[John Poirier]

Ever since I learned the basics of exposure, I have been swimming in research about photography. I've read Scott Kelby's 3 part series multiple time, as well as DSLR's for dummies, and I just ordered 4 more books in anticipation for a trip to new york. I'll probably hide out in my room for a few days until they are finished. I'm love taking pictures and I'm trying really hard to be adequately good at it.

My friend however has always wanted to try photography but has basically never touched a camera, I gave him my Kx on auto mode and 15 minutes later I was looking as some of the most beautiful and well framed pictures of people and nature I had ever seen.

Is photography all natural artistic ability?...I see so many beginners with incredibly beautiful pictures, and they all seem to have some amazing quality to them, they should be hanging in art galleries. Mine however, even my best shots, to me seem to simply be amateur and slightly juvenile, no matter how by the book or how expressive I try to be

Can photography be learned or am I going to be forever trying to rise up to the level of natural ability that some people seem to have?

Example of two of my best (read: personal favorite) pictures below, they're missing something, something blazingly obvious but impossible to define, and then two of my friends pictures following it, his just seem to be naturally flawless in a way none of mine can be (neither have been post processed and were taken with a Kx or K7 with the default in camera JPEG processing)

I think the encouraging responses are dead on.

I'm completley self- taught, had a very good career as a technical specialist and am now gaining good acceptance for my fine art work.

I strongly recommend that you study fine art books by individual photographers in addition to how-to books. In my observation many of the how-to books are rather formulaic. (The "Rule of thirds" is a guideline, not a rule.) I also suggest that you visit galleries (Seattle, obviously) as fine prints are quite a different experience from online viewing or even books.

One very good learning method is to experiment with cropping your image files in an image editor, and do so quite radically. It won't cost you anything.

In terms of the images you posted, I prefer your images to those of your friend. Play with cropping.

The night shot would be more dynamic if cropped top and bottom to a more panoramic aspect ratio.

Try cropping the shot of the excavator from the left and top. This emphasizes a more dynamic line in the form of the arm of the machine.

In terms of your friend's images, from my perspective the plant picture is something of a mess.

The shot of the young woman doesn't work for me for two reasons. One is that the right arm extends out of frame in a distracting way. The other is that the cropping is not tight enough to convey the overall intimate mood. In my view the image would be more effective if cropped to near the top of the head, cropped slightly from the bottom, and cropped extensively on the right arm. I'd do the arm last. You might even consider cropping into the shoulder.

Your friend has a good eye for light and subject, but I'd say you are closer to producing good images than than you think.

Have fun!

John

[future_retro]

Much appreciated John, thank you

[pacerr]

. . . that works for me: cover one eye.

The lose of the 3D effect often revises my first impression enough to confirm or reject a scene, or to suggest a new point of view.

Experience has taught me that most of the pictures I've taken that fell a little flat, even though the basics were there, also didn't subsequently pass the 'one-eyed' test either.

For me, the 'one-eyed' test also tends to somehow highlight the tonal shades that suggest a scene may work well in black and white -- although it may just be that it causes me to actually think twice about the scene before I shot too.

John's suggestion to play with cropping is something I find very useful too. Occasionally I challenge myself to intentionally make pictures with the intention of 'harvesting' two or more interesting crops from one file. (I totally reject the faux-purist idea that one must "crop in the viewfinder" for the same reason I carry more than one focal length lens - it's just a matter of when I choose to crop and what frame ratio works best.)

H2

[stover98074]

I like your use of light and attention to that important detail.

I am puzzled by questions like the one that started this thread. I am not certain it matters if one has a natural ability or talent that is learned. Sometimes there is more gratification from a journey.

The path I took is as follows. Like you, I read (your local library may have a collection of photo books), reviewed other photographer’s work; familiarized myself with exposure and composition. I have not taken any classes but different people tend to learn in different ways. This is all bundled in practice.

You may find that after a while you will have the techniques at your disposal to ensure that when you are in the right place at the right time you will find the right photo. I am still working to reach that point.

