Can a creative eye be LEARNED?

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by ravncat

I believe that it can be learned, absolutely. It's going to come at different speeds for different people, and your teacher is going to matter a lot. As I see it, if you were to graph a learning curve, you'd find that people with talent just have a natural boost on that learning curve - so some people don't have to work very hard to learn it, others really have to work at it.

It's tough because I think we have to answer the question "what exactly is a creative eye?" Composition can certainly be learned, control a camera can be learned. Herein lies the dilemma - creativity itself isn't just a photographic thing - learning a creative eye means learning creativity and applying it to composition. That's often hard in our world for reasons stated above. Children are amazing at lateral thinking, alternate possibilities, infinite answers, most adults have spent a long time being taught there is only one answer. Creativity is shown in several studies to be a lower metric in adults. Often times to be creative, it's simply asking "what if" and trying it, or "I always do it this way, let's try something else".

I think learning creativity is best by doing, you have to create things, and creativity is so often stifled. When it comes to photography, how uncommon is it to hear "That's not a good photograph, the foreground is out of focus, the angle is all off" These compositional rules and formal artistic structural paradigms and graphic language / and grammar are partly against creativity. Just as language itself is. - for example; "Pink and numbers purple bigger world is than to think the fly Horatio cat was?" Nonsense, right? Is there creativity there? Can one create a poem without being creative? Is the act of making a poem itself creative? (let's not even try to answer how creative is it?)

However, we can see from the nonsensical example above that without the vocabulary and grammar, we would likely spew nonsense no matter how creative we are perhaps (and maybe occasionally writing shakespeare). we have to learn the formal so that we can use it to put forth more complex ideas, and then we can find a sense of whimsy, we can instill the meaning we desire. We have to learn not only to be creative, but to be creative under constraint. This is why we hear so often, in so many things, that we must learn the rules before we can break them. (And so I could spew nonsense knowingly)

So I say to those who want to learn a creative eye, to learn about formal visual language, to study images, composition, symbolism. That's where the grammar is. To learn the vocabulary - you've got to learn to see, to really take time and observe - go out into the world without a camera, with ear plugs, find places, and look at what is there, pay attention to where your eye goes. Anyone can learn a second language. A lot of people will begin with "Hello" In photography the basic greeting seems to be "I saw this" or "cute" (And that's why we see so many cat and flower photographs)

I'd suggest that a creative eye in photography is really more than just creativity, it's the ability to speak with imagery. It's a language. Some people may have a hard time, and may give up, thinking "they just can't do it". I'd even go so far as to say some people may have a negative talent, that puts them so far behind that the learning curve is nearly nigh insurmountable, but in the end it comes down to individual will. If you have the will to see through and practice, you will learn. That will is key to learning. It may take time and patience, and like language - the more you speak, the more fluent you become. The more you photograph, the more fluent your eye will become.

Beautifully spoken

[Michael_2010]

Interesting topic...... I've never taken any photography classes, but took quiet a few art classes while in school. In those classes technique could be taught and skills sharpened, but everyone did not walk out of those classes as what one would consider an artist. There were always one or two that would really shine though. That had a lot to do with passion and the willingness to put the hours into developing the skill.

If you tend to be the logical, analytical type, you should look at works that you like and then dissect what it is about some photographs that really grab your attention. Then go about recreating some of those things with the technical skills you have acquired over the past 4 months.

[cyber3d]

EmyB, I strongly recommend you get the book Photographically Speaking by David DuChemin.

"Photographically Speaking is about learning photography’s visual language to better speak to why and how a photograph succeeds, and in turn to consciously use that visual language in the creation of our own photographs, making us stronger photographers who are able to fully express and communicate our vision."

Check it out.

[mosgood]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

Interesting topic...... I've never taken any photography classes, but took quiet a few art classes while in school. In those classes technique could be taught and skills sharpened, but everyone did not walk out of those classes as what one would consider an artist. There were always one or two that would really shine though. That had a lot to do with passion and the willingness to put the hours into developing the skill.

