Is Photography about skill or talent?

I was having an interesting debate with a few of my friends today.

In a nutshell, is photography more about skill - technical operation of a camera, proper composition, learned techniques of making a good photograph - or talent - a natural ability to find a frame, something you are born with or have acquired without learning.

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's photographic abilities?

refrigerator said:

I was having an interesting debate with a few of my friends today.

In a nutshell, is photography more about skill - technical operation
of a camera, proper composition, learned techniques of making a good
photograph - or talent - a natural ability to find a frame, something
you are born with or have acquired without learning.

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

Skill is easily learned, talent isn't. Don't I know it!
--
Laurie Strachan

I've known a lot of "artists" who have not mastered their craft. Once you've mastered the craft, how far you progress depends on, in my opinion, innate ability.
--
Patrick T. Kelly
Oaxaca, Mexico

I personally believe that the greatest photographers (and artists in other mediums) are born with talent, but that they also develop that talent. Those born without the natural talent will probably become no better than good photographers, even with lots and lots of training and practice. Likewise, those born with the natural talent will become no better than good photographers if they don't practice.

Robert
--
My state of confusion has turned into a circle of confusion.

Is all about MONEY !
You buy the good gear, you get good photos.

--

It is as much skill & talent as is required for excelling in any of science/art fields.

refrigerator said:

I was having an interesting debate with a few of my friends today.

In a nutshell, is photography more about skill - technical operation
of a camera, proper composition, learned techniques of making a good
photograph - or talent - a natural ability to find a frame, something
you are born with or have acquired without learning.

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

refrigerator said:

In a nutshell, is photography more about skill - technical operation
of a camera, proper composition, learned techniques of making a good
photograph - or talent - a natural ability to find a frame, something
you are born with or have acquired without learning.

Click to expand...

For a studio portrait photographer, it's likely all about skill. For a sports photographer, it's probably both. For a photojournalist, it's probably mostly talent.

refrigerator said:

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

Depends on the person. Some people never learn, some learn slowly, and some learn quickly.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

In a nutshell, is photography more about skill - technical operation
of a camera, proper composition, learned techniques of making a good
photograph - or talent - a natural ability to find a frame, something
you are born with or have acquired without learning.

Click to expand...

For a studio portrait photographer, it's likely all about skill. For
a sports photographer, it's probably both. For a photojournalist,
it's probably mostly talent.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate further.

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

Depends on the person. Some people never learn, some learn slowly,
and some learn quickly.

Click to expand...

So that means talent plays important part in all type of photography. Learning by experience is more for more talented person. Isn't it?
--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

itt said:

Is all about MONEY !
You buy the good gear, you get good photos.

Click to expand...

...that simply owning better equipment gave you better photos. I've seen far too many counterexamples of that.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

ajay0612 said:

ajay0612 said:

For a studio portrait photographer, it's likely all about skill. For
a sports photographer, it's probably both. For a photojournalist,
it's probably mostly talent.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ajay0612 said:

Please elaborate further.

Click to expand...

Sure. A studio portrait photographer is shooting the same scenes and the same poses over and over and over. Their primary concern is not creative framing, or an artistic eye, but metering correctly for the lighting.

For a sports photographer, they, too, are shooting the same scenes over and over. But things happen so quickly that they need to anticipate where the shot is and how to frame it. So, they need technical skill, such as using the most pleasing DOF for the framing, and they need talent to anticipate where the money shot is and how it should be framed, as they have precious little time to get it.

A photojournalist, on the other hand, is usually looking for the scene. The technical considerations are often a distant second to capturing the right framing at the right moment, especially at the resolutions PJ images are printed at.

ajay0612 said:

ajay0612 said:

ajay0612 said:

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ajay0612 said:

ajay0612 said:

Depends on the person. Some people never learn, some learn slowly,
and some learn quickly.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ajay0612 said:

So that means talent plays important part in all type of photography.
Learning by experience is more for more talented person. Isn't it?

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't think much talent is required to take studio portraits like yearbook photos. Sure, there's studio photography that requires immense talent in directing the models, but, for the most part, it's mainly technical expertise in lighting that matters.

But regardless of whether we are talking about artistic talent or technical skills, the role of experience in honing these attributes varies from person to person. Some people just seem to never be able to compose in any other way except by putting a face right smack in the center of a photo, no many how many pics they take. Other people quickly learn that if they want images sharp from corner to corner they need to use a deeper DOF.

