View Full Version : Can you teach...
Can you teach...
fashion sense
musical rhythm
photographic eye?
I'm thinking only to a degree, within a person's innate/natural potential.
It's like common sense. It's not something you can teach someone. You can help them improve, but not beyond a certain point.
What say you?
back alley
04-15-2007, 13:22
i used to teach a night class in photography for a local metro college, also a sign language class.
who knew i was unqualified...;)
darkkavenger
04-15-2007, 13:28
I am modestly "teaching" photography to my friend Laurence. I'm rather teaching her how to use & handle her Kiev-2A (she seems to do well by now), I sometimes lend her my lightmeter. When I do, the photos will turn out spot on and with an interesting framing. I think she's got "the eye" for photography. My help is sort of an assistance in having her remember to wind the advance knob and to check for aperture/speed from time to time. I am very impressed at how fast she got it. :)
sepiareverb
04-15-2007, 13:30
I'll have to agree that a lot of it comes with the mind presented to the teacher.
After five years of photo 1 classes I find that you can teach most people to print pretty well, but many leave the class having no more clue about how to put a picture together than they came in with, despite my best efforts.
I have one assignment that was a real eye-opener for me in this regard- shoot 4 rolls of film in 1 room in 1 hour. Sparer the room the better. Really shakes up your ideas of what a picture can be, and how to put one together. And for me it really struck a chord about designing through the viewfinder. Comes into every picture I make still- some 25 years later.
It is an option in the assignment list, and many take it on, but not everyone gets it in the end.
And then there are those you can't even teach to print!
pesphoto
04-15-2007, 13:31
I believe you can teach techical stuff, even basic composition like rule of thirds and such. But what the greats of photography have that makes their work so special can't be taught or defined.
i don't think that's the right way to look at it. if a teacher can't get something across to a student, he's supposed to blame the student for a lack of "innate" potential?
After teaching Photo I, Photo II & Photo III and other photo courses for 27 years at a number of colleges, universites and art schools, including some of the best in the country, all I can say is that the most important thing you can teach them (IMO) is to question everything they do, and to BREAK the rules. The most difficult students are the ones who are "passionate" about photography yet cannot think of what on earth to photograph.
I'm waiting for someone to teach me fashion sense.
I was taught musical rhythm when I played guitar.
My own eye for photography can hardly be expressed, and the times I try and help others and talk about their photo's I find my head bashing against brick walls.
i don't think that's the right way to look at it. if a teacher can't get something across to a student, he's supposed to blame the student for a lack of "innate" potential?
Stuff ike the tchnical aspects, even the "rules" of composition cand be taught, but clearly not everything can be taught. You cannot teach a dog to fly for example. My question is, can photographic eye, or vision, be taught.
i don't think that's the right way to look at it. if a teacher can't get something across to a student, he's supposed to blame the student for a lack of "innate" potential?
Stuff like the tchnical aspects, even the "rules" of composition cand be taught, but clearly not everything can be taught. You cannot teach a dog to fly for example. My question is, can photographic eye, or vision, be taught.
smeitner300
04-15-2007, 14:01
I agree that you can teach the technical aspects, but not creativity. That spark of inspiration that makes your photos your own...that comes from within.
dazedgonebye
04-15-2007, 14:14
Three groups of people:
Those who are "blind" in effect and could be taught very little.
Those who could be taught enough to blow their friends away with what great photographers they are.
Those who, once set loose, would eclipse their teachers.
The first and third groups are very small.
I don't think you can actually teach anyone to be creative. You can help them learn how to express their creativity. You can help wake up someone's creativity which has been dormant... You can shake someone's perception and preconception(s). You can change someone's attitude towards the wonders of the world. But I don't really think you can actually teach anyone to be creative.
