Are you born with it?

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle". Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves.


So, sure, practice of technical stuff, makes perfect. But there is still that something else that is much harder to grasp, and attain. That is what I feel is innate talent. As mentioned here a couple times, some people naturally pick stuff up quickly, while others will spend ten times the amount of time to achieve the same level. That is natural talent.

I think sports is a poor example of talent. Sports is mainly practicing a skill.

I agree with you I think. I feel that the technical knowledge lays the foundation for you to maximize your creative potential when you have more tools to employ. However, some people, when given enough time to screw around, will come up with something. Thats not always creative though as much as it is dumb luck. I also agree with KmH about making a 1 into a 7 or an 8. I also agree with you and feel being a 10 is reserved the idiot-savants and geniuses. Creativity or "Artistic ability" is really very hard to define given that its all so subjective. Imagine a gallery with 10 photographers works hanging up and a group of critics walking around critiquing each one. They may like certain ones more than others, for technical reasons or deeply personal reasons or whatever. However, all of the photos are artistic and creative. So what constitutes one being a "4" and the other being an "8" ?? Is it those critiques? The Gallery Patrons? The local newspaper that does a review? Who knows! LOL

Another thing that I think factors into how "creative" you are, could be the environment you grow in. Somethings come natural to people given their culture, or surroundings, that may seem unique and creative to other people who have never been in that environment. Lets say a war photographer shoots from these sweeping low angles all the time and people just LOVE his "style". "Its so unlike anything out nowadays" " I love the way it makes the soldiers look larger than life". Maybe he is just trying to not get shot while taking his pictures? To him, thats normal common sense, to someone else, its assumed genius.

 

[spacefuzz]

I still believe that you can get to be a 10 with practice, you just have to practice your weaknesses and be able to handle lots of failure. Bitter can attest to some of the beatings I took from CPS judges
I think a lot of the "omg he learned so fast he must be a genius" is due to skills from other areas. Perhaps they are used to dealing with technical devices at work all day (like me) so learning how a camera works from the technical side is easy because I have hours of practice on similar machines. Same for composition if a painter transitions into photography, they would have a leg up over the other beginners because they already know the rule of 3rds etc.... So much from outside experience plays into how rapidly you can progress I think its more complicated then just saying they are savants.
I think you can train yourself to be creative too, its also just frustrating work. One of my other hobbies is inventing things...which is creative since its doing things no one else has done (or at least documented.....). I find the more I practice it, the easier it gets and the better my ideas get. I think it works the same in photography. Thats why a lot of the classes will tell you to pick a scene and practice working it to death, shoot every possible angle. They want you to work on seeing in a more creative, non standard way.

 

[jackiex_x]

Wow (OP here), that's some interesting reading. What have I started? Lol. Very helpful tho.

 

[daarksun]

If everyone had that keen eye that made it big as a photographer I don't think these fashion guys would need to take a 1000 shots just to get one or two shots worthy of being in a magazine somewhere. Getting the "eye" isn't something any can learn. You have it or you don't. However, anyone can learn to be a great photographer. You learn the equipment and what it takes to get the right image. composition which is so important to a great photo can also be picked up on as anyone learns.

 

[Karensworld]

From my point of view, as mentioned by the others, creativity is (unfortunately) not something that cannot be learned.. Either you have it or not..

Regarding the artistic shot, I think it is possible as we should not forget that art is a form of expression that may be reflected by every individual in a personal way.. The aesthetic may be argued but art is objective!!

I agree with what you said about the most expensive equipment in the world being a waste without a keen eye.

So for me there are two important (compulsory) points that play a crucial role on in spotting a good shot which are:

Knowledge of techniques -

It is obvious that to be able to take a good shots, there are some steps to follow. Managing a camera is one thing, but knowing how to control all its features and being able to influence the effect and result is another thing.

Experience -

Once the techniques learned, experience is an on-going process that gradually leads you to improvements as learning from errors or even appreciating your work from a critical eye helps to reach the next level which can only be achieved with time and practice.

​

 

[jackiex_x]

Well so far I have learned a lot from this forum, like when you give C&C on other's shots, lots of handy tips there. We will see how I get on next week. Faulty battery in my camera atm, have ordered new one so can't use it this weekend grrr.

 

[spacefuzz]

From my point of view, as mentioned by the others, creativity is (unfortunately) not something that cannot be learned.. Either you have it or not..

Regarding the artistic shot, I think it is possible as we should not forget that art is a form of expression that may be reflected by every individual in a personal way.. The aesthetic may be argued but art is objective!!

