Talent vs. Hard Work

Printable View

  • 03-20-2006, 08:31 AM
    mwfanelli
    Talent vs. Hard Work
    I was paging through a copy of Outdoor Photographer the other day and my mind turned to something I've thought about before. This issue had images from David Muench, one of my favorite photographers. As usual, his eye for the subject and composition were stunning. These images were also, no offense intended, much better than almost everything shared here or created by some famous pros.

    That brings me to the question. I know that hard work and experience can produce a great photographer, someone whose work is admired and recognized. But with people such as Muench, there seems to be this large gap of talent and creativity that just can't be crossed this way. Does knowing that there are people out there you can never match bother you? Do you ever think about the amount of innate talent we all possess and the limits it defines? Do you even agree with my assumption?

    Just wondering.
  • 03-20-2006, 09:17 AM
    dmm96452
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I agreed totally. I know that I will become a proficient photographer. I'll learn the right equipment for a particular shot, how to set it up, how to use light to expose it correctly all of the technical things that go into a great shot I am confident I will learn in time.

    The artistic side of photography is another story. I've seen people post shots here that I would walk past for 100 years without ever seeing. With time and experience I may learn to see as they see but it will never come to me quite as naturally as it does to others. To some extend that will probably show and will be the difference between good or great shots and stunning shots.
  • 03-20-2006, 09:20 AM
    swmdrayfan
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I find it very hard to match the work of many of the people here, let alone trying to match the work of the working pros. I've learned a good deal from those who've taken the time to comment on whatever I post, but yet find myself still struggling to really grasp what they're saying. I'm still posting substandard pictures, sometimes limited by equipment, sometimes by imaging software, sometimes by my lack of talent and understanding. Limitations? Personally, I'm bound by the limitations of not working hard enough to produce the quality of what I see on this board. There are some great photographers here who really have an eye for composition, color, light, and other variables.

    I think the innate talent of every individual plays a large part, because some people are able to instantly see what a particular subject renders in terms of what I mentioned above. Some of us don't get it right away, and have to work a little harder. I suppose the results are directly proportional to the effort.
    John
  • 03-20-2006, 09:34 AM
    OldSchool
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I was interested in playing the drums when I was 2. I had my first kit when I was 9. I played in HS orchestra and jazz band and started college as a music major (switched to engineering after a few semesters). I played the clubs until my 2nd child was born. I've studied, taught, and played with some very awesome musicians. Though, I never got “great” I was a much better precisionist than I am now a photographer.

    So, when I was a struggling musician, I also thought about this very same question. Here is my take....

    If I can be so crude as to divide artistic expression into two components: raw artistry and technical capability. All artist have differing natural blends both, and they can be improved with study. A folk artist, for example, may write just beautiful and moving songs -- yet s/he is untrained in technique and music theory (and doesn't need the training to be successful). A concert pianist may be on the other end of the spectrum (awesome technique, but cannot compose or interpret).

    To me, talent is the culmination of your technical and artistic abilities. What I have found is that those at the top are just monsters when it comes to both artistry and technique.

    Me… I'm happy to muddle along in my mediocrity. I get pleasure trying to express my "art" to the best of my abilities. I get pleasure learning how to do it better. I get pleasure studying the masters AND studying the common (When I taught drums, I learned from even my most basic students. This taught me that I can learn from all. I just need to “see” the lesson.).

    So, I’m good with where I am. I hope to get better….
    Cheers,
    Tim
  • 03-20-2006, 09:35 AM
    Asylum Steve
    Very simple...
    Michael, you bring up a great topic. IMO, there are three basic components to success as a photographer: talent, hard work, and luck.

    Ok, you could easily make the argument that one makes his or her own luck. I believe that for the most part, but I also know for a fact that weird sh*t happens that you simply could not have predicted or prepared for.

    Still, overall I don't think it's a huge factor with most folks, so for the sake of this discusssion, maybe we should leave luck out of it. That means you're left with talent and hard work, which often form an odd balancing act with most of us.

    I've seen extremely talented people make it with little effort, but I've also seen marginally talented people make it through hard work and sheer determination. Again, IMO, the best bet (like athletes) are the ones with talent that work hard...

