Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:30:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics or
the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis,

Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*?
Aren't we all tired of this subject by now?

On Wed, 20 May 2015 14:41:10 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:07:15 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:30:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics or
the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis,

Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*?
Aren't we all tired of this subject by now?

Readers of this group are now formulating their opinions about the
validity of the hypothesis.

Floyd will compose a lengthy treatise on the subject, nospam will
respond with "nonsense" to several statements in it, Sandman will
interleave some "Incorrect" comments and ask for "Substantiation",
Whiskey-Dave will contribute some misspellings, PeterN will tell us
about having lunch with an Indo-European,

And throw in at least one joke that he should be very, very, ashamed
of...

and SavageDuck will submit
17 HDR images of a prototype Indo-European sports car at a race at
Laguna Seca.

On May 20, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:07:15 -0700, Bill
wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:30:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics or
the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis,

Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*?
Aren't we all tired of this subject by now?

Readers of this group are now formulating their opinions about the
validity of the hypothesis.

Floyd will compose a lengthy treatise on the subject, nospam will
respond with "nonsense" to several statements in it, Sandman will
interleave some "Incorrect" comments and ask for "Substantiation",
Whiskey-Dave will contribute some misspellings, PeterN will tell us
about having lunch with an Indo-European, and SavageDuck will submit
17 HDR images of a prototype Indo-European sports car at a race at
Laguna Seca.

I get home from having my eyeball polished and I find stereotyping has struck
Orlando. I suppose you are off to shoot your grandsons playing against an
Indo-European Little League team.

BTW: I don’t restrict my shooting to HDR.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 20, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:48:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 20, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:07:15 -0700, Bill
wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:30:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics or
the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis,

Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*?
Aren't we all tired of this subject by now?

Readers of this group are now formulating their opinions about the
validity of the hypothesis.

Floyd will compose a lengthy treatise on the subject, nospam will
respond with "nonsense" to several statements in it, Sandman will
interleave some "Incorrect" comments and ask for "Substantiation",
Whiskey-Dave will contribute some misspellings, PeterN will tell us
about having lunch with an Indo-European, and SavageDuck will submit
17 HDR images of a prototype Indo-European sports car at a race at
Laguna Seca.

I get home from having my eyeball polished and I find stereotyping has
struckOrlando. I suppose you are off to shoot your grandsons playing
against an
Indo-European Little League team.

BTW: I don’t restrict my shooting to HDR.

Well, that was a fast recovery. Just getting eye drops with a slit
lamp examination would make my screen fuzzy for the rest of the day.

Not that fast. I am currently working one-eyed using the left which was done
two weeks ago. I have a heavy patch over my right eye, and that only comes
off tomorrow morning.Then we shall see if the result was as good as for the
left eye. Taking the patch off the left eye was a true lifting of the veil.
Everything became bright, sharp, and defined from the start. All I had in
terms of discomfort was an irritation somewhat like having an eyelash under
an eyelid. After two days with the post-op eyedrops it felt normal.

Hope it went well for you.

I will know just how well in the morning.

The All Star season doesn't start until the first week of June. I'm
so bored without that that I spent today pressure washing the pool
deck.

That would get you a $500 fine out here.

I will be shooting a school "graduation party" Friday. The youngest
grandchild "graduates" from elementary to middle school on Friday.

Is the ceremony going to be conducted in orthodox Indo-European?



--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
The topic was skill, not intelligence. Sure, intelligence plays a
part with skill as well, but the topic was still whether or not
"talent" to take great photos is something we're born with or
something we learn by practicing.

You're working with too broad a brush there. To "take" great photos
can be a result of learning about the effects of shutter speed,
f/stop settings, and ISO if you define "great" as technically sound.
If you practice enough with a camera, you will learn how to use it
effectively from the standpoint of the technically sound.

"Great", though, goes beyond technically sound. To be a great
photograph it has to be interesting, it has to evoke some reaction
from the viewer, and it has to have some factor that is more than
just competence in the taking. That's where the innate ability of
some to see what can be a great photograph and compose it the right
way comes in.

Some have it, some don't. Those that don't can practice for endless
hours and only come up with a great photograph by accident.

Nonsense.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
But we have to assume they don't know it or havent had the
oppotunity to show it rather than haven't got it. I find it
difficult to believe that everyone could be an einstein as we
know they are physical differnies in the brains of all humans
and not all humans are identical.

Sandman:
The topic was skill, not intelligence. Sure, intelligence plays a
part with skill as well, but the topic was still whether or not
"talent" to take great photos is something we're born with or
something we learn by practicing.