I guess it's like teaching someone how to be sensitive. You can teach them how to pretend they're sensitive, but they will still be same old SOB's they have always been. :)
So, what's "potographic vision" or "photographic eye", after all? A kind of "visual creativity", I think, which can be perfected by knowledge of "visual vocabulary" (rules of thirds, composition, technical mastery of the medium, etc.). Still, no technical wizardry or knowledge of visual arts can help unless you have that touch of creativity within you. Mere knowledge of the rules and the technique is not a guarantee of an art/visual masterpiece. Photographically related, I don't know whether it was St. Ansel or someone else who said "there's nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept" :)
Denis
insofar as one person can influence another person's life, yes.
back alley
04-15-2007, 14:27
hey denis, long time...
nice to see you around the old joint.
joe
Can you teach...
fashion sense
musical rhythm
photographic eye?
I'm thinking only to a degree, within a person's innate/natural potential.
It's like common sense. It's not something you can teach someone. You can help them improve, but not beyond a certain point.
What say you?
I agree, and I think this is how it should be. One can be taught to imitate - to mirror a style or technique - as often happens in fashion, music or photography, but this is neither teaching nor learning.
The basic task of a teacher is to ensure the student grasps the practical aspects of a given discipline. Almost everyone can acquire a reasonable degree of such mechanical knowledge, but true success comes when a teacher inspires: Nurtures a personal response to information and kindles a desire for direct experience. At that point the student becomes his own teacher and the results will precisely mirror the nature of the individual.
Cheers, Ian
hey denis, long time...
nice to see you around the old joint.
joe
Thanks, joe... it's been a while :)
PetarDima
04-15-2007, 15:24
No
Vision & photographic eye - two gifts,
but
the biggest part of taking photos is 99% of hard work ...
that is most important question for me:
Have I photographic eye & vision? Whithout that I just waisting my time :confused:
In my little community where I live I appear to be the only person interested in photography. Digital or film!
Ninety percent of my input comes from this forum and occasionally someone tells me something that opens up another door for me. Any photographic skills I am developing are being absorbed from a lot of you guys! You (the experienced photogs) have a responsibility with new chums like myself to offer sensible logical advice and generally you do it well!
It's a big fun classroom with the occasional slap around the ear offered when we get out of line or don't listen! :p
The semester I taught photography to a class of 5th and 6th graders, (they signed up for it and so were motivated) we spent a considerable amount of time studying photographs. Every session included looking at examples of classic photojournalism, as well as the daily newspaper and magazines that caught my eye, or the kids' eyes. We discussed moments and settings, what the photographer had to do to get the picture, timing, classiclal composition.
I think too many photography courses get stuck on the process and the technical stuff. We did that, but always in context of the end result, an image that tells something about the world.
No, you can't teach photographic genius. But you can teach the elements that make a successful photograph. I think, because good photography is so visual, many of the finest photographers have difficulty expressing what they do in words. But when you go to their lectures, you realize their passion is about the story they are telling, not the technical matters related to the capturing of images.
A good teacher cannot create a Mozart of Gerswhin or John Lennon. But music can be taught, and taught well. Writing can be taught. Journalism is taught. Painting can be taught. Diplomacy and negotiating skills can be taught. Leaders are taught at leadership courses -- gifted leaders figure it out for themselves but the very best ones also know they can always be taught something new. And photographic competence can be taught.
Thanks, joe... it's been a while :)
Too long Denis, and very nice to see you again. I hope all is well.
As for teaching, I am on the side that these three things cannot be taught, but one's own sense of each could be learned from doing.
How about: photographic craft can be taught, the art/vision/creativity is innate and must come from within?
After teaching Photo I, Photo II & Photo III and other photo courses for 27 years at a number of colleges, universites and art schools, including some of the best in the country, all I can say is that the most important thing you can teach them (IMO) is to question everything they do, and to BREAK the rules. The most difficult students are the ones who are "passionate" about photography yet cannot think of what on earth to photograph.
That last statement, I find myself in. Some days, I just don't have a topic or Idea to photograph.
I can teach Tech stuff, F/stops, Rule of 3rds, Focus points, some composition I guess. But, taking someone out on an assignment and discussing the results is a far better teacher. Years ago, I tried this approach with a friend. And they really enjoyed it.
Give them a basic ground rule for a shoot, (Wide F/stop, or no more than 2 main elements). And then compare frames and learn.