If you tend to be the logical, analytical type, you should look at works that you like and then dissect what it is about some photographs that really grab your attention. Then go about recreating some of those things with the technical skills you have acquired over the past 4 months.

This is so true! Before I picked up a camera, I was using pencils & other artist mediums to paint/draw, whatever. There is a certain amount of creative training that goes with drawing & painting. Some works of mine were more successful than others....more pleasing to the eye, etc. Over time, I tried different ideas & I still do that though I use a camera instead of more traditional artistic tools. Not everyone can be at the very top. Look at Michelangelo...someone with his caliber doesn't come along every day....same with Ansel Adams.

If you look at master artists, they have a style of their own. Look at different kinds of art, not just photos, but paintings, drawings, & even sculpture. That's a pretty good way to learn technique too. Also be sure as some others have suggested above & change your perspective. Don't just shoot at eye level...get down low, go up high, try different angles. That's how you gain a creative eye. Try different things, experiment, sometimes you might have to step out of your comfort zone. But that's how all art is learned...not by doing the same thing over & over, but by trying different ideas until you find something that you find pleasing.

Best of luck!

[drr0b]

Good news for all us logic-brains- every artist has to learn about composition, and for photography, a lot of that is governed by geometry and mathematics; where we put the subject, and how it interacts with the edges of the photo strongly affects how we view the photo. There are certain rules to learn, particularly if you want to break them for deliberate effect.

I second the recommendation for Michael Freeman's book The Photographer's Eye; it tells a lot of the rules, although it is a bit dry.

One simple rule that I learned (possibly from this site, maybe from Scott Kelby, I forget) is to have only one subject until you really know what you're doing (I still usually only have one subject); you should be able to tell what the subject is even from a thumbnail preview.

I have more difficulty with the more abstract techniques of composition, like placing a small yellow thing on one side so it balances a big blue thing on the other side...

[ccting]

I am waiting for a highly intelligent camera that could tell me the best composition and lighting.. It can download all experiences from famous photographers, analyze the current environment, and tell me how to frame the subject, how to place the lighting, when where, the sun comes out, should i facing north or south... just everything...It contains million of brains of super photographers... ;D. The camera should also control the lighting equipments, tripod, lightstand, ... and toy helicopters can hang the softboxes around... recharge the batteries by itself via sun power, download / upload pictures to my website.. Last and not least, the camera can travel by itself without having me to tell it what to do..

I just need to do nothing.. I am still waiting..

[Farmer208Photos]

Originally Posted by ccting

I am waiting for a highly intelligent camera that could tell me the best composition and lighting.. It can download all experiences from famous photographers, analyze the current environment, and tell me how to frame the subject, how to place the lighting, when where, the sun comes out, should i facing north or south... just everything...It contains million of brains of super photographers... ;D. The camera should also control the lighting equipments, tripod, lightstand, ... and toy helicopters can hang the softboxes around... recharge the batteries by itself via sun power, download / upload pictures to my website.. Last and not least, the camera can travel by itself without having me to tell it what to do..

I just need to do nothing.. I am still waiting..

Huh??? Is this supposed to be sarcastic, condesending, mocking or just mean? Maybe I am way off base and I hope so, but it doesn't come across very well.

[Farmer208Photos]

Originally Posted by ravncat

I believe that it can be learned, absolutely. It's going to come at different speeds for different people, and your teacher is going to matter a lot. As I see it, if you were to graph a learning curve, you'd find that people with talent just have a natural boost on that learning curve - so some people don't have to work very hard to learn it, others really have to work at it.

It's tough because I think we have to answer the question "what exactly is a creative eye?" Composition can certainly be learned, how to control a camera can be learned. Herein lies the dilemma - creativity itself isn't just a photographic thing, learning a creative eye means learning creativity and applying it to composition. That's often hard in our world for reasons stated above. Children are amazing at lateral thinking, alternate possibilities, infinite answers, most adults have spent a long time being taught there is only one answer. Creativity is shown in several studies to be a lower metric in adults. Often times to be creative, it's simply asking "what if" and trying it, or "I always do it this way, let's try something else".

