A "good eye" for photography?

[disneyboy2003]

Sometimes, someone on a message board will say that they have a "good eye for photography" but they don't know the technical aspects (or basics) of photography.

I'm just wondering if this is possible.

And is there anything that's analogous to this? Is it like saying I have great taste in food, but I don't know how to cook? Like being complimented on my microwaving skills? (the analogy being: the camera does all the work (cooking), but I just press the shutter button)

On the flip side of this, I feel like I've got a good grasp of the basics of photography (ex. aperture, shutter speed, ISO), but I'm still always learning how to develop a "good eye". I frequently fall back to the "rule of thirds".

<-- this guy has 2 good eyes.

 

[seashoreCM]

>>> This guy has two good eyes

You need two good eyes, one for getting the exposure, focusing, etc. right and one for getting the composition nice.

For the second, you can practice using a rectangular frame held at different distances to cover a wider or narrower angle of view (or several frames of different sizes). Or practice using the camera viewfinder.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

 

[Marlton Mom]

I think having a "good eye" would refer to the art of composition or the framing of a photograph. A person with a good eye would instinctively "see" the parts of a scene that would make for a good photo and frame that in the viewfinder of the camera for the shot.

As long as you have the camera set up, after the framing it's just a matter of pushing the button. I think this is what people are referring to when they talk about a good eye...

~ Marlton Mom

 

[zackiedawg]

Absolutely it's possible to have a 'good eye' without knowing the technical skills. The same can be said of nearly any artistic pursuit, and many skill pursuits. In other fields, they call it 'a natural'. I've known people who have never painted in their lives, yet as soon as they are taught the bare minimum, they can turn out interesting, expressive, or brilliant pieces of art. Some folks who never took a class on drawing yet can do so with astounding accuracy. There are people who never sat behind the wheel of a race car in their lives, yet the first time they did so, were rivaling the speeds and controls of trained professional drivers. Many a shooting range has witnessed a first-timer pick up a gun and start smacking bullseyes with the greatest of ease.

With photography, it being an 'art' as much as or more than a 'science', there are those with natural artistic abilities or vision that can just instinctually know what will make a good photograph - feeling or judging the light, the color temperatures, the shadowplay, the geometrics and angles, how best to compose the photo in an interesting way - yet they know nothing of the technical side - how to set an ISO/Shutter/Aperture/White balance, etc. Even just seeing something that is ordinary to 99% of the people passing it by, and somehow noticing the extraordinary about it - maybe the angle, maybe the story, maybe the juxtaposition. I've seen brilliant photos of a piece of trash in a gutter - how many would have even known that could be a brilliant photo? All the technical knowlege in the world wouldn't have helped you judge that scene as something imminently photographable.

And there are very non-technical ways of still controlling a camera. I was a photographer since 1977 - but I first learned...really LEARNED...what the relationship was between ISO, shutter, and aperture, in 2003. I had never even heard of 'white balance' until 1997. And my primary style of shooting from 1977 to 1997 was sticking my Pentax ME Super SLR on 1/125 mode, and turning the aperture dial until the little green dot of the light meter hit the center in the viewfinder...and always using 400 speed film. I knew not why on any of those things. When I moved to digital in 1997, it was a revelation because I could see on the LCD screen what my shot would look like before I took it, and actually see the effects of various settings on the end result. But I still had no idea what shutter and aperture relationships were, despite completely manipulating and controlling my exposures...I simply used spot meter and P mode, and judged the metering of the scene by moving the spot meter around and locking it in when it looked right to my eye.

So yes...short sum up of the above - one can definitely have an 'eye' for photography, regardless of whether or not they have the skills and technical knowledge, and one can definitely possess high technical competence and still not have 'the eye'.

 

[photo_chick]

Some people do naturally have a good eye for the artistic elements. It doesn't mean the will always have technically good images, but a lot of times we tend not to notice the technical shortcomings so much because artistically the shots are really good.

 

[SrisonS]

I totally agree with others that someone can have a great eye without knowing all of the technical aspects. There are even people that know the technical stuff like the back of their hand, but can't take a compelling shot to save their life (I wish I knew some exact examples of that, so I'm just assuming there are).

I remember being totally stuck on the rule of thirds after reading Understanding Exposure; but I still didn't have 'it' yet. It wasn't until i really started experimenting and looking at the work of others, that I finally started to get my feet under me. And most of that knowledge wasn't about the perfect camera settings or anything like that. It was about looking at the world differently, and purposely shooting common subjects (Disney ones) in ways that I hadn't already seen. And I'm still experimenting and trying to get totally awesome. Sure, knowing the fundamentals of settings will help someone stay consistent; but i wouldn't say it's the main thing.

 

[boBQuincy]

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/rethinking_talent.shtml

 

[alloyd1170]

Many point and shoot cameras today take good pictures. What sets the really great ones apart is composition. Don't stick the subject smack in the middle of the frame all the time. A little blur can be good-shows movement. Don't always shoot down on your subject. Shoot at eye level to your subject. Shooting up at a child will make them look larger than life and important. Look at your subject from every angle. Get down on the ground and examine the possbile shots. You will be amazed at the endless options to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary.

Study photographs in books, art galleries, online and then go out and try to duplicate them. Soon you will be carrying your camera everywhere and looking at the world through your lens.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Wow! Thanks for all your replies. You're right that photography is a combination of technical and artistic talent.