>>How about: photographic craft can be taught, the art/vision/creativity is innate and must come from within?<<
Photographic craft can be taught. The art/vision/creativity can be studied, explored and nurtured.
I think I had a photographic eye. I had no idea what to do with it until I attended an afternoon lecture at an Army newspaper seminar in Germany in 1983 in which an ethnusiastic, brilliant and gifted teacher -- and only a good, not great, photographer -- opened my eyes and showed me how to use a camera as a tool to capture unique moments and viewpoints that tell a story. I can't for the life of me remember that sergeant's name, but he was extraordinary. And he taught.
easyrider
04-15-2007, 17:05
Can you teach...
fashion sense
musical rhythm
photographic eye?
I'm thinking only to a degree, within a person's innate/natural potential.
It's like common sense. It's not something you can teach someone. You can help them improve, but not beyond a certain point.
What say you?
Is there a reason why you are asking this question? Just curious.
(I taught journalism (mainly TV) for a while and decided it cannot be taught. It was a grad course. It was clear that the students with the highest marks were good at BS but would never work in journalism.)
No special reason - idle curiousity, making conversation.
I think for a lot of people, the art/vision part of things needs to be taught. :D Or at least learned. In browsing sites like flickr, I come across far too many photos of some baby being held by a guy, and the comments gush over what the photo "says." There are many, many photos on sites like that where the comments are geared towards the subject, which can lead one to think that as long as the exposure is correct, all you need to do is find a compelling subject or pose models in a unique way to create fantastic photography. And I find that disappointing.
I've gone through periods of not wanting to look at others' photography in general because it seemed to all blur together - they are just pictures. So many times there is something I'm missing if this guy's work is supposed to be "great," for example. But now I have realized that there are aesthetic reasons to do certain things, like push a film when you could just use a slower shutter on a static scene, for example. And I have begun to look at shots with an eye towards composition. Why is it important to use focus to isolate the subject, or why does the river start to wind it's way through the scene in a corner? Why do I like that one shot with the subject facing into the scene over the shot with the subject facing out?
I don't have a problem with considering the subject the main feature of the photograph, but it gets tiring to read "great shot!" every time someone posts a half-way decently exposed image of a child. Or a pretty girl. Or read an emotionally charged discussion of the use of underage models in various states of undress, tying the aesthetic value of the images entirely to one's moral stance on naked teenagers. It just seems like there is so much more to an image than the obvious subject. By looking at photographs, paintings, sketches, murals, etc., I think I've learned to consider more than just the exposure and subject in my pictures.
I certainly wasn't born with that notion, and don't think it would come to me if I hadn't actively looked for something more. And I certainly don't think I've learned to use all I've learned, or that I've learned all there is. I still don't like images that look like the shooter just asked the model to disrobe for the sake of sprucing up an otherwise boring picture. But I think I have learned to see beyond the model or the impressive building/mountain/tree and start looking for more in an image. And if I can learn to do that, so can anyone else, IMHO. I'm certainly not special in that regard.
Are we born great (artists ?) or can we became great by going to school? Is this your question?
My thought is that we are all born we certain qualities. Each of us with some more than others. But, those of us wish to became great need more than just what we were born with.
In Colorado's Olympic sports research facilities there was sign: Genes can get you in the Olympics, but we can make you win the gold (or something like that).
Some of us are born with zero quality in a particilar task. Can we excell is such task? Well, most likely no. But, with practice we can improve and be much better than we where before the lessons.
John Camp
04-15-2007, 18:10
A long time ago, after a divorce, I began to do a lot of traveling alone, and decided that the best way to get to know about a place was to take some sort of school there -- a class. That way, you start immediately hanging out with people who live there. So I studied sailing in Key West and SCUBA in the British Virgins and photography in Santa Fe and skiing in Salt Lake and golf in Palm Springs, etc. So I know for sure that you can learn things and even get to a certain kind of skill in them even if it turns out you have no particular talent or even interest in it. (I like the *idea* of sailing more than the actuality; the actuality, for me, is like driving across Kansas in the winter in an RV that's going 7 miles an hour with no exits from the freeway, unless you get unlucky, and then you drown.)