    To answer your question, I have never had a problem with talented people succeeding. I try not to compare myself to others, and I'm confident and excited enough in where I think MY talent and hard work is taking me...

    What gets me are fakes. People that aren't that good that bs their way into getting published or having gallery shows or landing great jobs with clients that don't know any better. Commercial photography as well as the art world are full of these characters, and I know for a fact that it deprives me and many others of opportunities...
  • 03-20-2006, 09:47 AM
    adina
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I think it takes both to be sucessful. But what may be hard for me may be easy for someone else.

    Going off what Steve said...talent, hard work and luck.

    Well, I've been fairly lucky, as far as right place at the right time kinda thing. But being there wouldn't have meant a hill of beans if I didn't take some action.

    I've worked fairly hard, but that's because I want to actually make a profit. And the hard work is more on the business side than the artistic side.

    Talent? Well, I have some. Am I as good as I'll ever be? No, there's aways room to improve. Do I mind if someone is better than me? No, it really just pushed me to improve, or makes me consider something that I hadn't before.

    I guess you can have all the talent in the world, but if don't do anything with it, what difference does it make. And there will always be someone who seems to have it really easy, and has had things handed to them, but the majority of us have to work for it.
  • 03-20-2006, 09:54 AM
    walterick
    Re: Very simple...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
    Ok, you could easily make the argument that one makes his or her own luck. I believe that for the most part, but I also know for a fact that weird sh*t happens that you simply could not have predicted or prepared for.

    Still, overall I don't think it's a huge factor with most folks, so for the sake of this discusssion, maybe we should leave luck out of it.

    Steve, I agree with all your other comments.

    In my modest work, I find LUCK to be a HUGE factor!

    Your statement "I also know for a fact that weird sh*t happens that you simply could not have predicted or prepared for" really hits the nail on the head.

    I have stumbled across many situations that were simply "luck." Or were they?

    I believe that with effort, comes reward. Maybe not when you want the reward, but it will be there. I can say in my own experience as a landscape/nature photog that when I make a good solid effort to get up, go out, chase the light, hit the photographic sites, I am consistently rewarded with a "gem." Something beautiful and amazing that I could not have planned in a million years. THAT is what lets me know I am on the right track, is when these little "gems" start popping up.

    So I both agree and disagree that you can make your own luck. Putting yourself out there and making the effort seems to be a "trigger" for the luck mechanism to kick in. But, you cannot control it, no matter how hard you try :D (again, speaking from experience!)

    I agree with the rest of your post, very well stated!

    I would love to hear more about the "luck" factor from other photogs!

    Rick
  • 03-20-2006, 09:56 AM
    ken1953
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I have to take Tims view on this. Like Tim, I too was a music major. A also have the ability to pick up most instruments and learn to play them in a relative short amount of time. I have a 4 octave singing range and an extreme love of all music. So, with all my talent and technical ability, why am I not a superstar? Probably because of the other element of this discussion. Hard Work!!! Since everything musical, always came so easy to me, I never learned to work hard to achieve that next status. That also doesn't mean that I didn't achieve a certain status in my music...just not the level I could have if I had worked harder. The same goes for my new found love of photography. I know that I have a good eye...but to be able to portray my personal view to a photograph is going to require a lot of hard work, which I hope I have finally learned!!! And if you follow some of the artists who seem to be "naturals", you'll find that they also have a "monster" work ethic. IMHO, You can't be great without having both Talent and doing the Hard Work!!!

    Ken
  • 03-20-2006, 10:03 AM
    srobb
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Very good topic, Michael, and very good discussion so far.

    For me, at this point in my life, it does not matter that there are others out there way better than me. There was a time years ago when it would have driven me crazy. I would have to say that hard work, talent, and luck are all involved. I know I may never reach the level of talent of Muench, Dykinga or Kay. I had to throw in two guys who's work I really admire.