I think learning creativity is best by doing, you have to create things, and creativity is so often stifled. When it comes to photography, how uncommon is it to hear "That's not a good photograph, the foreground is out of focus, the angle is all off" These compositional rules and formal artistic structural paradigms and graphic language / and grammar are partly against creativity. Just as language itself is. - for example; "Pink and numbers purple bigger world is than to think the fly Horatio cat was?" Nonsense, right? Is there creativity there? Can one create a poem without being creative? Is the act of making a poem itself creative? (let's not even try to answer how creative is it?)

However, we can see from the nonsensical example above that without the vocabulary and grammar, we would likely spew nonsense no matter how creative we are perhaps (and maybe occasionally writing shakespeare). we have to learn the formal so that we can use it to put forth more complex ideas, and then we can find a sense of whimsy, we can instill the meaning we desire. We have to learn not only to be creative, but to be creative under constraint. This is why we hear so often, in so many things, that we must learn the rules before we can break them. (And so I could spew nonsense knowingly)

So I say to those who want to learn a creative eye, to learn about formal visual language, to study images, composition, symbolism. That's where the grammar is. To learn the vocabulary - you've got to learn to see, to really take time and observe - go out into the world without a camera, with ear plugs, find places, and look at what is there, pay attention to where your eye goes. Anyone can learn a second language. A lot of people will begin with "Hello" In photography the basic greeting seems to be "I saw this" or "cute" (And that's why we see so many cat and flower photographs)

I'd suggest that a creative eye in photography is really more than just creativity, it's the ability to speak with imagery. It's a language. Some people may have a hard time, and may give up, thinking "they just can't do it". I'd even go so far as to say some people may have a negative talent, that puts them so far behind that the learning curve is nearly nigh insurmountable, but in the end it comes down to individual will. If you have the will to see through and practice, you will learn. That will is key to learning. It may take time and patience, and like language - the more you speak, the more fluent you become. The more you photograph, the more fluent your eye will become.

Very articulate and inspiring...thank you!

[JoeA]

Originally Posted by Tzetsin

I think this is where the "take a zillion pictures an you might get 10 shots that are good" mentality comes from. More people than not have this kind of problem i think. I know I do...

Honestly though, I think this is where "experience" comes from. The more I shoot, the more keepers I get, the more I understand what it was that seperated the keepers from the rest, the more I learn, and the more my ability in composition improves.

I think setting goals and specific practice time for certain compositional elements is important to train your mind to look for these kinds of things.

Its long been known that some things come naturally to some people, but its also known that those with talent can only get "so far" on it. If you take two people, one with talent, the other with dedication, and watched their progress over 2 years I'm sure you would notice that the one with talent would quickly exceed the ability of the dedicated person for the first couple months, but slowly the dedicated person would catch up, surpass and blow away the talented person who got lazy because they only relied on their talent.

Talent is like a 'head start" in a race. It will only take you so far and after that, your on equal footing with everyone else.

A long time ago I was a working engineer on Kennedy Space Center. I was working out of a temporary office, sharing a desk with a Black Star photographer who was on assignment for National Geo. We spent several weeks sharing the desk and each week he would get his week's worth of transparencies back from Rochester. He would sort them into two stacks - ones he would submit to the editors and the ones for the trash. Generally out of two or three hundred photos he would select about 20, the rest went into the trash. Of the twenty he chose he said that the editors might pick one or two for publication. Of course, I saw nothing wrong with the ones in the trash, they were works of art but they didn't meet what he thought the editors wanted.

I've always felt that his experience was extreme...but after reviewing my photos, I think my ratio is much worse. And, I am my only critic right now. Of course the ratio of keepers to trash does get better with practice. Luckily digital photography makes getting the experience a lot cheaper than it was then we used film.

[bob1190]

By all standards I am a Novice. I was told by a friend, who did beautiful wedding photograpy, That when he started out in photography he studied post cards and other photographers work to learn composistion. He sured learned well.