There are two things that really distinguish fine anythings (skiers, photographers, sailors, divers.) First, is a serious passion for it -- you do it all the time, and you work at it. This often starts a feed-back loop in which people express pleasure or interest in your skill, so you work harder at it, and you get even better, and you attract more interest, so you work harder and get better, etc. Second, you have to have some ideas, and the ideas have to have some substance.
If you have those two things, plus a work ethic, you'll do well. If you want to be *successful* at it, in a monetary sense, a large ego and a talent for self-promotion (hidden behind a well-developed camouflage of affability and modesty) also helps. As do good looks.
JC
BillBingham2
04-15-2007, 19:37
JC,
I've seen tons of folks who have huge monkey buck cameras and BIG EGOs and can self-promote. Sadly, many of them would be better off using their cameras as a hammer and learning to build houses for Katrina victims.
Frank,
I think one of the keys in teaching is having the student apply what they have learned in their own way. Find their own voice, look, approach or style. Once this happens, then, IMHO, you have truly taught and the student has truly learned. While I do not think you can teach someone a "Photographic Eye", I do think you can teach them about the journey to find their own. You can expose them to different approach, views, different tools. You can challenge them (4 rolls, one room, one hour, YO!) to expand their horizons with different assignments.
I think student needs to have a voice, a brain, an opinion, something to express. A teachers job is to find out what the students trying to say and help them say it. Be with with Tri-X and some Dektol or watercolors or a welding torch. There are qualities that help make great pictures and good teacher can expose his or her students to ways to discover them within themselves.
B2 (;->
but clearly not everything can be taught. You cannot teach a dog to fly for example.
Everything a teacher knows can be taught. Believing this is identical to
believing into people being able to change. A human is not a dog. Plus,
you find a teaching dog that can fly, and I'll find you a dog student :)
Roland.
JoeFriday
04-15-2007, 20:02
I think the secret to having 'the eye' is understanding how your gear will make the image.. the problem with most amateur photogs is that they don't realize that the human mind sees things very differently than a piece of film or a digital sensor 'sees'.. our minds will single out a specific aspect of a photo opportunity, but the camera doesn't.. learning how to see objectively but knowing how to change your perspective (through distance, depth of field, angle, etc) in a way that is straight forward to the camera is the key
people who are considered to 'have the eye' without any photographic training probably start out with a pretty tight lens and are able to capitalize on the fact that the lens inherently singles out a subject
however, it takes an fairly observant person to extend his skills into other focal lengths and maintain his ability to capture what his mind sees.. I think this can be taught to just about anyone who has the interest, patience, and an open mind.. unfortunately most amateurs don't want to put that much effort into their 'art'.. they consider, as is the argument here, that it's a gift that will always elude them
perhaps even with coaching and experience they might never attain a great degree of artistic talent, just as I'm pretty sure I'll never be a piano virtuoso.. but I feel that most people could learn to have 'the eye' if it was their priority to do so, much as I could learn to be proficient on the piano if I had a teacher and time to practice
FYI, here's are some Wikipedia paragraphs onn the education of Henri Cartier-Bresson (he had, an acknowledged, many teachers):
Cartier-Bresson studied in Paris at the École Fénelon, a Catholic school. His uncle Louis, a gifted painter, introduced Cartier-Bresson to oil painting. "Painting has been my obsession from the time that my 'mythical father', my father's brother, led me into his studio during the Christmas holidays in 1913, when I was five years old. There I lived in the atmosphere of painting; I inhaled the canvases."[citation needed] Uncle Louis' painting lessons were cut short, however, when he died in World War I.
In 1927, at the age of 19, Cartier-Bresson entered a private art school and the Lhote Academy, the Parisian studio of the Cubist painter and sculptor André Lhote. Lhote's ambition was to unify the Cubists' approach to reality with classical artistic forms, and to link the French classical tradition of Nicolas Poussin and Jacques-Louis David to Modernism. Cartier-Bresson also studied painting with society portraitist Jacques Émile Blanche. During this period he read Dostoevsky, Schopenhauer, Rimbaud, Nietzsche, Mallarmé, Freud, Proust, Joyce, Hegel, Engels and Marx. Lhote took his pupils to the Louvre to study classical artists and to Parisian galleries to study contemporary art. Cartier-Bresson's interest in modern art was combined with an admiration for the works of the Renaissance—of masterpieces from Jan van Eyck, Paolo Uccello, Masaccio and Piero della Francesca. Cartier-Bresson often regarded Lhote as his teacher of photography without a camera.
