Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!




Photography just comes naturally to the master artist

Posted by K-9, 05 November 2013 · 1,374 views

I feel like the photographer who is a skilled artist pays more careful attention to composition and subject matter, while the non-artist focuses on the technical details of the shot. The artist puts the camera to their eye and it's framing they're thinking about, while the non-artist is thinking about the settings of the camera. The artist uses the technical aspects as a secondary tool, and the non-artist goes into every shot with "which setting should I tweak right now?". The artist can take any type of camera, pick it up for the first time, and press the shutter immediately, snapping the intended and perfectly composed shot first try. The non-artist grabs a new camera, but has to look it over carefully and make sure everything is set before pressing the shutter.

Both can love photography, but to the artist, it comes more naturally, and the non-artist has to work a little harder. Unfortunately, the non-artist may never become the artist. They may never pick up that almost instinctual vision.

I think it also goes beyond professional vs. amateur, as certainly some who are paid for their work must work very hard to get it, learn their photography by rote, and do not necessarily have an artist's flow or produce ideal results. Then, there are those who do not receive pay for their work, but their end results are more effortlessly attained than the paid professional. On the flipside to that, I'm sure there are natural artists who have gone on to become successful professionals.

I guess the moral of the story is to just shoot, and if you're still at the point of thinking too heavily about your gear, setting up the shot, or tinkering in post production, then maybe you're not at the point where you've mastered the "art" of photography.




Hm. I get what you're saying, and I do believe there are people who have a natural eye. For them, photography does seem to come easy. But somehow I don't think they're free to get that perfectly composed shot until the technical side is second nature to them. Composition is more than just framing and lines and shapes--depth of field and focus play a big part as well, and until you have control of those tools (and others) your pictures can still look like crap, no matter how artistic you are. Would your argument hold up in a different medium, I wonder? Could you have amazing artistic vision and expect to pick up a paintbrush with little to no knowledge of the medium and produce a Van Gogh or Magritte, for instance? 

 

It seems like there needs to be a marriage of technical details and artistry to get a really masterful and well-composed image. Some of the most amazing photographers I know (or know of) are very careful about how they set up their shots. I have no doubt they can shoot from the hip and get amazing images, but I can appreciate how much thought and planning can go into their very artistic images, and I don't think it makes them any less artistic.

 

And to prove your point, I've also seen photographers who seem to have mastered lighting and camera, but their images are just so...blah. Or...fake. I can't think of another word. One local photographer here comes to mind, and he loves to shoot beautiful women, but they're always so contorted and weird. And not in an artistic way. :) It's like he's trying to shoot high fashion magazine models, but can't quite pull it off. (How rude of me, eh?)

 

I've probably missed your point. But I will say that I struggled for a long time to learn my camera and even longer to develop an "eye" (still working on it). Two books that gave me hope that I could be an artist (because I couldn't quite see myself as one) were The Talent Code and Talent Is Overrated, both recommended by Roberto Valenzuela, a pretty amazing wedding photographer who was initially told not to quit his day job because he sucked so bad. He theorizes that you can learn to be an artist through practice, which is what he did. And what I'm trying to do.

 

Phew! Sorry about the long response. Good post though because it made me think! And I hope it didn't come off as argumentative or confrontational--I just write to find out what I think sometimes...

  • Report

The artistic vision gives an advantage when it comes to seeing and composing and goes a very long way when using small sensors and slow lenses. To get the really emotive eye-catching shots with a SLR I think one must also understand perspective, DOF and most of all light.

 

The person with the innate artistic vision still has the advantage over the tech-head because the mechanics are easier to learn than it is to train the eye.

 

I have more than once lent a camera to a friend who makes stunning photographs with their own P&S and want to try a DSLR only to have them come back and complain about how blurry things are and why do they miss focus, it was sharp in the finder etc. Then we sit down and look at what their problems are. Their problems almost always come from a lack of understanding how the aperture controls the DOF and trying to focus and reframe. Most of them then try again and come back with well framed *and* usable pictures.

It is almost impossible to explain the difference between the two types of camera before they try, because the innate artistic is seldom naturally analytical.

 

nbanjogal's example of the local photographer brings to mind the problem of the shooter who still has to think about using the camera and lighting instead of the equipment being an extension of the photographer. He is tense and therefore his models can't relax. It can be that he shoots by numbers and is lacking in vision, or it seems more probable to me that he has a vision but the tech gets in the way.

 

I have to agree that the most important thing is to just shoot, but also to take the time to evaluate your shots when you come home and think about what could have been better.

 

I have been a bit longwinded, but I hope I got my meaning through.

  • Report
Thanks for taking time on both your comments. You don't sound confrontational at all nbanjogal. I definitely see your viewpoint. Good point about how someone can master lighting and the technical aspects of their camera, but can't output anything notable.

I don't see that there is anything wrong with learning the craft and later mastering the art of photography, if you didn't have the best skills right out of the gate, but as Merco says, it comes easier to those that already have the vision. I didn't mean to sound as if it came so naturally that one is able to get perfectly exposed, sharp and well composed images first try. An artist needs repetition and trial and error just like anyone else.

A good deal of my best work is when I really took the time to make sure every setting was perfect, but I've also done some great stuff with just flicking the aperture setting quickly and then firing off the shutter in seconds. And I've also done projects where I thought about them for days, took hours setting them up, thought I had everything down pact, and then the photos came out all wrong.

To the artist, it's not about the tool, settings, preparation, or how much you know or have learned the craft, it's more about how you see the image.
  • Report
K-9, I agree, you have to see it first & then use your technical skills to capture it!
    • K-9 likes this
  • Report

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627 28 2930
31