    In the same vein as Muench. I do not believe there will ever be anyone to evoke as much feeling from a b/w landscape as Ansel Adams was able to do. There will always be someone of that great level of talent. All some of us can do is hope to use hard work and maybe luck to get close to them.
  • 03-20-2006, 10:15 AM
    Chunk
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Wow. He is very good. While technique is a significant component in obtaining those results, I think the talent component (really vision and thought out composition) is what really sets the upper echelon of artists from those of us in the masses. Most of us recognize that a scene seems special to us but often fail in translating that to the final picture. An artist needs to evaluate just what makes that scene special and analyze how he can isolate or maximize the expeirence with composition and other tools available.
    I was thinking how to word the above response and was interested to find that Muench says that in his tip #12 here (click on the David Muench's Tips link ...
    http://www.imagesofarizona.com/muench/photography.shtml
  • 03-20-2006, 11:29 AM
    jar_e
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    This is an interesting thread to say the least! A lot of different views on here. I think the difference between a "pro" photographer (ie. living off your photography) compared to a "good" photographer is skill...just like any other job. Some people are just genetically built to be good at things. Some people fit management roles, some people are artists, it's all about finding what is meant for you. Don't get me wrong, you can learn and become good at things, but to become a true professional requires that little special piece of something that we can't decide for ourselves.
  • 03-20-2006, 11:56 AM
    another view
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Slight tangent, but I used to be a drummer too. I picked up a bass just for fun, and ended up that it was more my thing than drums, and have been playing now for 20 years. Will I be as good as (insert top player's name here) ever? No. I don't put in the time and make the sacrifices that they do to acheive a career doing it. Like photography, musical styles are very different and one person's favorite could be the hack to the ears of another. Could I ever get to that level? I'd have to say doubtful, because I haven't even been willing to make the sacrifices that some of those guys have made.

    Learning the technical side of how to make a photograph came pretty easy for me. I also learned that fantastic light and a decent subject will always make a better photograph than merely decent light in a spectacular setting. I see that as a challenge, actually - go to the places you can get to often and your chance of being lucky with amazing light will increase. If you spend as much time in the field as Muensch/Muensch Jr./Rowell (rip)/Peterson or anyone else, you will get lucky more often. Just a matter of odds...

    "Does knowing that there are people out there you can never match bother you?"
    Not personally. I'd have given up all of my hobbies years ago if it did. I won't paddle my sea kayak on some monumental journey or in waves the size of a house amonst the icebergs. I won't be a famous photographer. I won't be a famous musician. I do it all for the enjoyment of it. If other people like it, great - but I do it for me. Selfish? Maybe, but it's the truth.
  • 03-20-2006, 12:16 PM
    JSPhoto
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I don't let what anyone else does bother me, as long as someone likes what I do, why worry about what others are doing. Too many people try to compare themselves to others, or copy others techniques or whatever instead of being THEMSELVES! Just be yourself!

    It goes back to the old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same can be said for photography.

    JS
  • 03-20-2006, 12:23 PM
    srobb
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JSPhoto
    I don't let what anyone else does bother me, as long as someone likes what I do, why worry about what others are doing. Too many people try to compare themselves to others, or copy others techniques or whatever instead of being THEMSELVES! Just be yourself!

    It goes back to the old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same can be said for photography.

    JS

    I would have to really echo all of that, JS. I know it's in my sig, but Ansel said it best, I think.

    "No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit." --Ansel Adams
  • 03-20-2006, 12:43 PM
    OldSchool
    How about Self-Promotion ??
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
    Michael, you bring up a great topic. IMO, there are three basic components to success as a photographer: talent, hard work, and luck.
    [snip]

    This is a good discussion. All good points... One thing missing I think is a discussion on Self-Promotion.

    When an artist puts on a show (gallery, coffee-shop, stage, whatever) s/he is putting themselves out there. It is a very vulnerable place to go. One has opened themselves up to criticism from total strangers, and screwing up can be devastating. Thus, most artist that I have been have a certain amount of strong ego.

    Coming with this, and also very important for success, is skill at self-promotion. If we didn't self-promote, we typically would never get the gig (There are always exceptions). So, all of us blow a little smoke if we want the gig. Hopefully, we deliver.

    Of course, there are those with stronger skills at self-promotion than talent. I think these are the "fakes" that Steve is talking about. They are up there on MTV too.