Although Cartier-Bresson gradually began to feel uncomfortable with Lhote's "rule-laden" approach to art, his rigorous theoretical training would later help him to confront and resolve problems of artistic form and composition in photography. In the 1920s, schools of photographic realism were popping up throughout Europe, but each had a different view on the direction photography should take. The photography revolution had begun: "Crush tradition! Photograph things as they are!"[citation needed] The Surrealist movement (founded in 1924) was a catalyst for this paradigm shift. While still studying at Lhote's studio, Cartier-Bresson began socializing with the Surrealists at the Café Cyrano, in the Place Blanche. He met a number of the movement's leading protagonists, and was particularly drawn to the Surrealist movement of linking the subconscious and the immediate to their work. Peter Galassi explains:
The Surrealists approached photography in the same way that Aragon and Breton...approached the street: with a voracious appetite for the usual and unusual...The Surrealists recognized in plain photographic fact an essential quality that had been excluded from prior theories of photographic realism. They saw that ordinary photographs, especially when uprooted from their practical functions, contain a wealth of unintended, unpredictable meanings.[1]
Cartier-Bresson matured artistically in this stormy cultural and political environment. He was aware of the concepts and theories mentioned but could not find a way of expressing this imaginatively in his paintings. He was very frustrated with his experiments and subsequently destroyed the majority of his early works.
From 1928 to 1929, Cartier-Bresson attended the University of Cambridge studying English art and literature and became bilingual.
This thread touches on an interesting, and very old, discussion. Because anyone can operate a camera to make images, it is assumed that everyone is a photographer, so the individual differences in image quality must be due to some kind of innate talent.
Those who operate cameras often don't understand that most of the images influencing our society were created by people who, at some point in their educations, were taught photography, not just how to operate a camera.
Just about any accomplished photographer you encounter will happily talk about his/hear teachers and influences. And the majority of people who do this for a living also served some kind of apprenticeship in which, following their education, their talents and abilities were developed and reinforced with extensive on-the-job training, usually under the mentorship of one or more experienced photographers.
If a "photographic eye" were truly an inborn talent, then teenagers and those in their young 20s would be our finest photographers, just as they have sometimes been our finest musicians -- for they have much of society's passion and drive, not yet tempered by too many setbacks or responsibilities. Yet, nearly all the photographs we admire were taken by people aged 25 and up. So they had to go through an important learning process.
One more Wikipedia bio:
Garry Winogrand (1928, New York City – 1984) was a noted street photographer known for his portrayal of America in the mid twentieth century.
Winogrand studied painting at City College of New York and painting and photography at Columbia University in New York City in 1948. He also attended a photojournalism class taught by Alexey Brodovich at The New School for Social Research in New York City in 1951.
Hi Frank, again this all depends on the view point of different people as what I may find aesthetically pleasing you may not..remember beauty is in the eye of the beer holder
Thanks, DMG, I like that - beauty is in the eye of the beer holder! :)
There is no doubt that skills will improve with practice, but I'm talking about that last 5%. IMO, a gawky dancer can improve with instruction and practice, but will never approach the beauty of a dance performed by a person (yes, who also practices) who FEELS and BECOMES the music. (You all may both types of these people.) The same holds true in music - instrumental and vocal, and in visual arts.
No argument that instruction and inspiration from a talented teacher is necessary or at least helps. But I believe there are inate talents/abilities that are drawn upon. I'm sure you all know someone who as an adult has never progressed beyond stick-figure drawings. Could that person improve with instruction, of course. Could that person, even with endless practice with the most gifted teacher, become a highly talented realistic sketch-artist? IMO, no. It's just not in them. There are inate abilities (genetics) that you can not discount. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I know this sounds fatalistic.