I agree with what you said about the most expensive equipment in the world being a waste without a keen eye.

So for me there are two important (compulsory) points that play a crucial role on in spotting a good shot which are:

Knowledge of techniques -

It is obvious that to be able to take a good shots, there are some steps to follow. Managing a camera is one thing, but knowing how to control all its features and being able to influence the effect and result is another thing.

Experience -

Once the techniques learned, experience is an on-going process that gradually leads you to improvements as learning from errors or even appreciating your work from a critical eye helps to reach the next level which can only be achieved with time and practice.
​

​

I think creativity CAN be learned though, and sort of have an experiment going with my wife. I grew up in a very creative environment, and so am somewhat creative because thats the way my father pushed me to look at the world. My wife on the other hand grew up in a very uncreative environment, no critical thinking, no art, etc. We have been together 10 years now and she has trippled her level of creativity because I have been pushing her to practice at it. But I think creativity is hard to practice, because its hard to measure. How do you quantify creative? Someone taking an image of a tree upside down? Inverting all the colors? Lying in the dirt for a strange angle? An overshot subject from a different vantage point? So I think the nebulous concept of creativity provides an illusion that it cant be learned / improved.​

 

[mishele]

I think EVERYTHING can be taught and learned.:greenpbl: But I also believe that some people have a "talent". By a "talent", I mean that there is something that comes from inside that can't be taught.
I know sports aren't exactly in the same category but they are a good example of "talent". I coached vball for a couple of years and have been around it for the greater part of 25 yrs. There are just some girls that could work as hard as they wanted to and become great players, but never meet the level of the girl w/ talent. You would see it all the time.

 

[vfotog]

I definitely don't believe a 1 can become a 10 solely by practice. Creativity and artistic talent are inborn. Left brain/right brain functioning isn't something that you can rewire. I wasn't born with music. I could take decades of lessons and I would never have the abilities that some people are born with. I've seen it with my daughter and with many musicians I've known. They've developed their skills, but they always had innate talent. It wasn't a choice. OTOH, I've always been an artist. I've always been able to draw. Well before I ever studied it in school, I had natural abilities well above my classmates. I see more precisely. I see differences in color, I see light and it's effects and I can create from it. I can make something from nothing. I was born with an eye. So when I started photography, it came really easily to me. I learned the technical stuff, but the eye and the creative way of thinking was already there. I've had less creative people want to take advantage of my creativity more than once because all though they had the money for the best of equipment, the imagination, the creative spark, just wasn't there. You can teach the technical aspects. of course, with modern smart cameras that do a lot of the work for you, possessing technical ability is less important. Having monetary success at artistic endeavors is another issue entirely. Business sense and creativity are pretty far apart; I've seen many people with brilliant abilities that aren't financially successful. Radically different skill sets. Having been around artists and musicians all my life, I know that the blessing and curse of natural talent is something that we are gifted. Nurture it? Sure. Master the technical aspects? Sure. But to go from having no creative abilities to being a 10? I think that would take a change in brain function. Of course, I personally would never have the ego to claim to being a 10 in anything.

 

[spacefuzz]

most of my family are artists, musicians, writers....very creative types and I have gotten to watch them all progress over the years. Theres no innate talent there, lots of hard work and dedication, especially to make a living off it. Everyone can believe what they want of course, but I will stick with the science and know I can make myself an expert at anything if I want to put in the hard work. If you dont believe in yourself and dont want to push yourself...fine by me, less competition at the top!

 

[jake337]

Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle". Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves.


So, sure, practice of technical stuff, makes perfect. But there is still that something else that is much harder to grasp, and attain. That is what I feel is innate talent. As mentioned here a couple times, some people naturally pick stuff up quickly, while others will spend ten times the amount of time to achieve the same level. That is natural talent.

I think sports is a poor example of talent. Sports is mainly practicing a skill.

I'm sorry but athletics is a great example. Many, including myself trained and trained and trained, just as hard as any other peer in the same sports(bseball, soccer, football, hockey) and would never achieve the same skill and talent as those who went past highschool sports, college sports into pro sports.

Some are born with more talent in a particular field in life.

An old friend used to tell me "Some people are born with a book in their hand, some are born with a hammer"

 

[Railphotog]

I agree that artistic talent is mostly something that one is born with. I've done artsy stuff most of my life, I can remember getting in trouble in grade school for sketching airplanes during class. We never had art classes in school way back then, so it appears what I was doing was a distraction in class rather than a talent to the teachers.