    TTFN,
    Tim
  • 03-20-2006, 01:34 PM
    Loupey
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Going back to the original question: No, it doesn't bother me and no, I don't think about it.

    How can anyone possibly define "success" for everyone? By the amount of money one makes with it? By the number of images published? I think success is a state of mind. We all know where we started and we all know where we are now. By that standard, I am sure that just about 100% of us are successful.

    I don't look at the work of others in order to try to replicate it. If an image I create is pleasing to me, GREAT! If it happens that a few other people like it as well, SWELL!

    But ultimately, I'm the judge of my work and abilities.
  • 03-20-2006, 03:32 PM
    I_Fly
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JSPhoto
    I don't let what anyone else does bother me, as long as someone likes what I do, why worry about what others are doing. Too many people try to compare themselves to others, or copy others techniques or whatever instead of being THEMSELVES! Just be yourself!

    It goes back to the old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same can be said for photography.

    JS

    This is a great thread. I agree about the three parts to being a photographer. Hard work can improve all three but I think there are limits to the first two. I also think there are two kinds of luck and I can give an example. I took my niece to an airshow and let her shoot away. She came back with an awesome shot of a heritage flight by basically pointing the camera at the aircraft and shooting away. There's also the kind of luck that involves honing your skills and techniques then learning your subject inside and out, having an idea of what you hope for and then being in the right place at the right time with the right skill/technique/tools.

    But mostly I agree with JS. I shoot to make myself happy. For example my passion is aviation photography. When I take photos at an airport/airshow or something aviation related, I'm putting 100% + effort into getting shots I would love to see poster sized or bigger or published somehow. Almost all of my skills improvement, both artistic and technical, is to improve my aviation photos.

    For myself, many of the "great" photographers do nothing for me because they don't shoot subjects I'm interested in. For areas other than aviation I'm not upset about snapshot quality photos because I'm unwilling to invest the time to get better.

    For all I know I've got skills that are "wasting away" because they don't involve that sparks my creative fire and I'm OK with that.

    I think it's neat to see other peoples opinions and ideas on this subject! Great thread!
  • 03-20-2006, 05:37 PM
    mwfanelli
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    I guess people are taking this discussion in lots of different ways, that's good. The music stuff really got to me though.

    I use to play classical clarinet, won lots of awards, and was happy. A girlfriend challenged me to a test. We listened to several violin pieces by excellent musicians. Their technique was flawless. But one stood out. You could actually hear a few very minor flubs here and there but it was just flat out better, making all the other renditions seem "cold" in comparison. That musician was Izaak Perlman.

    At that moment, I realized that my best, with all the hard work and practice, could never play any instrument like that. It was crushing and sad to have to admit that. I feel the same way when looking at photos by Muench and a very few others. There are many very good pros I know I could match if I put my mind to it. But nothing I do will ever be rise to the level Muench or a few other greats. If I don't think about that, I'm happy and content. Only if I don't think about it...
  • 03-20-2006, 07:28 PM
    Photo-John
    That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loupey
    If an image I create is pleasing to me, GREAT! If it happens that a few other people like it as well, SWELL!

    But ultimately, I'm the judge of my work and abilities.

    That's nice. But photography is a form of communication. Are you only talking to yourself?

    I know I'm going off on a tangent and I'm not trying to be mean here. I just want to point out a fact about photography that a lot of people seem to miss. It's fine to be in it just to please yourself. But the difference between a good photo and a great photo is the number of people it speaks to and how it speaks to them.
  • 03-20-2006, 08:14 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    That's nice. But photography is a form of communication. Are you only talking to yourself?

    I know I'm going off on a tangent and I'm not trying to be mean here. I just want to point out a fact about photography that a lot of people seem to miss. It's fine to be in it just to please yourself. But the difference between a good photo and a great photo is the number of people it speaks to and how it speaks to them.