Isn't the art of teaching really about helping students discover their innate talents and, rarely, genius?
And yes, the world is filled with teachers who are neither talented nor geniuses of the craft of teaching.
Those who operate cameras often don't understand that most of the images influencing our society were created by people who, at some point in their educations, were taught photography, not just how to operate a camera.
I found out while attending a course in creative writing, with a lot of younger people in their early twenties, that the passion for writing was not backed up by any passion for reading. Many expressed their wish to learn how to operate their writing skills, and got bored out of their skulls trying to get through the required reading. Which in the end was supposed to help their writing forward.
To me, that felt akin to being a photographer but not being interested in photos.
Stuff ike the tchnical aspects, even the "rules" of composition cand be taught, but clearly not everything can be taught. You cannot teach a dog to fly for example. My question is, can photographic eye, or vision, be taught.
In a word - no.
I have taught in the past. One can copy, one can emulate, but the hardest thing to do is to express who you are. Photograph what is close. A teacher once said to me, "If you look through the viewfinder and you've seen it before, don't press the shutter."
Isn't the art of teaching really about helping students discover their innate talents and, rarely, genius?
And yes, the world is filled with teachers who are neither talented nor geniuses of the craft of teaching.
Sure it is. (That wasn't my question though.)
No doubt.
oftheherd
04-16-2007, 05:15
So does innate ability need instruction to bring it out? Or can no amount of instruction provide great ability to one without innate ability? Can one teach another who for whatever reason is not receptive, no matter the innate ability?
Interesting to ponder.
So does innate ability need instruction to bring it out? Usually but not always. There are examples of natural untaught talents.
Or can no amount of instruction provide great ability to one without innate ability? Improvement yes, Great ability, no. (In my fatalistic viewpoint.)
Can one teach another who for whatever reason is not receptive, no matter the innate ability? Receptivity to teaching is necessary.
Interesting to ponder.
I think you can certainly try.
The success you are met with would naturally depend on the student.
Most people for instance, could probably be taught to run the 100m dash in under 15 seconds (or therabouts) given enough training, proper diet, gym work etc. but only a tiny minority would ever 'have what it takes' to break 10 seconds, and my guess is that mental toughness, will to win, determination and so forth would be a part of that.
Didn't Einstein or Edison say something along the lines of Genius being 99% hard work?
shadowfox
04-16-2007, 09:45
How about: photographic craft can be taught, the art/vision/creativity is innate and must come from within?
Agreed!!
before we both got into taking pictures, I didn't know that my wife has the innate ability to take good pictures.
I shoot a lot more than her, but once in a while when she's in the mood to take pictures, I almost always like her best results more than mine.
How do you explain that?
skibeerr
04-18-2007, 23:10
After teaching Photo I, Photo II & Photo III and other photo courses for 27 years at a number of colleges, universites and art schools, including some of the best in the country, all I can say is that the most important thing you can teach them (IMO) is to question everything they do, and to BREAK the rules. The most difficult students are the ones who are "passionate" about photography yet cannot think of what on earth to photograph.
Pablito,
Have we met......?
I keep on looking without seeing.
For a while I thought that just that other camera would do the trick and I ended with an Ebay store.
But I keep on trying and sometimes amaze myself, there is always hope.
Take care,
Wim
John Camp
04-20-2007, 15:52
The case of Jim Nachtwey is instructive in looking at this interesting question. If you've gone to conflict zones, you'll notice that there are many, many photographers around (and in many cases, especially in Israel, conflicts are deliberately staged for the photographers.) However, with all these people shooting photos of the same general subject matter, a few seem to separate themselves from the crowd, as Nachtwey does. Most of the others are serious, professional photographers, and they know all about techniques and lighting and EVs and so on. But they don't get Nachtwey's photos. And this isn't just in one instance: this is consistently. They don' t have his feel and eye and timing, and they can't and won't get it.
I worked for Miami and then St. Paul newspapers for twenty-odd years (and some of the years were really, really odd.) Over those years, I developed the ability to pick out the photographs of one photographer at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and one at the St. Paul Pioneer-Press Dispatch, without looking at the credit lines. The two photogaphers simply saw things differently, and better, IMHO, than their fully professional and well-trained brethren.
