Can it be taught? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/17/2005 03:05:57 PM · #28

I think it can be taught.

Otherwise, what a waste it would have been to have a "natural eye" for photography before the camera was invented. I believe some people feel they are the "chosen few" who have been granted "the eye".

Sure, we all have traits and tendancies to use certain parts of our brain and spirit as well as learn in certain directions. But is "the eye" for photography inborn? No.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:07:17.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/17/2005 03:06:36 PM · #29

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by Britannica:
Anything that can be done can be taught and learned -- provided the student (and teacher) have enough interest and intention to carry it through to completion. Some have more talent than others in some areas, that talent equates to speed of learning, not to the ability to learn.

Anyone can learn anything.

David

This is true, but I think the question was can it be taught? I don't think someone else could teach me. I think self teaching is the key here.

I firmly believe self teaching is better and more productive than being taught by another person. And not just for photography, but for the majority of skills one desires to have.

David.C

01/17/2005 03:08:55 PM · #30

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I see an instructor as a bit different than what is the norm in todays schools -- an instructor to me is anyone that presents the information the student is capable and interested in learning. Some are intentionally good at gauging a students skill and ability and presenting the right material, others may be someone completely unaware they have been helpful to the student.

As Sufi Master - Ibn el-Arabi said, "When the student is ready, a teacher will come."

David

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/17/2005 03:09:01 PM · #31

Originally posted by jonpink:

I firmly believe self teaching is better and more productive than being taught by another person. And not just for photography, but for the majority of skills one desires to have.

That is so incredibly easy to say in the age of internet and television. "I'm self taught".

No you're not.

Edit: I don't mean to be rude in my speech, just plain.

And...well, wait...yes you are self-taught, but not exclusively.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:10:20.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/17/2005 03:11:14 PM · #32

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I think the groundwork for it can be taught, but the actual 'seeing' can not. We all look at things differently, and it shows in our photography.

We can be tought the mechanics of the camera. When we know what our cameras are capable of, we can use that knowledge to achieve our inner vision. We can be taught compositional skills, wich is closer to 'seeing', but not exactly. When we understand composition, we can learn how to make images that have more visual impact. We can be taught photoshop skills to change what we actually saw into something that we want to see.

We can NOT be taught which direction to point the camera and when to do it. Knowing what to photograph is the innate part of the process. You can learn the camera and good composition and great photoshop skills. None of these will tell you what to photograph and when to do it. Your inner artist will tell you that. This inner artist can learn some things though. He's a child until you develop him into a mentor. There are a few processes that you can try to help develop the artist...

1. Make a committment to create art.

2. Spend the required time and effort to understand all the elements of photographic composition and WHY they are described as 'rules' and how they impact the image.

3. Study images that appeal to you and figure WRITE DOWN what it is that makes them appealing.

4. Study images that do NOT appeal to you and WRITE DOWN what it is that makes them unappealing.

Your inner artist is like a pre-school child. If the teacher shows up to teach every day, the child will absorb things. If the teacher shows up once a week, the child may absorb things, but without the repetitive teaching every day, the retention may be weak.

Item #1 is the key.

I emphatically agree with this view. I'd like to expand the scope of item # 1 a little: Make a conscious commitment to life. Discussions of art often separate the two, yet the various causations any artists has to to what he does come from life, not out of some insulated box labelled art.

moodville

Nikon D100

01/17/2005 03:13:35 PM · #33

I think photography can be taught to anyone who wants to learn. Can 'having an eye' for photography be taught? Not really. It can be developed but either you have it or you dont. That's not to say someone who doesnt have the 'eye' for photography cannot take good images, but I believe those images would be different.

It is like the theory that there are creative types and there are engineers. Very rarely will you find someone with both because engineers are generally about rules and analysing the questions, and creative types are generally about breaking the rules and emotions.

01/17/2005 03:14:59 PM · #34

I believe there are people who have a natural eye for composition. I also believe they are rare. Even with a natural talent, I fel they will make better use of it, or be able to explain their compositions better, if they are taught why a composition (generally) works.

I see many photographs that are naturally good shots. Most of them, imo, could be improved it the photographer understood the elements of composition. Someone with 'no natural eye' could be taught to take technically good images. They may never jump that gap between 'mechanic' and 'artist', but many will, who wouldn't have if they'd not been trained. Some people have to be shown, while others can figure it out.

If no one believes it can be taught, then why are we here trying to learn? Why do we ask for critiques, which is asking to be taught? The majority of us should just give up and leave, by that reasoning.

postnote: Semantics *sigh*. Let me add to the comment that once a person learns how to 'see' a composition, how the elements work, it's up to them to develop it. Even in the process of development, though, others can teach us by explaining how they see.

It's a combination of teaching and learning.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:20:54.

01/17/2005 03:18:18 PM · #35

Forget the eye, I'd like to know whether one can be taught to have "a heart" for photography/art...this discussion seems to be mixing up the two into a big eye/heart stew.

01/17/2005 03:19:34 PM · #36

Originally posted by Britannica:

Anyone can learn anything.

David

I think this is a useful belief but not as realistic. It's elementary to teach someone to slam dunk but how many can do it? Being realistic may not be the most useful frame of mind though (especially artistically speaking).

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

01/17/2005 03:22:18 PM · #37

mac

Learning to do it well takes dedication from the student, so the real question is how many are willing to develop what they've learned?