    That has always been and remains my point. Photography is a form of communication as well as an art form, but both have criteria. The criteria for photography as an art form are the elements of design and composition as anyone who has seriously studied art will tell you. Based on how the eye sees colour, texture, shape, lines, and form, there are also guidelines for photographic communication too. Otherwise it would be impossible to try and explain in a concrete, objective manner why one photo is artistically better than another. At for example, a high level of photographic competition, everyone with a photographic "eye" recognizes top quality photographic art. It is not subjective.

    The reply to some critiques has been when you get through the rhetoric that the photographer was just pleasing himself or doing his own thing or being original,...depending on the rationalization. Others of course, can say that they liked the photo, but my point is that "liking" a photo does not make it great and certainly does not make it "photographic art".

    Great photography is attention to detail and that means every single small detail including for example in portraiture: hair, skin, eyes, makeup, fingernails, etc. as well as the lighting, technical details, and composition and design factors involved in taking the photograph.

    It could be said that talent gives the photographer the "eye" necessary to "see" the photo that he/she wants to create but it is considerable hard work and attention to the smallest detail that allows the photographer to produce results that approach photographic excellence and photographic art.

    Ronnoco
  • 03-20-2006, 11:34 PM
    opus
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mwfanelli
    I guess people are taking this discussion in lots of different ways, that's good. The music stuff really got to me though.

    I use to play classical clarinet, won lots of awards, and was happy. A girlfriend challenged me to a test. We listened to several violin pieces by excellent musicians. Their technique was flawless. But one stood out. You could actually hear a few very minor flubs here and there but it was just flat out better, making all the other renditions seem "cold" in comparison. That musician was Izaak Perlman.

    At that moment, I realized that my best, with all the hard work and practice, could never play any instrument like that. It was crushing and sad to have to admit that. I feel the same way when looking at photos by Muench and a very few others. There are many very good pros I know I could match if I put my mind to it. But nothing I do will ever be rise to the level Muench or a few other greats. If I don't think about that, I'm happy and content. Only if I don't think about it...

    My husband has pointed out that difference to me many times. (Izaak Perlman vs. Joshua Bell was his latest comparison, after seeing Joshua Bell in Indiana two weeks ago.) Many musicians are technically great, but their music is lacking great emotion. If you can learn to perfect your technique AND put a little piece of yourself into all your work, you can rise to your own greatness, not in comparison to anyone else.

    My husband is also always talking about "viewpoint" and how when you can effectively show other people your viewpoint -- how YOU see the world -- then they respond to your work. I think that's where talent lies. Talent might make it easier for you to develop technical perfection, but you still have to pour a piece of your soul into it, and that's what makes greatness.
  • 03-21-2006, 07:12 AM
    Chunk
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    Photography is a form of communication as well as an art form, but both have criteria.

    Had Shakespeare restricted himself to the criteria of communication that were there in his time, the English language as we know it would be unrecognizable. Take a look at how many of the words in common usage today were invented by him in those few works of art. Any artist limiting himself to a preconceived set of 'criteria' in his/her work is more craftsman than artist. That's OK. The craftsmen of the photo world are absolutely necessary and are usually much more successful as seen by the vast volume of their work available in print.

    Of course I'm not someone who has seriously studied art.
  • 03-21-2006, 07:44 AM
    walterick
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Great discussion, but it's no fun when everyone agrees with one another :D
  • 03-21-2006, 08:26 AM
    Asylum Steve
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by walterick
    Great discussion, but it's no fun when everyone agrees with one another :D

    You know, Rick, you're right... :D
  • 03-21-2006, 08:31 AM
    Asylum Steve
    Ah, but...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    It's fine to be in it just to please yourself. But the difference between a good photo and a great photo is the number of people it speaks to and how it speaks to them.

    I can only speak for myself, but I think I'm my own worst critic. If I'm ulimtately pleased with the expression and vision I've created in an image, I KNOW that many other people will respond to it, too.

    Ego? Perhaps. But it's also a confidence that's been built up over many years. IMO, the second part of your statement will always take care of itself...
  • 03-21-2006, 08:41 AM
    OldSchool
    ps: AV....
    I think it's cool that you are part rhythm unit.
    :^)
    Tim
  • 03-21-2006, 08:42 AM
    another view
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    OK, to throw a monkey in the wrench... :)

    Back to Michael's quote: "That brings me to the question. I know that hard work and experience can produce a great photographer, someone whose work is admired and recognized. But with people such as Muench, there seems to be this large gap of talent and creativity that just can't be crossed this way. Does knowing that there are people out there you can never match bother you? Do you ever think about the amount of innate talent we all possess and the limits it defines? Do you even agree with my assumption?"

