[slip]

When it comes to the creative side of photography my wife is a natural (but always getting better of course) , and with me it is hard work, lots of reading, etc.

how about you?

Is creativity easy for you or do you have to work hard at achieving good results?

just was interested in some opinions


cheers

[Ash]

G'day Slip.
Photographers, whether hobbyist or pro, tend to self-critique considerably harshly.
Seeing someone else's work may strike a chord in your own appeal for art, because their style resonates with you. But it can seem hard for you to produce that style of work for yourself. There's also spousal bias.

Anyway, it goes to show also that more skill is gained from just shooting than reading book after photographic book after magazine on the latest landscape and portrait 'tricks' of the trade...

[wildman]

Sometimes I just "see" a photo and sometimes I can shoot a 100 frames and get nothing. I don't know why.

Other than just getting out and taking pictures I have one thing that works for me - looking at great images whither the "great masters" of photography, film or paintings.

One time I saw this picture of Paul Strand (Wall Street 1915) and it was so simple but so powerful to me. I spent days just looking at it and trying to understand in an analytical way why it works. I learned more from this than any photography book.

[Digitalis]

I kind of have genetics on my side, as I am a 4th generation photographer in my family I learnt things early on that few photographers ever master. I agree with ash, many photographers are pretty harsh on how they view their own work. But I think the ability to know what is "good" and what is "bad" - being able to discern that difference between an image the works and one that do not, hones a photographers abilities and eventually they develop a particular style because of what they perceive to be "good".

looking at Images that work helps one develop their individual aesthetic. Looking at images that don't work helps develop critical faculty and the ability to Identify the crucial factors that makes an image a complete dud - and put that into practice when doing your own work.

[blackcloudbrew]

It's always hard work for me. While I've known for a long time that I can take a good picture technically, I've also known that more often than not it's usually devoid of any art qualities. Things changed for me 3 years ago when I got my K10d, my first DSLR. It launched my rediscovery of photography and I've been studying the art very hard ever since. It's still hard as I am no natural like my wife and daughter but I'm getting more and more images that I'd qualify as art and every once in a while I 'see' the shot I want before I take it.

[Ash]

Seeing as though we're sharing stories, my own is here: Pentaxian Profile: Ashraf Saleh - Pentaxian Profiles - PentaxForums.com and illustrates my own short journey so far, how I picked up some of the skills and techniques that make my work give me more and more pleasure.

And this graph is also pertinent - I'm still pretty much in the middle where I think I suck, but definitely past the gear faggotry phase. (LBA is over for me... for now!)

[Digitalis]

funny graph Ash...considering how early I started with my photography, i'm nearing the death phase - When it comes to knowledge about cameras, the gear heads at the camera store hide behind the counter when I walk in. I'm pretty happy with my photographic output so far, and I know I will continue to improve over time - I every day I do what I can to do better than the day before.


The mediocre are always at their best.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 06-02-2011 at 07:11 AM.

[aurele]

Well, i'm not good in all kind of photo, but i'm good (i guess) in some sort of, like sports.

Don't be too hard on your work, it's not easy i know

ps : i'm an anomaly in this graff, because i'm in Gearfaggotry, and have an old cam, work on compo, i have a tripod, never done HDR, and most of time i'm ... ok, i think it sucks

[Mike Cash]

I am devoid of creativity, recognize it, accept it, and hence don't worry about it. Not worrying about it is very liberating. There is no cosmic law that says one must approach picture taking as an art form in order to enjoy it.

[Wombat]

Sometimes I just "see" a photo and sometimes I can shoot a 100 frames and get nothing. I don't know why.

Other than just getting out and taking pictures I have one thing that works for me - looking at great images whither the "great masters" of photography, film or paintings.

One time I saw this picture of Paul Strand (Wall Street 1915) and it was so simple but so powerful to me. I spent days just looking at it and trying to understand in an analytical way why it works. I learned more from this than any photography book.