Bryan Peterson’s books were referenced earlier; I have used them and have found them valuable. He also has a blog that may be of interest. http://bryanfpeterson.blogspot.com/

[johnmflores]

Beginning photo students used to shoot brick after brick of black & white high contrast Tri-X film. Why? Because it was cheap and forgiving, but also because it forced them to concentrate on composition and shape and form - abstractions more or less of what they were observing. The closest you can get to this with a dSLR is to shoot B&W JPEGs with the contrast set way up to 11. This is my custom mode and I use it when I am "practicing". Also stick to a single lens - like a 31 or 35 or 40 on APS-C and shoot black & white JPGs for a couple of months with just that lens. You'll learn a lot that way.

My roommate was a photo student and he'd go on and on about figure-ground, tri-partite something or other, and he'd pore over photo books to dissect what the masters were doing right. Do the same. Start here - Masters of Photography

And here - http://photography-now.net/masters/master_photographers.html

I think I'll go start a new thread - Appreciating the Masters - so that we can collectively look at some of the icons of our passion...

[Ash]

Well that was easy.

This graph conveys a lot of truth, particularly in the blue 'self-perception' curve.

But clearly people can be taught - it's the plateau of knowledge, skills and abilities that is hard to compare with those who do and don't have 'the eye' for photography...

[EyeSpy]

Well that was easy.

I should of known. All along I thought it was GAS..

[Tonto]

Beginning photo students used to shoot brick after brick of black & white high contrast Tri-X film. Why? Because it was cheap and forgiving, but also because it forced them to concentrate on composition and shape and form - abstractions more or less of what they were observing. The closest you can get to this with a dSLR is to shoot B&W JPEGs with the contrast set way up to 11. This is my custom mode and I use it when I am "practicing". Also stick to a single lens - like a 31 or 35 or 40 on APS-C and shoot black & white JPGs for a couple of months with just that lens. You'll learn a lot that way.

My roommate was a photo student and he'd go on and on about figure-ground, tri-partite something or other, and he'd pore over photo books to dissect what the masters were doing right. Do the same. Start here - Masters of Photography

And here - Master Photographers presented by photography-now.net - The International Photography Index.

I think I'll go start a new thread - Appreciating the Masters - so that we can collectively look at some of the icons of our passion...

Those are some geat tips! From John again, you are quickly becoming my muse!

Think I am going to do this with my M50 lens to help with my MF technique aswell

[CWyatt]

The only thing that scares me is I think I got so wrapped up in the science of exposure and sharpness that I almost forgot that photography is an art

I personally mostly don't think photography is an art. If I ran a school, I'd put it under 'Social Studies'. But each to their own.

[billtin59]

No, it can't be learned, BUT, if you send me a check for $1000.00 and a lock of hair I can do a voodoo spell to turn you into a photographer. Either that or practice, practice, practice!!!

[Ira]

People are talented or not in any given artistic medium.

Talent can't be taught, but for those who already have it, it can be developed.

I don't have it, but I suffer under no delusions that I do. I have talents in other areas that I will defend to the death, but photography isn't one of them.

If I get a decent shot, it's because of the technical aspects, plus pure luck that I was at the right place at the right time, and I'm happy that some people find it interesting to look at.

And those shots are few and far between.

[billtin59]

Seriously, the best thing you can do is shoot LOTS of photos, don't just shoot from eye level tho, walk around, shoot from different angles, move in, out, up down, shooting digital is cheap. Also, look at pics you like and try to figure out how they were done, pay attention to how TV and movies are shot / framed, after all, they use cameras too. In time you'll develop your own style and perhaps those friends of yours will be envious of YOUR shots. Just remember, there's no quick fix, like anything else, the more you "work" at it, the better you'll get. Unless of course you're a total dud!

[Wheatfield]

Can Photography be learned?

Well yes. But you won't learn photography by reading anything by Scott Kelby, or anything that is about cameras, or programs, or processing or anything else that comes out of a computer.
You will learn about photography by looking at photographs and discussing the merits of them.
We learn to see by seeing, not by reading about how to learn to see, and certainly not by reading about how to attach meta tags to images for easier sorting.

Look at pictures.
Discuss pictures.
This is how to learn photography.

[future_retro]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their responses, it still sinking in so I'm not sure exactly what to say to each but thanks for your time

[John nich]

When starting off, you have to look at photos you like, and then ask yourself "how did they achieve this look?, How did they use lighting to their advantage, what aperture was this set at," and blah blah,

I think photography is about being able to appreciate and notice beauty, and having the technical knowledge to capture what ever it is in the most flattering way.