    Having your work recognized means that it's out there for everyone to see. The more it's out there, the more people will see it, right? Some people will like the shot (eye of the beholder...) - thinking in terms of percentages. If more people see it, then it stands to reason that more people (same percentage, higher number) will like it. I suppose getting your work out there in professional situations like gallery shows, published in magazines, books, etc might work the same way. Show it to ten places and you might get one interested - show it to a hundred and maybe that means 10 will be interested. Eventually with hard work and good business skills, you'll probably get somewhere. Suddenly you've been doing it for years and your clients know that you will deliver, making their own lives easier because they know how you work. Client goes to new company/magazine/etc and gets you in there, plus you're still working for their former employer. It's business relationships, and it's how the world works.

    Note that I didn't say anything about how creative or visually exciting the images had to be...
  • 03-21-2006, 11:09 AM
    Asylum Steve
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by another view
    The more it's out there, the more people will see it, right?...If more people see it, then it stands to reason that more people (same percentage, higher number) will like it...

    Steve, this is definitely a two way street. Sometimes it's exactly the opposite. The higher up the food chain you go, the more likely you're going to be rejected, as you're almost always being held to a higher and higher standard, and are up against better and better competition.

    I've found it's weird the way that works. I've been in situations where I've lost out to "better" shooters (an editor's opinion, btw, not mine heh heh) before. Now I find myself in the maddening postition of being turned down sometimes because my work is TOO STYLISH or ARTISTIC for this market (Central Florida).

    One thing you're definitely right about: the more you get your work out there, the more chance it will be seen by the RIGHT people...
  • 03-21-2006, 12:36 PM
    Loupey
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    That's nice. But photography is a form of communication. Are you only talking to yourself?

    Well, yes actually. About 80% of the images I post in the Critique forum have never before been seen by anyone other than me. Even my wife of over 14 years has not seen them. I bring them up here and now in hopes that it will encourage new photographers and allow some meaningful discussions. So, for me and my personal photos, creativity has been for the sake of creativity.

    If my photo doesn't speak to me, it sure ain't going to speak to anyone else.
  • 03-21-2006, 01:09 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loupey
    If my photo doesn't speak to me, it sure ain't going to speak to anyone else.

    You never know! I am often surprised by other people's reactions to photos that I took and don't really care about. Sometimes it's interesting to show other people stuff that I don't like to see their reaction. It can be an eye-opening and educational experience. Although I'm a stickler for controling what and how people see from me. I have to admit that I am not always the best judge of my own photos.
  • 03-21-2006, 06:38 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chunk
    Had Shakespeare restricted himself to the criteria of communication that were there in his time, the English language as we know it would be unrecognizable. Take a look at how many of the words in common usage today were invented by him in those few works of art. Any artist limiting himself to a preconceived set of 'criteria' in his/her work is more craftsman than artist. That's OK. The craftsmen of the photo world are absolutely necessary and are usually much more successful as seen by the vast volume of their work available in print.

    Of course I'm not someone who has seriously studied art.

    Actually Shakespeare did restrict himself but it was to the criteria of literature and drama as communication for his period, and my degree covers the languages and literatures of several countries, so I have studied this area as well. Goethe and Schiller in Germany, by the way, wrote plays in a similar style and were similarly famous in their own country.

    Unless you have studied great dramatists, artists, etc. you do not realize that they did indeed follow the criteria and trends of their period. Romantic, Classical, Existential, Modern, Expressionism, etc., those terms come from criteria that defined these forms of art or literature. Having studied movies as well, even these have a structure, formula, and criteria if they have become accepted as "universal" "classical" and great works of cinematic art.