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/17/2005 03:22:38 PM · #38

I have many years experience in technical photography, mostly documentation in a laboratory setting. All that experience makes me familiar enough with the cameras, but still lousy at capturing the artistic aspects of a scene. As for right brain/left brain activity, I have mixed dominance, some activities must be done left handed and others must be done right handed. For example, I must write left handed, but must throw right handed. Vision is right eye, hearing is left ear. Makes for a perfectly inept artistic photographer!

01/17/2005 03:27:25 PM · #39

ElGordo

Have you ever studied composition? Taken classes from an artist and practiced what you've been taught? Do you know the elements of composition, so you can combine them in a meaningful way?

Have you studied anatomy, to help with portraiture work?

If not, you're leaving out entire areas of study for art.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:32:48.

01/17/2005 03:33:27 PM · #40

Originally posted by jonpink:

I firmly believe self teaching is better and more productive than being taught by another person. And not just for photography, but for the majority of skills one desires to have.

I think this is more a comment on the ability of the teacher and the subject matter you're trying to learn. It depends on what you mean by self-learn. If you mean purely by experience (no books or anything). I believe mentoring is a vastly superior method for most. For any high level ability learning it on your own is the long and hard way (and may not even be possible). Imagine learning neurosurgery on one's own. You could, but it would take a long time and probably get pretty messy. In terms of student/teacher relationships I think the key is a)the communication ability of the teacher and b)the willingness of the student to accept the information.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

01/17/2005 03:34:34 PM · #41

Originally posted by swagman:

mac

Learning to do it well takes dedication from the student, so the real question is how many are willing to develop what they've learned?

I completely agree with that.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/17/2005 03:35:42 PM · #42

I learned to draw by constantly practicing using books, grids, whatever was handy. I don't consider that being self-taught. I used the knowledge of someone who had the gumption to write a book and make diagrams so I could understand the premise...I didn't just make it all up and it happened to work. I did have a natural ability to some extent, but never could've done the work I did without the teachings of others. EX I used to watch a drawing show for kids every day after school and practice practice practice.

I don't see why someone couldn't do that for photography.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/17/2005 03:37:05 PM · #43

Must confess, I have never studied any art form though I do appreciate the great artistry of many photogs on DPC. My efforts on DPC have yielded some improvement but I have not participated enough to be sure whether it is genuine improvement or just a fluke. I do know that just striving to do better is no substitute for concerted study.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/17/2005 03:42:53 PM · #44

Originally posted by ElGordo:

My efforts on DPC have yielded some improvement but I have not participated enough to be sure whether it is genuine improvement or just a fluke.

lol, I surmise many ppl feel the same way, irrespective of how many challenges entered.

nsbca7

01/17/2005 03:43:05 PM · #45

Originally posted by swagman:

My father was an RCA draftsman with a passion for photography. College educated, great knowedge in dimention and line (helped draw up blueprints for the first lunar rover), great techical skill in the operation of his varied Canon 35mm cameras and in his darkroom, yet he could rarely do better then snapshot quality photography. He knew this, (though would never admit by more then a sigh) we knew this and I have a box full of his negatives to prove it.

All the desire and opertunity in the world, and he had both, could not help him create more then the ocasional good photograph. There has got to be some inate sennsibility that though may be developed if it is there, for some can never be learned.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

01/17/2005 03:43:55 PM · #46

Originally posted by ButterflySis:

Couldn't find a similar thread. Just something to think about.

DO YOU THINK 'HAVING AN EYE' FOR PHOTOGRAPHY/ART IS INBORN OR CAN IT BE TAUGHT/LEARNED?

Discuss... :-)

Edit: Added "/Learned" :-)

If it can, this is the place. :)

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

01/17/2005 03:45:23 PM · #47

Good site for composition

I just scanned this site, but there's at least one good article in the list (the only one I looked at). It's interesting, though, that the photographer who wrote that article used paintings to explain the elements.

Forget the camera for a short time each day, and learn how people relate to 2d composition. 'Seeing' the elements will almost become subconscious after time.

Take a class. Buy a book. Learn to draw. Get a professional painter friend to go over your photographs and 'saa' them.

Once you learn the technicalities, it's no longer about the camera.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:46:27.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

01/17/2005 03:46:00 PM · #48

THe main problem isn't whether someone is a 'natural' or not. I don't believe you can be taught to see...you can be taught to look in the right direction.

The first, and largest problem with photography is that many people just don't learn the cababilities of their equipment, they skip read the manuals...myself included. This can be taught, by ones self or by a teacher. A thorough knowledge of your tools is the basic requirement for any craftsman/woman. Knowing what you can achieve is a fundamental step in the learning curve to 'seeing'.

Eventually, you will reach an acceptable level as a photographer if you learn each lesson, but at the end of the day...either you can see the perfect shot or you can't. You can be taught composition, lighting, exposures etc...which will produce a technically perfect picture...but without a natural ability, you will have perfect shots that can be reproduced endlessly...but you won't have that 'individual eye' that creates the photo that stands out above the others.

As an ex-draughtsmans, I can produce hundreds of technically perfect drawings for houses etc...but I can't draw from my imagination to save my life. I think the same applies to my photographs. But, I will keep trying.

Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:46:37.