The point is that the role experience plays in improving the photographer will vary greatly from individual to individual.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

For a studio portrait photographer, it's likely all about skill. For
a sports photographer, it's probably both. For a photojournalist,
it's probably mostly talent.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

Please elaborate further.

Click to expand...

Sure. A studio portrait photographer is shooting the same scenes and
the same poses over and over and over. Their primary concern is not
creative framing, or an artistic eye, but metering correctly for the
lighting.

Click to expand...

Don't we have celibrity photographers? I see layers of talent in this particular stream too.

joe mama said:

For a sports photographer, they, too, are shooting the same scenes
over and over. But things happen so quickly that they need to
anticipate where the shot is and how to frame it. So, they need
technical skill, such as using the most pleasing DOF for the framing,
and they need talent to anticipate where the money shot is and how it
should be framed, as they have precious little time to get it.

Click to expand...

Same here.

joe mama said:

A photojournalist, on the other hand, is usually looking for the
scene. The technical considerations are often a distant second to
capturing the right framing at the right moment, especially at the
resolutions PJ images are printed at.

Click to expand...

Smae here.

IMO all these streams require talent for excelling. Talent is not an absolute term. It takes different meaning for different streams. If one does not have talent needed for a specific stream, he is going to have limited success.

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Additionally, how do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Depends on the person. Some people never learn, some learn slowly,
and some learn quickly.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

So that means talent plays important part in all type of photography.
Learning by experience is more for more talented person. Isn't it?

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't think much talent is required to take studio
portraits like yearbook photos. Sure, there's studio photography
that requires immense talent in directing the models, but, for the
most part, it's mainly technical expertise in lighting that matters.

Click to expand...

It requires talent to know which pose looks best for a particualr person. Some look good smiling while some do so in serious pose. One has to have innate ability to do so. It is not learned so easily.

I have seen some studio photographers, who after years of experience, still manage to take atrocious photos of kids.

joe mama said:

But regardless of whether we are talking about artistic talent or
technical skills, the role of experience in honing these attributes
varies from person to person. Some people just seem to never be able
to compose in any other way except by putting a face right smack in
the center of a photo, no many how many pics they take. Other people
quickly learn that if they want images sharp from corner to corner
they need to use a deeper DOF.

Click to expand...

That is what is Talent all about. It affacts your learning in any particular field.

--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

The reason is that with explored and discovered talent comes the obvious passion behind it. So this guy is the guy that's out there at 4:30 am because the sunrise is coming soon...

The skillful guy is home asleep, perhaps dreaming of his post on DPR..

refrigerator said:

... is photography ...about skill ...or talent

Click to expand...

Yes.

refrigerator said:

...do you feel experience plays into someone's
photographic abilities?

Click to expand...

Yes

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'

Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

As Lady Catherine de Bourgh said, "There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient". But that is satire. The idea that talent is important is quite modern, invented by the promotors of popular entertainers with looks but no skill. They call them "talented" because not even they have the effrontery to call them "good".

If you have a lot of talent all it means is that you may end up better than average, IF you work at your craft hard enough and long enough. Some people have to work really hard to achieve superior results, and others have to work less hard. But the results are all that matters: who cares how hard you had to work? Where do people get the idea that there is something admirable about not having to work as hard as someone else to produce results that are no better?

The ability to do things other people just can't do, however hard they work, is something else again - but far less common and not really relevant to everyday professionalism.
--

'Some of the money I spent on booze, women and fast cars, but the rest I squandered' - George Best

There are a lot of trulyexcellent photographers who have very little knowledge of technical stuff, cameras and PS. I know someone very close to me who falls into this category but their work pays both our wages!
Jules

--
Why can't you blow bubbles with chewing gum?

Neither. Since we are at DPReview it's all about the gear and everyone knows if you use a Leica you are a better photographer than if you use any other camera .

In reality I think it is more about talent and a bit about skill to use your equipment. Skill without talent will get you nowhere but talent without skill will at least give you some great pictures.

--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega

refrigerator said:

In a nutshell, is photography more about skill - technical operation
of a camera, proper composition, learned techniques of making a good
photograph - or talent - a natural ability to find a frame, something
you are born with or have acquired without learning.

Click to expand...

I think skill will allow you to make competent pictures, but talent is what will make them memorable.

Have you ever seen pictures from an under teenage person who just
naturally takes good photos without lessons.(i'm sure we all have)
They may not be the best technicaly but still "good" ones.

A. C.

what more needs to be said?