    Ronnoco
  • 03-21-2006, 07:03 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chunk
    Had Shakespeare restricted himself to the criteria of communication that were there in his time, the English language as we know it would be unrecognizable. Take a look at how many of the words in common usage today were invented by him in those few works of art. Any artist limiting himself to a preconceived set of 'criteria' in his/her work is more craftsman than artist. That's OK. The craftsmen of the photo world are absolutely necessary and are usually much more successful as seen by the vast volume of their work available in print.

    Of course I'm not someone who has seriously studied art.

    Actually Shakespeare restricted himself to the criteria of literature and drama as forms of communication and art for his period. Goethe and Schiller created similar dramas in Germany. Terms such as Classical, Romantic, Existential, Realist, Expressionist, also describe characteristics and criteria that were adhered to by the dramatists, artists, and writers of the particular period. My degree is in literatures and languages, by the way.

    So in order to be accepted as an enduring, world class artist by the majority of your peers and by the public familiar with your art, your work must meet certain "standards", "norms", "criteria" etc. If it doesn't then you and your "art" will be quickly forgotten and you will be one of the many "starving artists" who is not taken seriously by anyone.

    Ronnoco
  • 03-21-2006, 09:11 PM
    OldSchool
    A good point, but another subject.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    That has always been and remains my point. Photography is a form of communication as well as an art form, but both have criteria. The criteria for photography as an art form are the elements of design and composition as anyone who has seriously studied art will tell you. Based on how the eye sees colour, texture, shape, lines, and form, there are also guidelines for photographic communication too. Otherwise it would be impossible to try and explain in a concrete, objective manner why one photo is artistically better than another. At for example, a high level of photographic competition, everyone with a photographic "eye" recognizes top quality photographic art. It is not subjective.

    The reply to some critiques has been when you get through the rhetoric that the photographer was just pleasing himself or doing his own thing or being original,...depending on the rationalization. Others of course, can say that they liked the photo, but my point is that "liking" a photo does not make it great and certainly does not make it "photographic art".

    Great photography is attention to detail and that means every single small detail including for example in portraiture: hair, skin, eyes, makeup, fingernails, etc. as well as the lighting, technical details, and composition and design factors involved in taking the photograph.

    It could be said that talent gives the photographer the "eye" necessary to "see" the photo that he/she wants to create but it is considerable hard work and attention to the smallest detail that allows the photographer to produce results that approach photographic excellence and photographic art.

    Ronnoco


    I own a number of books on photography composition. While some are great on mechanical technique and shooting tips, all have fallen short in their discussions of composition.

    My mom is a retired community college instructor (CCSF) who taught design, figure drawing, painting, etc. (She has not yet retired from painting :^)). Having no formal training in the visual arts myself, I have borrowed her texts to try to learn what my photo-books do not cover. (FWIW, my mom is also my best critic. She doesn’t pull punches).

    Shooting a picture is easy (push the button). Software makes it easier to add some "wow" factor to an image. Digital cameras speed up the whole process. And, we end up with some really prolific hobbyists along with the dedicated artist and professionals (I'm in the hobbyist category BTW).

    A true critique of one's work is actually very labor intensive -- where one addresses balance, color, rhythm, tone, value, …, and how it all goes together. It's way more than the Golden Section. Just like in classical harmony, there are do's and don'ts in composition (like avoid parallel 4ths). Of course, it's ok to break the rules -- if you do so in style.

    So what am I saying is...

    I really enjoy looking at images where someone has pored considerable time putting it all together. And, I appreciate those technical lessons that describe what makes a particular image work.

    Again, another subject.

    Cheers,
    Tim
  • 03-21-2006, 09:27 PM
    JSPhoto
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    You never know! I am often surprised by other people's reactions to photos that I took and don't really care about. Sometimes it's interesting to show other people stuff that I don't like to see their reaction. It can be an eye-opening and educational experience. Although I'm a stickler for controling what and how people see from me. I have to admit that I am not always the best judge of my own photos.


    LOL, thats the truth, I have sold a lot of photos I wouldn't want anyone to know I took them! People will buy the strangest stuff! Hey, whatever makes THEM happy! :eek:

    JS
  • 03-21-2006, 09:29 PM
    Lava Lamp
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Talent vs. Hard Work is something I've thought about a lot over the years. I'm really bad at many, many things and really good at only a few. Most of us don't work that hard on what we're good at -- it just comes easy.

