time and I know that to achieve even approximately the same level of technical quality would take me much longer. When reviewing their shots, we'd ask why they would make this decision or that, and they'd usually answer that that was the right setting, or lighting ratio, or camera angle for that situation. I aspire to achieve that level of comfort and expertise, but it is clear that this level of performance requires both a very sound understanding of the principles, and lots of practice. This is similar to many other fields where skill is developed through repetition and constant practice to the point that the mechanics or basics are ingrained in muscle memory or subconciousness.

I agree that after 10 years of photography I have mountains of knowledge to still learn, which is why I practice ;p

but vfotog you say you learned more from your mistakes using film. I dont understand how that is. With digital you get instant feed back. I can see on location if I blew the highlights or missed the composition. I can then correct it immediatly and bam, learning achieved. I guess I dont see the advantage of waiting to develop the shot and then trying to remember any mitigating factors that were involved on the shoot and try to remember to correct for them next time. Of course would be easier for studio vs say a seascape since you have controlled lighting that you can replicate but....... Can you explain your advantage thought process better? I guess I also dont understand how digital reduces spontaneity.

I think the advantage of film was because you had to learn by doing, not chimping over and over. It was too slow and costly to shoot over and over. You wouldn't shoot hundreds of frames to "get it right". You had to rely on yourself and thinking: If I shoot this way, what will happen? If I try this, what will the results be? You had to internalize everything, and quicker. I think it made you understand photography more because you didn't have so much "help" from the camera. It wasn't so cut and dried.With film, if you had no clue, there wasn't going to be a still pretty decent image like with digital. You hear a lot of griping now because of all the GWCs calling themselves pros. It's happening because it's really pretty easy to shoot at least decently with modern cameras that do most of the thinking. You also had to open yourself up to the limitations and surprises of film. With such smart cameras, photography can be pretty predictable. I think that's why there's such an interest in alternative photography, where there's more emphasis on the art and less on the science.

 

[mishele]

There is no god......just sayin........:lmao:

 

[spacefuzz]

I think the advantage of film was because you had to learn by doing, not chimping over and over. It was too slow and costly to shoot over and over. You wouldn't shoot hundreds of frames to "get it right". You had to rely on yourself and thinking: If I shoot this way, what will happen? If I try this, what will the results be? You had to internalize everything, and quicker. I think it made you understand photography more because you didn't have so much "help" from the camera. It wasn't so cut and dried.With film, if you had no clue, there wasn't going to be a still pretty decent image like with digital. You hear a lot of griping now because of all the GWCs calling themselves pros. It's happening because it's really pretty easy to shoot at least decently with modern cameras that do most of the thinking. You also had to open yourself up to the limitations and surprises of film. With such smart cameras, photography can be pretty predictable. I think that's why there's such an interest in alternative photography, where there's more emphasis on the art and less on the science.

chimping? guess I can see how you view digital...... I shot for 5 years using film before getting a decent digital camera so I understand the learning curve, for me it was SLOW. Gah, days to wait to see if you got a shot? painful. Once I got my first decent digital camera my learning curve increased by a factor of 10. Instant feedback allowed instant corrections and instant learning. It didnt make me think about my shots any less. By do most of the thinking do you mean that in aperature mode your camera figures out the shutter speed for you? Not sure what camera you have, but my film camera did that too......
Anyways I will shut up and go back to potatoes, the film vs digital is a dead horse.


the original point was how do you practice to improve yourself, what sorts of methodologies, tips, or tricks could you share and help others learn?

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Well for sure, film was an economic and much less careless watchdog. It had the idea that you had only one chance to get it right.

 

[The_Traveler]

That's not what the article said nor is it what common sense will tell you.

Traveler, if you look at my post from a few pages ago you will see 4 links to science books on amazon which list a multitude of scientific studies. One of the funnest parts about science is that common sense is frequently wrong!

Even if the current scientific data doesnt explain 100% of talent, I think it covers most of it for most people. Kind of like quantum mechanics, we know its not the whole picture but it answers all of the questions it needs to in its domain.

This above is one of those semi-wise statements that actually don't mean crap.
I've spent a good part of my life as a scientist (including a doctorate in material science) and 'common sense' is what drives hypotheses into creation, the ability to take existing facts and string them together into a theory.

And no BS generalization that you seem to be so proud of will convince me that a 5'9" guy with the reflexes of a sloth and the depth perception of a one-eyed flounder (that's me) could ever be coached into being a great basketball player or soccer player or any other damn thing that requires the fast-twitch muscles, the good eyesight and the instinct for sport that I don't have.
I might get better, particularly compared to what I was, but I will never, ever be great.

And if you believe so damn much in the 'training as magic key' theory, why don't you disappear for a few years, get yourself trained and then come back as a great photographic artist, not a good photographer, that's just skill and experience, but a damn artist - that way you'll prove your hypothesis and we can skip all this intolerable BS you're pushing now.

Speak to me again when you're an artist.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Feel the love. eace:

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Thread reduced to p****ng match. Oh well.