Frank S wonders how you get that last 5%. I don't think it's 5 percent; I think most intelligent, serious people could get into that 5 percent with hard work and diligence. I think the people we look at and really wonder about are probably in the .0001%. Or you could even add a zero or two.
JC
I once taught a small group of students a six-week course on capturing on film a slice of life in Japan, and I tried to explain to the students how to look at things and how to capture emotions, but they got stuck with the technical aspects in the beginning. By talking about emotions and about feelings and about how you "see" things before taking the photo, there is hope that some students pick up the seeds to become creative on their own. Maybe I am too optimistic.
Raid
sepiareverb
04-20-2007, 18:52
Well this has kept going under my radar!
I've been thinking about this a bunch lately, as the semester comes to a close this is one of the things I do trying to figure out what works and what doesn't anymore. Every group is different, and this semester I've had one very good photo 1 class. And why? what made this group so much better? It certainly wasn't that I did anything terribly different than I did in the Fall- I did actually combine 2 lectures into 1, thus they got a little less in-depth instruction/examples of what all the camera controls do to the image.
I firmly believe that these folks are getting good because 1) they are having fun with it- in this group everyone is there and glad they are- even those who are required to take it, and 2) because they have some ability there before they picked up the camera.
A few stories-
First a guy who shot with a 35mm a bit, made some interesting images, but nothing spectacular. Printed pretty well, got the technical stuff right off. Picked up a 127 square format camera- some very cheap plastic kodak- and immediately made wonderful images. He found his format. That first roll had a lot of technical problems- under-exposed & developed, but by roll 2 he was getting on film what he was seeing in his head.
Second, she had never taken pictures other than some point & shoot snaps. Couldn't figure out any of the controls, got the tech stuff down, began to figure out how the camera worked- camera troubles, borrowed a couple of cameras, but she has more great frames per roll than anyone. She can just put an image together without any work.
Both these folks are getting better at printing, better at making images- but I don't know that I really had much to do with this 'eye' that they have. I certainly help them hone it, but they have it walking in the door.
In past years I've had folks who really love the whole process- love the shooting, the printing- even running film- but just can't seem to focus, can't expose well, and can't put an image together in a way that I can find anything good to encourage. The snowy field with the slightly tilted horizon, moose way off in the distance, in the trees, underexposed and underdeveloped, printed so the snow is about 15% grey. And they don't see it as being any worse than any other image they might see. Don't get that the snow should be white not grey- and that by thinking about the exposure the snow can be white. You explain, you show examples, you walk them through the print- yet each time they come from the darkroom the print is going some other direction than the one pointed to.
These folks don't have it coming in the door, and they don't find it while here.
One last- someeon who was making pretty good images all semester, finally jumped in on the 4 rolls in 1 room in 1 hour assignment- got nothing on those 4 rolls. We sat and looked a proofs and I had to agree- nothing to print there for the design or subject. She has done two assignments since, with incredible improvement in the design of the pictures- some landscapes and another group of interiors. Beautiful stuff, and in printing she has begun to ask much more specific questions about getting stuff just how she wants. I think that she had it in her all along- but I as teacher just helped her find where it was. And that is perhaps my role- to help them find what they've got in them to shoot- and sometimes it is great stuff and sometimes it is just snapshots.
My teachers all nudged- suggested directions, pointed at things, let me make the connections, let me find the path to what was in here (points at somewhat empty head) and showed me the technical stuff. What overdeveloped looks like, what happens when you try to print underexposed film. What the filters do. That you can learn- the shooting you can learn- the seeing you can't learn. I think you need to nurture the seeing, to tease it out of yourself.
antiquark
04-20-2007, 19:12
Here's National Geographic's opinion on the matter:
Any advice for a photographer wanting to enter the profession?
... Training can only help to fine-tune a natural “eye,” and although a prospective photographer may have a true passion for the art and craft, if he lacks that eye no amount of training or desire can compensate. Many people must be content to be advanced amateurs rather than professionals.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.