Then you can tell me which is the best photo in the world. Then we
can all copy , emulate or simulate it. But the trouble is with
photography or any art is it's judged and compared to others,

Which, again, is why I haven't talked about "art".

whereas a skill or talent can be quite easily compared.

Skill. Talent is a myth.

Even getting the best colour for the Sky is difficult.

No.

Then if that has to be balanced with anything else, it them starts
to become a personal preference which is what photography is in most
cases . I don;t think much of picasso's work I perfer salvdor dahli
or Turner , but how can you compare them as one bing better than
the other. And there are a few peole in the world capable of froging
such works to quite a high degree. So if yuo can copy another
'talent' is that equalling it or bettering it ?

Talent is a myth. Copying others work is indeed a very good practicing method,
by looking at the result of someone else's skill and try to make the same
result means you have to enhance your own skill. This is called practicing and
is what it is all about.

Whisky-dave:
But of course anything art related is far more difficult to
judge than who is the fastest runner.

Sandman:
Which is why I haven't talked about art, only skill.

But havent; defined what skill is other than saaying you need to for
photography. If skill in photography is a talent then it can be
learnt.

No. "Talent" is a myth, your skill is learned.

If skill in photography is an art then it can only be
copied.

No.

So do you think anyone can match Usain Bolts skill as a runner ?

Some physical activities are best suited for people with a genetic advantage.
Basket ball players that are born to become tall are for obvious reasons more
likely to be successful than a short bloke.

But those genetic advantages aren't "talents", and won't make them good
basketball players in themselves, they still need to practice playing
basketball, they just have a lower threshold to the physical factors of the
game.

Usain Bolt is quick, but being "quick" is not a talent. He has exercised daily
for thousands of hours in order to become so quick. And yes, he probably have
some genetic advantage when it comes muscle fibers, lactic acid, but that
doesn't automatically make him a quick runner.

Since the topic was photographic ability, I didn't include genetic physical
advantages as a factor since it doesn't really play a role in photography.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Just for the record, here I am agreeing
with nospam. The propensity to be good at something - which
you might call "natural talent" is ingrained in people.
Constant practice may improve one's skills in something, but
those with natural talent will need less practice and be
able to do whatever it is intuitively.

Sandman:
While "intuitively" is the wrong word completely, the
above is a pretty normal reasoning from people that may look
upon skilled people and explain it in a way that excludes
themselves. "He's good with numbers", "She's got an eye for
portraits", "He's got the rhythm in him".

Andreas Skitsnack:
The day you teach me how to use an English word is the day I'll
audition for the Royal Swedish Ballet troupe.

Sandman:
That must mean that you've already spent countless hours
practicing ballet by now. Good for you!

Andreas Skitsnack:
You might consider Albert Einstein's thoughts on this:

All great achievements of science must start from intuitive
knowledge. I believe in intuition and inspiration.... At times I
feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason."

Sandman:
This is not part of the same quote. Wikiquotes doesn't even list
it. Having said that, it resonates with other verified quotes
from Einstein that talked a lot about intuition and how it has
been a key part for his work.

Einstein was no linguist, however.

What does that have to do with it?

Look it up.

Sandman:
Intuition is when you're doing some based on what you feel is
true, without using reasoning.

Yes, and that's why intuition is linked to what we call natural
talent. An artist may draw a scene a particular way because he/she
intuitively feels that that is the way the scene should be drawn and
not because the artist has been trained to do it this way, and not
because the artist has practiced drawing the scene.

If the artist is drawing a scene in a particular way, he or she is doing so by
choice, not by intuition.

Sandman:
It is closely related to "instinct" in some areas, but
importantly not all.

"Intuition" comes from latin, and means "to look at", "immediate
cognition" without the use of conscious and rational process.

When it comes to "talent" or "skill", no one "intuitively" knows
how to play a piano or paint a portrait, it is a learned skill.

All that you need to do to understand that that statement is hogwash
is to walk into a primary school and look at the artwork on the
walls or listen to the sounds from the music room.

None is so deaf as he who will not learn.

Some of the efforts by these untrained children show that there is
an innate talent involved.

Nope.

They may improve with training and practice, but their natural
talent provides the groundwork for improvement.

Nope. When I've been to my children's school to watch the drawings, I can
easily discern which kids have taken an interest into drawing. Your "example"
is only valid if this was the first time these kids ever held a pen.

It is often this intuitive ability to do something that leads the
person to pursue training and engage in extensive practice. They
start out with a basic inborn ability and progress by learning and
practice.

