The "Eye" of a photographer

[chauncey]

I think the most important part of photography is having the 'eye' to see an picture

Donald made this statement on another thread...I think more needs said about the subject.

I have, on occasion, coughed out some good images...the operative words are "on occasion". All to often my finding a good image is akin to the blind squirrel groping for the acorn. It is my humble opinion that a photographer's "eye" is synonymous with a musician's "ear"...you have it or you don't. What little that you may be born with can, with hard work, be improved upon. But it won't be easy.

[Donald]

Since my thoughts have prompted this thread, I'll be interested to hear the views of others.

But, in response to William's comment .....

...you have it or you don't. What little that you may be born with can, with hard work, be improved upon. But it won't be easy.

... what I would say is that I'm sure there is a significant role for the 'you have it or you don't'. However, I think there's an awful lot that people can do to help themselves bring out the innate ability that lies within them. And that's learning to 'see' like a photographer. I happen to believe in this concept and any search online will reveal that lots has been written on the subject.

I think that if we discipline ourselves and practice (it all comes back to practice), we can see what is around us in a very different way from the lay-person. I think that because I see myself as the living proof. I know that, particularly when I'm thinking 'photography', I see the world very differently than I did before my enthusiasm for this hobby was rekindled some 4 years ago.

[Plumcrak]

I firmly believe that you have to see things differently and that it is a "you have it or you don't" kinda thing. Yes, I think you can hone your ability to see things differently but I don't think you can teach somebody to see something that they can't see to begin with. When I am out with my wife she will look at me with that "What are you taking a picture of" look until she sees the image when completed. Then you can almost see the light come on in her head

I am not saying that I see everything differently but, like Chauncy, every once in a while I will find that allusive acorn.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't think you can teach somebody to see something that they can't see to begin with.

I disagree, Jon. As just one example, you can suggest the type of scene to look for, provide an example of it, and the student will then be able to identify similar scenes on their own. Once the person is taught an understanding of the compelling aspects of a particular scene, such as contrast, texture or shape, he or she can then be on the lookout for other scenes that have the same or opposite characteristics.

I'm pretty much convinced anyone can learn and be taught anything given sufficient time, energy and desire. That's partly because I grew up in the world of music where the common belief is that a person that is not born with perfect pitch cannot develop it. I was born without it and I developed it. I haven't maintained it but there's no doubt in my mind that I could develop it again if it was important enough to me.

[Plumcrak]

Well Mike, once again I have no problems being proven wrong Valid point.

[chauncey]

There was a time in my misspent youth, eons ago, that I hustled pool for spending money, played pool/worked at it for 8-12 hours, day in and day out. Won tournaments and all that horse hockey. That is until, a sixteen y/o kid comes in and proceeds to clean my clock until my pockets were dried out. That was my first experience with someone that had a natural, innate ability and it taught me that it cannot be beat.
Sure, with each passing year my percentage of keepers go up, but...it will never approach the keeper number of a photographer that was born with that "eye". IMHO

[pnodrog]

We had a similar thread on Feb 6th An artistic "eye" - can it be learned? and it maybe an interesting read before answering here. Slightly different question but a lot of posts relevant to this thread.

[chauncey]

Thanks for that link LPaul...that link was before my time here and was an interesting read.

Artistic ability is like every other trait. There is a distribution that follows a bell curve

To my way of thinking, based upon my obvious insightful left brain with all accumulated knowledge located therein,
Trevor Reeves offered the most scientific plausible explanation to date.

[HaseebM]

Today while looking out from a 4th, floor window, I saw a squirrel chased by a cat on a 3rd floor parapet and then just whilst the cat was catching up, the squirrel takes the leap of faith onto a tree some 10 ft., from the parapet. The scene happened so fast and mesmerized me, I completely forgot my camera was laying idle on my table. I think apart from the "Eye", a photographer should possess "instinct".

[Downrigger]

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments everyone.

Maybe this is about three levels of seeing – “eye”. I’m stuck somewhere in the second level, at least for now. But I’m very grateful to be there – it enriches my experience every day…


First, the non-photographer, non-visual artist may not pay much attention to what they see at all except to note, with much investment, that some things are “pretty” or “grand” and such. They’re not very visually interested, or maybe just interested in a narrow band of things in their surroundings.


