DSLRUsers.com

I wrote a BLOG entry here that has certainly caused some interesting discussion over the past week on other forums and on Flickr. Would love to hear other peoples thoughts.

That's interesting norbs, I'm with Bruno, I have seen many instances in the past of people without technical knowledge or fancy equipment turn out better photos then so called advanced amateurs.

Interesting discussion Norbs. I think your friend Bruno may be slightly right, but one wonders how many with no eye would persevere? I have seen similar in the martial arts, I knew a couple of guys who were had early success in the sport side as they were 120kg and so were encouraged by this success to proceed onwards. I think people who have a good eye and get early success feel encouraged within themselves to continue exploring a subject or interest. I doubt anyone who hated their first photos would feel inspired to buy a DSLR and continue further. I see your side too, where someone could be taught to take a technically good shot like a product shot, but would that make them a Wendell, probably not.

It is an interesting discussion with little relevance, in my opinion.

If you look at HCB, were his decisive shots a function of an inherent talent, or his study in geometric art?

Also, does having "it" relate to the capturing of the image or creating the image (taking into account the other elements)?

It is the old nature versus nurture debate which can be applied to just about everything. I'm with Patrick, in the end does it really matter?

Hi Norbs

Ill just reinterate what I have just expressed on your blog

Who knows what a good image is and or should be surly its the viewers response to what is being seen that dictates wether the photo is good or not and there no way you will please everybody....cheers

Photoaction wrote:Hi Norbs

Ill just reinterate what I have just expressed on your blog

Who knows what a good image is and or should be surly its the viewers response to what is being seen that dictates wether the photo is good or not and there no way you will please everybody....cheers

This is a valid point, but I think having an "eye" for photography is slightly different.
For example, if you take ten people with cameras on a guided tour, chances are that the majority of photos will be very similar if they are taken by your average holiday snapshooters but you are likely to get something different from the person with an eye for photography. In no way I'm trying to denegrade anyone. I suppose it's the same as me going around at a racing circuit as compared to someone with a real talent for driving fast, the results will be different.

phillipb wrote:For example, if you take ten people with cameras on a guided tour, chances are that the majority of photos will be very similar if they are taken by your average holiday snapshooters but you are likely to get something different from the person with an eye for photography.

But, by the same token if you asked each person in a group to paint a scene you'd get some very different results if the group included:
Picasso
Monet
Dali
Renoir

ATJ wrote:

phillipb wrote:For example, if you take ten people with cameras on a guided tour, chances are that the majority of photos will be very similar if they are taken by your average holiday snapshooters but you are likely to get something different from the person with an eye for photography.

But, by the same token if you asked each person in a group to paint a scene you'd get some very different results if the group included:
Picasso
Monet
Dali
Renoir

Exactly Andrew, they're not your average snapshooters are they?

phillipb wrote:Exactly Andrew, they're not your average snapshooters are they?

Ah... I was thinking more of the difference in the results between those four.

The answer to your question is rather simple Norbs...There are some (rare) people who are born with the visual skills and talent to make good photographs and there are some (few) people who learn how to do the same thing. There are many people who love the act of photography and try hard to produce great photographs. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don't. When I'm looking at a great photograph I really don't care which of the above groups produced it.

And then there are those who hope to produce technically acceptable photos that aren't too awful to look at. As long as you're not relegating those who don't have it to "don't bother" status I think the discussion is angels on pinheads territory to me. What's the outcome... will it change the way you view or shoot photos? Or just the approach you take to your students?

moz
My point is that anybody can take great pictures and I really don't care how they got there. Pictures can speak for themselves. I've made more awful pictures than anybody else I know and I would not torture anyone by forcing them to gaze upon them. Occasionally I get results that make it all worthwhile. I guess that's how most of us travel?