Not really. They start out with an interest. They see a drawing and want to
draw something like it. The first time it will look like ****, but the more the
draw, the better they get at it. The second kid who isn't all that interested
will not get better because even if he or she is "forced" to draw in school,
it's not an interest so it's not pursued.

It's not just children. Give an adult his/her first camera and send
them out to take photographs. Some will come back with very
ordinary photographs and some will come back with surprisingly good
photographs from a subject matter and compositional standpoint.

Which means that the ones that have "better" composed photographs have an
interest in composition. Perhaps they have been doing some interior decoration
at home, perhaps they're painters already and already have learned the basic
rules of composition.

Training and practice may improve everyone's ability in this to some
degree, but some will always be ahead of the others because of an
intuitive ability to see the subject and how to best capture that
subject.

No.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
When it comes to opera singers, there *is* a "born with it" factor
to it, since your physical body plays a part in how well you can
perform what you do. It's not "talent", but your voice capacity
is important, like how "born with it" length is important to a
basketball player. Also, I'm not really all that interested in
opera singers, so it's hard to come up with a list of comparable
people for me.

in other words, it's not just practice, but being born with it.

But not "talent". Being tall doesn't mean you have "talent" for basket ball. It
means you have an (unfair) physical advantage.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics
or the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis,

Bill W:
Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*?
Aren't we all tired of this subject by now?

Readers of this group are now formulating their opinions about the
validity of the hypothesis.

Floyd will compose a lengthy treatise on the subject, nospam will
respond with "nonsense" to several statements in it, Sandman will
interleave some "Incorrect" comments and ask for "Substantiation",
Whiskey-Dave will contribute some misspellings, PeterN will tell us
about having lunch with an Indo-European, and SavageDuck will submit
17 HDR images of a prototype Indo-European sports car at a race at
Laguna Seca.

And Andreas won't understand anything of it, claiming that none of the words used
are in accordance to his book of "Fully Accepted Words".

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Sandman:
Which, again, is why I haven't talked about "art".

But you've failed to see that photography is an art.

Incorrect.

unless yuo're just taking picturtes of lens test charts and the
like.

Non Sequitur.

Whisky-dave:
whereas a skill or talent can be quite easily compared.

Sandman:
Skill. Talent is a myth.

For you it is.

Not only for me.

Whisky-dave:
Even getting the best colour for the Sky is difficult.

Sandman:
No.

So what is the perfect blue for Sky ?

You'll learn one day.

Sandman:
Talent is a myth. Copying others work is indeed a very good
practicing method, by looking at the result of someone else's
skill and try to make the same result means you have to enhance
your own skill. This is called practicing and is what it is all
about.

So originality counts for nothing ?

Learn to read.

Sandman:
No. "Talent" is a myth, your skill is learned.

For you yes, for others it isn't.

Incorrect.

Whisky-dave:
So do you think anyone can match Usain Bolts skill as a runner ?

Sandman:
Some physical activities are best suited for people with a genetic
advantage.

So that is a talent if you have two legs and can run fast like a lot
of jamacians can.

Nope.

Sandman:
Basket ball players that are born to become tall are for obvious
reasons more likely to be successful than a short bloke.

Yes but they aren;t boorn to become tall

Yes, they are.

you can;t train or practice to become tall.

That's the point.

I don't think prospective parents can do
much to make their kid tall.

For once in your life you think correctly. Must feel good.

Sandman:
But those genetic advantages aren't "talents", and won't make them
good basketball players in themselves, they still need to
practice playing basketball, they just have a lower threshold to
the physical factors of the game.

So a short fat person can beat usain bolt ion the 100m they just
have to practice more is that it.

Learn to read.

Sandman:
Usain Bolt is quick, but being "quick" is not a talent. He has
exercised daily for thousands of hours in order to become so
quick.

he wouldn't have bothered if he weren;t naturaly quick would he.

How was his 100 meter times when he was 3 months old, Dave?

Most people if they find an intrest in something they tent to have a
talent for it also which if built on can make them better at it than
another.

I can't decode this sentence.

Sandman:
And yes, he probably have some genetic advantage when it comes
muscle fibers, lactic acid, but that doesn't automatically make
him a quick runner.

It does when he runs.

Nope.

He probbaly realised this as a youngster,
someone noticed that he has a talent for running so encouraged him.

He didn't have a talent for running.

I guess yuo don;t know much about sport and nhow they use talent
scouts.

Ironic.

Sandman:
Since the topic was photographic ability, I didn't include genetic
physical advantages as a factor since it doesn't really play a
role in photography.

true so how do yuo rate photographic ability.

I don't.

--
Sandman