The second level, the person who wishes to be a visual artist – say photographic artist – invests energy into finding the images around him/her that are engaging, compelling, and have message. At this stage, the student notices more and more and is struggling to understand why he/she is compelled, (why does this move me?) and seeks to understand how to bottle this quality in an image (how to I use tools of the art to encase and replicate the feeling or message I see here?). He/she develops a new level of attention, begins to notice visual opportunities as a matter of course. He/she is struggling to convert the “eye” that appreciates into the eye that captures and creates. This is me… this is many of us. We see and appreciate much more than we used to. A walk on a street, in a forest, on a ridgetop has become much richer for us than it used to be. We struggle to understand why what comes out of our cameras isn’t quite what we thought/wanted it to be.


At the next, third stage, (which I have to imagine) I imagine the person who is accomplished can easily and quickly notice what is marvelous or engaging around him or her. At this stage the artist also can either consciously analyze or perhaps intuit the components of composition, light, and story that create these qualities and that illuminate the path to replicating or capturing the image so that it is meaningful, and communicates.


I believe most of us can get to the “conscious analysis” in the third stage described above with lots practice and likely, guidance. I believe a few are gifted with the intuition described above. Maybe that’s the “eye” that a so few possess.

But the second level itself, is a gift and a pleasure for which I am grateful.

[RustBeltRaw]

I think apart from the "Eye", a photographer should possess "instinct".

This is an interesting point. I'd define the "eye" as knowing a photo when you see it, and the "instinct" as knowing where and when you're likely to see a photo. Personally, I only know if I have a decent shot after I raise my camera and have a look through the viewfinder.

I maintain that even if you're born with an above-average or even savant-like eye, you still need to put in a ton of time. A person of average or non-existent skill just needs to put in (possibly lots) more. For instance, I started photography because I bet I could get to see some interesting things if I got good enough, and started learning all the nerdy technical details first. No consideration whatsoever given to my natural eye, which I considered pretty mediocre. Henri Cartier-Bresson, who indisputably has one of the best "eyes" in history, is also famous for saying "your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." And that was in the film days. No matter where you start, true skill takes practice.

[Mike Buckley]

Mark's three-stage assessment makes a lot of sense to me. Well done, Mark!

I remember being in the first stage and the precise moment that it came to an end. That was in March 1985, less than two full years after I had taken up photography. I was photographing the steeples of the Votive Church in Vienna, Austria amid a cloudless dark blue sky in the evening dusk. I was 34 years old at the time and asked a friend if the sky turns that color every evening before becoming black. (Ironically, my best photo of the shoot was captured after the sky had become black.) I made a mental note to myself at that exact time that, if I was going to consistently make good photographs, I would have to be more aware of my surroundings and that doing so would surely reap many other benefits.

Since then, I have been in the second stage. I'm more accomplished at it than in 1985 when I first embarked on it, but I don't know that I'll ever advance to the third stage. I'll perhaps know when that has happened when I stop capturing images and wonder, as I often do when reviewing them later on the computer, what could have possibly motivated me to press the shutter release. Similarly, not being surprised that a wonderful photograph has been made from what I thought was a so-so scene at best will be another good indicator.

I do occasionally get a very small glimpse of what it might be like to live as a member of stage three. That happens in extremely obvious situations such as lions viewed on safari in a spectacular setting lit by equally spectacular light. I instantaneously "get it" in such obvious situations and make photos that I know will at least be keepers and perhaps consistent with the best quality of all my keepers. Unfortunately, I am far less confident that I should be releasing the shutter in less obvious situations...and for good reason, which is proven nearly every time I lift the viewfinder to my eye or position the camera on my tripod.

But the second level itself, is a gift and a pleasure for which I am grateful.

Indeed!

[GrahamS]

Today while looking out from a 4th, floor window, I saw a squirrel chased by a cat on a 3rd floor parapet and then just whilst the cat was catching up, the squirrel takes the leap of faith onto a tree some 10 ft., from the parapet. The scene happened so fast and mesmerized me, I completely forgot my camera was laying idle on my table. I think apart from the "Eye", a photographer should possess "instinct".