    For me, photography is a bit of a tweener -- almost everyone gets better with practice. I won't name names, but I've seen many of the regulars on this board get much, much better over the four years or so I think I've been around. Of course, some were good from the get go, but only a very few have never gotten any better -- at least in my opinion. Obviously, my opinion is subjective, but I think its reliable in this instance.

    The important thing, I think, is for each person to improve and to get closer to undertanding what they want to do and get closer to understanding how to use the tools and make the decisions to acheive that vision.
  • 03-21-2006, 09:32 PM
    Lava Lamp
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
    Steve, this is definitely a two way street. Sometimes it's exactly the opposite. The higher up the food chain you go, the more likely you're going to be rejected, as you're almost always being held to a higher and higher standard, and are up against better and better competition.

    I've found it's weird the way that works. I've been in situations where I've lost out to "better" shooters (an editor's opinion, btw, not mine heh heh) before. Now I find myself in the maddening postition of being turned down sometimes because my work is TOO STYLISH or ARTISTIC for this market (Central Florida).

    One thing you're definitely right about: the more you get your work out there, the more chance it will be seen by the RIGHT people...

    Sounds like work. I lost my job through a buyout recently and just got another one. Along the way I ran into a long line of potential employers that thought I was way too overqualified and a shorter list of those that thought I was underqualified until I finally found the righ one. Sort of a three little bears scenario.
  • 03-21-2006, 09:41 PM
    Lava Lamp
    Re: That's Nice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    Actually Shakespeare did restrict himself but it was to the criteria of literature and drama as communication for his period, and my degree covers the languages and literatures of several countries, so I have studied this area as well. Goethe and Schiller in Germany, by the way, wrote plays in a similar style and were similarly famous in their own country.

    Unless you have studied great dramatists, artists, etc. you do not realize that they did indeed follow the criteria and trends of their period. Romantic, Classical, Existential, Modern, Expressionism, etc., those terms come from criteria that defined these forms of art or literature. Having studied movies as well, even these have a structure, formula, and criteria if they have become accepted as "universal" "classical" and great works of cinematic art.

    Ronnoco

    I dunno. I'm working my way through an extensive and meticulously researched biography of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who is now thought by many to have been "Shakespeare." De Vere was arguably the most educated man in England as he grew up and had remarkable first-hand knowledge of the world outside England. The authors argue that he wrote based on this broad foundation and as a means of self-expression (and sometimes propaganda.) Following the norm and trends to ensure commerical success didn't seem to have been a factor.
  • 03-22-2006, 07:12 AM
    another view
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
    The higher up the food chain you go, the more likely you're going to be rejected, as you're almost always being held to a higher and higher standard, and are up against better and better competition.

    I can see this being the case. Hopefully the price of the jobs goes up with the higher standard! :)

    I was thinking along the lines of some wedding photographers whose work I've seen. They do their job, are completely reliable and know how to run their businesses very well. They've been doing it for years and apparently do well financially, but probably nobody outside their area knows who they are. Their work just isn't that inspiring to me though... Whole different world - they're dealing with people who have probably never hired a photographer before, and may never hire one again. They will talk to other brides-to-be, and recommend a photographer based more on the promptness of returned phone calls, being prepared for meetings, etc than creativity. I'm not saying this is always the case but I'd guess it's more often than not. Very different world than what you're in.
  • 03-22-2006, 10:22 AM
    freygr
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    The problem is the BS that the photographer has to put up with, and then the politics of the galleries, and the time that you have to spend going to the galleries. One wild life photographer said he has to spend 9 months out of the year promoting him self, and the other three taking the photos.

    Between family and the DAY job there isn't any time..... and very little time to take photographs as is :(
  • 03-28-2006, 06:49 AM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freygr
    One wild life photographer said he has to spend 9 months out of the year promoting him self, and the other three taking the photos.
    :(

    I certainly hope that he or she is getting paid for these self promotional activities. :eek: Otherwise a change in approach is desperately needed.

    Ronnoco