Can anyone take a good photograph?

What I'm getting at is that the basic elements of composition are built in
to everyone, and the ability to instinctively recognise them when you see
them.

I disagree. There is some useful instinctual prowess in all of us; perhaps
common sense. However, the best photographers study composition and study
the works of masters to improve and they do improve! So can amateurs, by
the way.

Marcel wrote:
While it may be true that we tend to be drawn to particular patterns of
composition as a *viewer* of a well-composed shot, this does NOT necessarily
translate to people instinctively creating photographs with good
composition.

Yes, that's what I'm on about, it just seems like if people can tell
what they like the look of they should be able to recognise that and
take at least reasonable photos (compositionally if not technically).
I think that's what a lot of (visual) art is about, recognising what
looks good. I think what really interests me is why do people like what
they like, but that's a really broad area and way OT.

Quite the reverse. I think it is most instinctive for people
to do with their camera viewfinder--exactly what they/we do with our
eyes...that being centering our eyes (and unfortunately, our viewfinders) on
the most interesting spot.

That's true, it implies a lack of awareness of everything else in the
picture that they're not actively taking a photo of, which is part of
the skill.

Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
-The eyes.
So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in their
snaps??
-Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).

This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:

How many times have you asked a stranger or family member to snap your
pictures for you? What do they do??? -They cut off your feet, and include
a big grey sky...all because they instinctively stuck your eyes right in the
middle of the frame, without any thought whatsoever to the placement of
other scene elements.

THIS is instinctive.
For the most part, I think we have to overcome this instinct in order to
consistently create compelling shots.

Yes. So basically people have the ability to recognise a good picture
(in their own eyes) but it takes time to train yourself to apply that to
_taking_ them. Sounds fair. I think that answers my question.

This is why if I ever hand someone my camera to snap my picture with
someone, I always say something like, "Try to get our feet a bit above the
bottom of the picture." -I think many people silently wonder to themselves:
"Why does he want a picture of his feet???"


:-)

Tom

Marcel wrote:
While it may be true that we tend to be drawn to particular patterns of
composition as a *viewer* of a well-composed shot, this does NOT necessarily
translate to people instinctively creating photographs with good
composition.

Yes, that's what I'm on about, it just seems like if people can tell
what they like the look of they should be able to recognise that and
take at least reasonable photos (compositionally if not technically).
I think that's what a lot of (visual) art is about, recognising what
looks good. I think what really interests me is why do people like what
they like, but that's a really broad area and way OT.

Quite the reverse. I think it is most instinctive for people
to do with their camera viewfinder--exactly what they/we do with our
eyes...that being centering our eyes (and unfortunately, our viewfinders) on
the most interesting spot.

That's true, it implies a lack of awareness of everything else in the
picture that they're not actively taking a photo of, which is part of
the skill.

Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
-The eyes.
So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in their
snaps??
-Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).

This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:

How many times have you asked a stranger or family member to snap your
pictures for you? What do they do??? -They cut off your feet, and include
a big grey sky...all because they instinctively stuck your eyes right in the
middle of the frame, without any thought whatsoever to the placement of
other scene elements.

THIS is instinctive.
For the most part, I think we have to overcome this instinct in order to
consistently create compelling shots.

Yes. So basically people have the ability to recognise a good picture
(in their own eyes) but it takes time to train yourself to apply that to
_taking_ them. Sounds fair. I think that answers my question.

This is why if I ever hand someone my camera to snap my picture with
someone, I always say something like, "Try to get our feet a bit above the
bottom of the picture." -I think many people silently wonder to themselves:
"Why does he want a picture of his feet???"


:-)

Tom

Paul H. wrote:
Though some might deny it, expertise exists and can be acquired through
reason and study. I'm pretty disdainful of "passion in photography",
whatever that phrase means. I think a photographer should *know*
photography and occasionally have passion for his subject-matter. A
"passionate photographer" is often just a picture-taker with an attitude
problem-- I guess that's why we have the two adjectives, "artistic" and
"artsy."

At the moment I'm a very instinctive photographer, I need to feel
something when I look at the subject if I'm to get a decent photo of it
(or luck, as sometimes happens).
You're talking about a stage beyond that, which I might be able to get
to with enough practice, but I think that's a long way off at this
point. I can see how you'd get there though. Eventually you get enough
experience that you can just know what's right and what will work. It
won't always work out, but then it never does.