Like this?

Camera
NIKON D7100

Focal Length
300mm

Aperture
f/11

Exposure
1/250s

ISO
200

[GrahamS]

I have always believed that photography has two sides, the science and the art. I also believe that an aptitude for the former and a talent for the latter are both necessary to make a good photographer. As for the ability to "see" a picture before the shutter releases, in my opinion this is an inate talent that can be honed with practise, but it has to exist in the first place and cannot be learned from scratch.

Some days I can go out and come back with zero images that I flag as keepers, and some days every exposure is a keeper - just depends on how I feel on the day. I had a friend who could go out into the streets of the city for an hour and return with one hundred publishable street photographs, all taken completely "off the cuff." I could wander the same streets for a day and come back with nothing!

I believe that you can learn to create a standard image such as a wedding group or bride's portrait or family group in the studio, but I don't believe that you can "learn" to produce that unique image that some photographers like Annie Liebovitz or Gary Bernstein can produce with their first shot! You either have it or you don't. But even if you don't, you can still get enjoyment and have great fun with a camera.

[Donald]

You either have it or you don't. But even if you don't, you can still get enjoyment and have great fun with a camera.

And that, at the end of the day, for the vast majority of us, is the most important thing.

[Mike Buckley]

But even if you don't, you can still get enjoyment and have great fun with a camera.

And the people you share your photos with will also enjoy them very much. Not every photo has to be worthy of a magazine cover to be very enjoyable.

[HaseebM]

Like this?

Camera
NIKON D7100

Focal Length
300mm

Aperture
f/11

Exposure
1/250s

ISO
200

Not quite. The seen I saw today was exciting and dramatic and a 40mm lens would have probably captured the whole moment, i.e., Chase, desperation and then the unexpected leap of faith. What really surprised me was the cat's presence of mind to not shift gears and go all out as I felt somehow the cat knew the parapet was coming to an end...Now I really wish I had captured that moment.

[GrahamH]

Have it or don't have it???

I remember training in the martial arts with one guy who the very experienced instructor considered a natural.
I always wondered if the many years ice dance training had anything to do with it.

I've known painters who were natural.
Having artistic parents, by a stretch of the imagination, may have something to do with it.

I've known several people who were natural dancers.
I always wondered if their parents influence (classes in their early years) had anything to do with it.

I had very little encouragement/guidance in my youth. I cannot remember an activity that I took up later (late teens onwards) that anyone ever considered me a natural in.

NOW when dancing a lot of people consider me a natural and that I have a passion for it.
NOW when I talk about martial arts, and the occasional little demo, they consider me a natural and that I have a passion for it.
NOW when I talk about photography and show my work a lot of people consider me a natural and that I have a passion for it.

I know so many people who were training in martial arts or dance alongside of me (not the same group of people ) who now no longer do either. I am far more advanced than they.

I don't know anyone who I would consider to have innate ability.
That said, how would one define innate ability?
Perhaps where one can have no experience in the subject (OR similar/transferable experience).
Graham

[chauncey]

When I first discovered that some of my children were cognitively impaired I consulted a myriad of experts, hoping to improve their lot in life. I asked them if there was anything I could do to "improve" their IQ scores toward the more normal range on that infamous Bell Curve. To the man, they said that it would help, but, by only a couple of points and, that it wasn't worth the pressure put upon them.
You can improve your "skill position" on that Bell Curve with hard, exhausting work...what you cannot do is convert a "tin ear" into a Luciano Pavarotti.

[Mike Buckley]

what you cannot do is convert a "tin ear" into a Luciano Pavarotti.

Though I can't provide any evidence to the contrary, I really do wonder about that. Virtually all people who have tin ears understandably don't have the motivation to become a Luciano Pavarotti. However, there are lots of examples of people who were told by numerous experts that they wouldn't walk, etc., etc. after a terrible accident. Yet so many of them walked. That leads me to think that anyone who felt it was important enough to become the next Pavarotti could. Understandably, few people would consider that important, including me.

The human spirit is amazing. If you want to do something badly enough and can somehow surround yourself with the necessary resources, I wouldn't discount the possibility of making anything happen.