Im my pre-teen years I started in model railroading, and as a teen my modeling was equal to or better than most of the adults in a club I belonged to. I had no problem making my own model buildings from cardboard and balsa wood, mostly because I didn't have money to buy expensive kits.

My first attempts at photography involved taking photos of my model railroad, using really crude equipment. With a friend we added a pinhole aperture to a camera and took some fairly decent photos, developed the film and making contact prints in a temporary darkroom in our basement. None of my contemporary friends did anything along these lines, it was just something that I was able to figure out how to do on my own.

I later got into 35mm photography, taking photos at a local drag race track and selling them to the racers. Much of my hobby interest was devoted to making extra money, something a teen always needs! I bought an airbrush and a compressor and started painting car designs on t-shirts at car shows, using my sketching ability. Later got into silk-screening designs too, again all self taught.

In my early twenties, photography was my main hobby and of course raising a family took lots of my time. In my thirties I started part time wedding photography, did lettering on race cars and commercial vehicles, and longed for model railroad subjects I could photograph with my 35mm gear, hoping to see a photo of mine in the hobby press. I submitted photos to the magazines, and have been greatly successful in the past 25 or so years with over 850 of my photos published, including around 30 covers.

So most of my life I've been involved in some way with "artistic" activities, and I never had any art training at all nor were there any art activities in our home on in schools I attended. I assume it was just something I was born with.

It's been a great ride so far!

 

[vfotog]

most of my family are artists, musicians, writers....very creative types and I have gotten to watch them all progress over the years. Theres no innate talent there, lots of hard work and dedication, especially to make a living off it. Everyone can believe what they want of course, but I will stick with the science and know I can make myself an expert at anything if I want to put in the hard work. If you dont believe in yourself and dont want to push yourself...fine by me, less competition at the top!

Does your family know you think they're untalented? I find your statement extremely hard to believe. "creative types" certainly implies that they had some talent that led them to get training and work hard. I assume you know the whole story then of their youth and what they showed ability in or not. I don't know any "creative types" that had no innate ability that led them to pursue the arts. And "making a living off it" has nothing to do with the topic of whether someone is born with creativity and talent. Business sense is a whole other kettle of fish. Van Gogh sold 1 painting in his lifetime but his creativity is unquestioned. I find it funny that you say you want to "stick with science". I think you would be hard-pressed to find ANY science to back up your position of creativity and talent not being innate to some extent... and of course, you may want to read some science on left/right brain.

 

[imagemaker46]

Learning skills and calling that talent, should be sorted away from creativity or creative thinking, which is what I see as talent. Creativity is very difficult to teach. It is a mindset. Look at how often people post "I am bored" or "I don't know what to do, give me some ideas". While others have a list of ideas for photogrpahy, but don't have the time to accomplish everything on the list. Look at an example of water drop photos, or smoke photos, and how they pretty much all look the same. So few push beyond the standard shots we have all seen 3000 times. Look at how people C&C stuff here and give one of the most typical, and vague "tips"..."try a different angle". This response doesn't help people see or think creatively because it lacks any information to use other than "a different angle". Look how many times people ask if they are getting better, or "good enough". It seems as though these people don't ever look at what is considered good or great photography and compare themselves.


So, sure, practice of technical stuff, makes perfect. But there is still that something else that is much harder to grasp, and attain. That is what I feel is innate talent. As mentioned here a couple times, some people naturally pick stuff up quickly, while others will spend ten times the amount of time to achieve the same level. That is natural talent.

I think sports is a poor example of talent. Sports is mainly practicing a skill.

I'm sorry but athletics is a great example. Many, including myself trained and trained and trained, just as hard as any other peer in the same sports(bseball, soccer, football, hockey) and would never achieve the same skill and talent as those who went past highschool sports, college sports into pro sports.

Some are born with more talent in a particular field in life.

An old friend used to tell me "Some people are born with a book in their hand, some are born with a hammer"

I agree that sports is a good example, when you look at players like Wayne Gretzky and Sidney Crosby in hockey, yes they all practiced, but even at a very young age they were heads above players their own ages and had more skill than most players older than them, many athletes are definately born with the a skill. It's not a creative or artistic skill like photographers, artists, jewellers or musicians, but a physical skill. Most of the "artists" are born with a mental skill, it may take the right outside influence to open that mental window, but it is there. Not everyone is born with the same mental playing field, many through hard work can get there, but it is still harder work than the "gifted" ones.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Most of the "artists" are born with a mental skill, it may take the right outside influence to open that mental window, but it is there. Not everyone is born with the same mental playing field, many through hard work can get there, but it is still harder work than the "gifted" ones.

:thumbup: