If it is based on opinion and seen differently in everybodies eyes?
Or is it really the creative mind of the person behind the camera and their skill to be able to think of something and capture it perfectly?
2007-10-01 08:50:48 · 11 answers · asked by c0oki 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
What makes the difference between a n excellent photo and a n OK photo is the composition rather than the subject.
So yes , it is mostly talent....
2007-10-01 09:01:34 · answer #1 · answered by Sophie B 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definitely!
Photograpy is part art and part science. To be a good photographer you have to be an -artist-, meaning you have to have talent, but you also have to be a -technician-, meaning you have to understand the technical principles involved and master them.
An artist is someone who sees something others don't see and shows it to them. For example, a farmer walks out to the road at the edge of his field and sees a painter who has set up an easel and is painting a picture of the farmer's barn. The farmer has seen this barn every day of his life and he thinks 'Why would that fool want to paint that dumb old barn?" But when he looks at the painting he is looking at the barn through the painter's eyes, and he says 'Wow! I never realized that old barn was so beautiful!' That is the artist's job, to see the barn with a 'painterly eye' and show his vision to the farmer who thought it was just an old barn.
A good photographer can do this too! Look at the photos of Ansel Adams or any of the 'old masters'. The subject matter is usually very prosaic--a grove of trees or a mountain or whatever. Maybe it was something you've seen lots of times, but they see it differently and use photography to show it to you the way they see it.
There are also technical skills in photography and I think these are helped by a different kind of talent. For instance, I have friends who can get a good picture at 1/8 of a second. They can lean against a building or a car or something and steady the camera enough to get a nice sharp picture. If I try it, I get a blurry mess. I have even practiced this! If you can't learn the skill with practice, then it's a talent, right?
2007-10-01 09:07:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Okay, I guess it comes down to how do you define a photographer. Would you call someone who a string a bunch of words together in a string in no particular order a writer?
Anyone can take a camera, point it in some direction and press a shutter release button. That person, in my opinion, is not a photographer.
A photogrphaer is someone who understands the science of photography -- things like focal lengths, f/ numbers, optics, depth of field, focus, light, etc. A photographer also understands the aesthetics of photography -- things like framing, composition, highlight and shadow, angle of view, etc. The person who can put all that together everytimd they take a lens cap off and put eye to viewfinder before they press a shutter release is a photographer. What they do is called photography. And yes, that takes real talent.
2007-10-01 10:48:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of the three parts of your question are in conflict.
Talent, exhibited in ANY of the arts is still subject to interpretation. Creative abilities STILL need to be developed and nurtured if that artist wants to consistantly produce excellent results.
And that degree of development is what sets aside a "good" artist from a "mediocre" artist.
And, don't forget that commercial success has little to do with talent.
2007-10-01 10:29:57 · answer #4 · answered by Vince M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can photography be considered an art form? It's not exactly creative... it's simply recording something that already exists.
Recording things properly is simply a matter of technique.
I'd call it a skill rather than a talent.
2007-10-01 10:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by Rick Taylor 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course photography is a talent! The principles of design apply as much to photography as they do to fine art.
Like fine art, the art of photography can be learned. Once you learn the principles, you begin to see the world in a different way, composed of beautiful shapes and designs. If you have the drive and the passion and love what you're doing, you can improve your photography in leaps and bounds.
2007-10-01 09:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by D6 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
photography is for everyone with or with out talent but it does help if you have an eye for a shot! i never leave home without my camera! Good luck~
2007-10-01 09:02:20 · answer #7 · answered by fox 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, talent does come into it. No matter how advanced or complicated your camera (digital or otherwise) is, it's what goes in that counts.
To get consistently good results you have to do a lot more than simply "point and shoot".
2007-10-01 23:05:29 · answer #8 · answered by Robert C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think one has to have an "eye" for detail and not everyone does. I also believe one has to be able to visualize a scene and then commit it to film or pixel.
So yes, I think one has to have some natural talent.
2007-10-01 08:55:48 · answer #9 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think that being good at photography is 50% skill and 50% opinion
2007-10-01 09:08:25 · answer #10 · answered by john 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