I'm with you, wildman. One of my greatest pleasures is studying the work of master artists, not just for their technique but especially for the elements that make their work speak to the heart. Getting technique and emotion in balance is the essence of creativity for me and that can sometimes just happen and sometimes be hard work. Your Paul Strand example is spot on and is the kind of photo I like to recommend to beginners who are obsessed with "sharpness" as the way to becoming creative.

[Wombat]

I am devoid of creativity, recognize it, accept it, and hence don't worry about it. Not worrying about it is very liberating. There is no cosmic law that says one must approach picture taking as an art form in order to enjoy it.

Why do you take pictures, Mike? Surely, just the act of making decisions about how you're going to frame your shot, what exposure you're going to give it, how you process it are all creative acts, aren't they?

[Mike Cash]

Why do you take pictures, Mike? Surely, just the act of making decisions about how you're going to frame your shot, what exposure you're going to give it, how you process it are all creative acts, aren't they?

I don't see them as such. They're procedural steps in recording a scene and are no more acts of creativity than are the decisions I make each day about which route to drive to work.

I'm not trying to argue that as a matter of categorical fact photography is not creative or that it is not an art form. I'm only making the point that one needn't feel under pressure to be artistic or creative or to feel that they are lesser people or that their output is of lesser merit due to choosing neither to be nor to aspire to being photographic artists.

I notice a tendency to conflate "creative" photos with "good" photos. The premise is implicit in the original post. Having been taken creatively does not make a photo "good" and not having been taken creatively does not make a photo "bad". Yet there are plenty of people who think that their lack of creativity will prevent them from taking "good" photos and operate under the very heavy handicap of a defeatist attitude as a consequence. There's nothing wrong with not having a creative nature and there's no reason for it to be an impediment to the enjoyment of taking pictures.

I take pictures because I enjoy taking pictures. I'm not out to make a statement about anything or create some sort of art or "relate my vision" to anyone. I have no vision. I have no creativity. If I have a statement to make, I add a caption. My pictures are from me and by me, but are not about me. An artist, figuratively speaking, stands between the viewer and the art. I stand off to the side and if the viewer never notices me that's perfectly fine.

[RioRico]

I'll claim nurture, not nature. Dad was a semi-pro photographer with a keen eye. I grew up looking at good compositions. So did my sisters, whom became both graphic artists, one professionally. Our eyes were trained, not born. And I studied photography and arts for a long time, formally and otherwise. I can see compositions around me, but I can't invent them. I don't have the artist's or art-director's eye. I can move for better compositions, and I can get pretty creative in PP, but I just don't create imagery with the camera. I know and accept this.

So seeing compositions is easy; achieving them can be a bit of work; and the PP is definitely real work, and creative. For my first decade of digital photography, almost everything I shot was just raw material for the shooping machine -- grist for the mill, as it were. The K20D ruined that approach by forcing me to look more carefully, like back in my film days. I still like using P&S's because I can shoot more wildly, more freely, and shoop the hell out of what I captured.

So yes, it's work; and yes, it's fun; and I and others may have different opinions as to what works.
__________________________________________________________

EDIT/PS: I was going to mention that my other formerly shot portraits for money, with Bronica gear, and was very good with portraits -- and lousy with everything else, just couldn't 'see' compositions, still can't. I blame early training in music, not graphics. IMHO visual composition is a learnable skill, much more than an inherent ability.

I'll also blame too much TV and cinema. With moving pictures, every frame is destroyed by what follows. One must study those ephemeral frames very closely to discern their setups. IMHO moving and still images require different compositional styles, often only tenuously related. To learn stills composition, study many many still images.

[bobD]

When it comes to the creative side of photography my wife is a natural (but always getting better of course) , and with me it is hard work, lots of reading, etc.
cheers

Dang ! same here, thought it was just me.
Thanks for this thread, I feel better already.
Maybe we need a support group.....

There are days when she will come in with a camera full of shots I would kill for, then review them on the computer so fast and throw out most leaving such exquisite keepers that I find myself wanting to dumpster-dive her compys trashcan...

[techmulla]

An excellent thread