Of course, there are photographers at both extremes: those who can make a technically correct but uninspiring photo, and those who can make a captivating photo without a clue about camera settings. Hopefully, a majority of photographers fall in between these 2 extremes.

Hopefully, I can gain as much technical & artistic talent as MarltonMom's "Fireworks at Animal Kingdom" (link)...a true masterpiece.

 

[disneyfaninaz]

My DH's mother is an artist. I think my DH inhereted her "artistic eye." It drives me crazy that we go on vacation and I take thousands of pictures and he takes a couple of hundred with his Panasonic point and shoot and inevitably ends up taking the money shot photo that I don't even come close to. Oh, and he doesn't let me forget it either!

Here's one he took at Yosemite.

 

[Marlton Mom]

Wow! Thanks for all your replies. You're right that photography is a combination of technical and artistic talent.

Hopefully, I can gain as much technical & artistic talent as MarltonMom's fireworks at Animal Kingdom" (link)...a true masterpiece.

I'm sorry to say that such technical expertise and fame comes at a price. Papparatzi have captured me in compromising positions at the supermarket and dry cleaners. Sometimes perfection just isn't worth it so I'd recommend sticking with a point and shoot and just taking your chances.

Oops! Gotta run! The papparatzi are coming and I'm at Dunkin Donuts. I promised my husband we would save money and this jumbo latte I'm lugging around looks really bad!

Marlton Mom

 

[Tegan_Shade]

When it comes to being able to take pictures and not know a thing about the details and mechanics or anything, I'd be one of those people. I actually entered a class to learn more about it cause I figured that it would help me learn those things and in turn, hopefully, take better pics. Sadly, while I'm getting more experience in taking photos and developing them, I still don't know any specifics even with as many times as my teacher has tried to drill them into me. I just don't understand them and then they don't stick. So I'm more of a point and shoot... Although on a digital camera I can pretty much guess the setting first, on the film camera... it's all point, focus, and shoot.

 

[Chikabowa]

I definitely agree that someone has a natural ability to artistically take a shot without technical skill to back it up. There are some people who have such a unique and interesting perspective that the minute they snap a frame, it's jaw-dropping and incredible.

I also know a lot of people who have fantastic technical skills and can talk your ear off about the science of photography, but there is always an artistic portion missing from their shots.

The best is a marriage between to the two.... a person with a fantastic eye who understands the technicalities needed to create an amazing image.

For some this comes easier. For others, it's something they have to work at harder. But with anything, the more practice, the better you get. In other words, while you may have a natural tendency to one thing or another, you can always and continually get better at the other parts.

 

[DVC Mike]

Photography is both an art and a craft - requiring both sizes of your brain to take great photos.

 

[Bstanley]

"Brain the size of a planet and all they want me to do is take photos"

Marvin

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Sometimes, someone on a message board will say that they have a "good eye for photography" but they don't know the technical aspects (or basics) of photography.

This struck me as kind of funny. I've never heard of anyone saying they themselves have a good eye for photography. Usually it's someone more experienced in the art telling someone else that he or she has a good eye for photgraphy based on seeing nice pictures they've taken combined with the fact that they don't profess to having many actual photography skills. (I think that came out right!) To which the person then usually expresses surprise. "I do? You really think so?". Which encourages the person to then perhaps get into it more. At least that's been my experience.

I think people do tend to get better naturally once they start studying composition and exposure, etc, but it seems there are no hard and fast rules about that.

 

[WDWFigment]

I definitely think this can be true, although I've actually seen the converse more than anything: people who know everything about the technical side of photography, and will talk gear, technique, etc. all day on photography forums, but couldn't take a good photo if their life depended upon it. I don't know if their technical knowledge is overcompensating for something or what, but their constant critiques and "know-it-all-ism" usually just come across to me as annoying.

 

[disneyboy2003]

This struck me as kind of funny. I've never heard of anyone saying they themselves have a good eye for photography. Usually it's someone more experienced in the art telling someone else that he or she has a good eye for photgraphy based on seeing nice pictures they've taken combined with the fact that they don't profess to having many actual photography skills. (I think that came out right!) To which the person then usually expresses surprise. "I do? You really think so?". Which encourages the person to then perhaps get into it more. At least that's been my experience.

Maybe. But the posts that seem to stick out to me are the ones that start off with "I've got a good eye for photography, but I know nothing about settings. Help me choose a dSLR." Or, "My friends & family tell me I have a good eye for photography."

I think it's the artistic side of photography that I need to work on. And I would hope that cultivating this artistic side would be a life-long process. I don't think I'd ever be able to finally say that I "have a good eye for photography."

In the meantime, I think I'll go on talking gear, technique, and technical knowlege on these photography forums. (just kidding ...a little)

 

[mrcricket]

Not sure if this applies to this discussion, but it does seem somewhat related:

"I'm concerned more with picture quality, than pixel quality." - Jay Maisel

Now thats a man who has an eye for photography and the technical knowledge as well. Although he knows how to get everything technically perfect, he will sacrifice some of the technically perfect in favor of getting the shot. Interesting insight from one of the great photographers of our time.

 

[David L]

Photography is an excellent job to make visualize,capturing wonderful and innovative things in a artistic manner.Focusing objects might be personal,scenery and others with effective apertured,tooled camera and with more advanced adjustments on it can make fascinating and enticing to the eyes of the different viewers who want photos.