Cheers,

Tom

Paul H. wrote:
Though some might deny it, expertise exists and can be acquired through
reason and study. I'm pretty disdainful of "passion in photography",
whatever that phrase means. I think a photographer should *know*
photography and occasionally have passion for his subject-matter. A
"passionate photographer" is often just a picture-taker with an attitude
problem-- I guess that's why we have the two adjectives, "artistic" and
"artsy."

At the moment I'm a very instinctive photographer, I need to feel
something when I look at the subject if I'm to get a decent photo of it
(or luck, as sometimes happens).
You're talking about a stage beyond that, which I might be able to get
to with enough practice, but I think that's a long way off at this
point. I can see how you'd get there though. Eventually you get enough
experience that you can just know what's right and what will work. It
won't always work out, but then it never does.

Cheers,

Tom

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Roland Karlsson wrote:
"Paul Bielec" wrote in
:

I think that just anybody can take a good photograph. One lucky shot
or from time to time.
Of course, having better equipment and experience help. But they are
no guarantee.


I know some good musicians. They can take the cheapest instrument
and make wonderful music. I need much better instruments, and I
still make rather ordinary music.


Do you know, or can you imagine, why that is?

For most...years of practice, and exercising their creative "muscles."

For a rare few...It's a gift that can explode into new bursts of creativity
with little planning or thought.

Most of us fall into the first category.

The good news is that becoming a master doesn't necessarily require the
prerequisite of genius, or extraordinary gifts. Mastery can be gained to
the degree that your acquired vision, and your willingness to reflect on
failures/successes are kept alive through open-minded persistence.

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Roland Karlsson wrote:
"Paul Bielec" wrote in
:

I think that just anybody can take a good photograph. One lucky shot
or from time to time.
Of course, having better equipment and experience help. But they are
no guarantee.


I know some good musicians. They can take the cheapest instrument
and make wonderful music. I need much better instruments, and I
still make rather ordinary music.


Do you know, or can you imagine, why that is?

For most...years of practice, and exercising their creative "muscles."

For a rare few...It's a gift that can explode into new bursts of creativity
with little planning or thought.

Most of us fall into the first category.

The good news is that becoming a master doesn't necessarily require the
prerequisite of genius, or extraordinary gifts. Mastery can be gained to
the degree that your acquired vision, and your willingness to reflect on
failures/successes are kept alive through open-minded persistence.

Charles Schuler wrote:
What I'm getting at is that the basic elements of composition are built in
to everyone, and the ability to instinctively recognise them when you see
them.

I disagree. There is some useful instinctual prowess in all of us; perhaps
common sense. However, the best photographers study composition and study
the works of masters to improve and they do improve! So can amateurs, by
the way.

I only started reading about photography in the last couple of months.
My learning style is to do until I get stuck and then read, it's the
only way I can get anything to stick in my head (and works very well for
me). I have found it useful to read about photography I must say - in
some cases to see how others did it and _avoid_ doing it that way
because the results were awful (in my eyes at least, someone liked them
as they'd got to write books about it).

Tom

Charles Schuler wrote:
What I'm getting at is that the basic elements of composition are built in
to everyone, and the ability to instinctively recognise them when you see
them.

I disagree. There is some useful instinctual prowess in all of us; perhaps
common sense. However, the best photographers study composition and study
the works of masters to improve and they do improve! So can amateurs, by
the way.

I only started reading about photography in the last couple of months.
My learning style is to do until I get stuck and then read, it's the
only way I can get anything to stick in my head (and works very well for
me). I have found it useful to read about photography I must say - in
some cases to see how others did it and _avoid_ doing it that way
because the results were awful (in my eyes at least, someone liked them
as they'd got to write books about it).

Tom

"Simon Stanmore" wrote in message
...
I know
avid photographers that have been at it for 40+ years and know every
little
thing about technique and equipment and yet they take consistently dull,
forgetable photographs. I know others (just a few) that hit the ground
running and were producing what most consider good imagery from their
first
roll of film taken for the sake of image making

There are all levels of talent both innate and learned. I wouldn't want
people to think that if they don't hit the ground running there's no hope of
them improving their talent. I believe anyone can improve regardless of
their age or where their skill level currently is.
IMHO,
me