I’m not sure if the premise of this article will incur the Wrath of Khan and perhaps it doesn’t belong on a site like this. But it made me think, which in turn made me write, about how easily the word ‘talent’ is bandied about in the photographic community. It has often given me pause when the word ‘talent’ is used in reference to a photographer, one who is undoubtedly skilled and capable at producing beautiful images. The idea that some people have talent where others don’t is a sure-fire way to make us feel insecure about our chosen craft and perhaps exploited into buying ever more product to compensate. But I believe we should not be so intimidated.
Talent is defined as a natural aptitude or skill, an innate gift for something; perhaps an unquantifiable ability that someone is simply born with. It is arguably easy to find true talent in other forms of art. Singers, painters, dramatists, sculptors, linguists, and writers are all crafts where innate talent can be recognised early on. But photography may be a little different.
Sometimes I’ll see some amazing photos and think wow, those are great shots. But before I assign raw talent to the photographer, I wonder how much of it was simply because they made the effort to be in the right place in the right time? How much of it was good processing, or even luck? At some point they had to choose a point of view to shoot the subject from and what position to be in, but isn’t even that something that can be learned, either through inspiration or trial and error?
Good photography, as a craft, requires a certain amount of skill for sure. Yes, of course, someone can have an innate ability to ‘see’ things, to recognise beauty in all its forms, real or abstract. Talented portrait photographers, for instance, can reveal the soul and character of their subject. One can be born with an eye for the picture. Perhaps someone has innately good design skills and can create artistic imagery combining in-camera techniques with skilful post-processing (arguably in such cases artistic talent is dominant over photographic talent).
But these skills can all be learned too. And isn’t that partly what makes photography so accessible to so many? Knowing that with a little learning and lots of practice, sooner or later one can recognise what makes a good shot. I’ve seen many wonderful images by many skilled photographers. But invariably they had each learned to become better. Macro photographers learn to use extension tubes and lightboxes and focus-stacking to make perfect close-ups; landscape photographers make an early morning start to find an already beautiful location in the golden hour so they can capture it on their camera. All of these things at some point required good judgement. Judgement is usually the result of experience. And experience, as Oscar Wilde put it, is the name we give to our failures.
I believe this is true of myself. I always feel like a fraud if someone remarks that I have any kind of talent. I sincerely don’t believe I do (at least not in photography, and of course you may well agree!). Most of the random images I’ve chosen here only demonstrate my range of photographic interests and are not at all indicative of any talent. They are largely the result of being in the right place at the right time, or plain luck, or just feeling that something looked worthy of a capture. That feeling developed over time with a lot of trial and error. Over time I was inspired to use different angles and deconstruct the image into simpler elements. Over time I developed a taste for monochromatic images, questioning if colour added anything to them. Over time I’ve tried to focus on revealing something about the subject rather than simply capturing it. That’s not talent; that’s acquired judgement.
Ok, maybe it helps that I’ve always seen the world in pictures, drawing cartoons on my homework at school or caricatures of my classmates, even making illustrations out of notes to revise from at university. Eons ago in my first apartment in Wales I drew a giant Spiderman swinging from a webline on the bare beige wall (the letting agent wasn’t as impressed as I was). When I write (non-photography) articles I use a lot of imagery, visualising a scenario before putting words to it. The other day my sister chastised me for doodling on her cereal packet while I was waiting for her to get ready. It was in front of me and there was a pen; what’s a guy meant to do?
Some people assess the world visually, some with emotion, some with sound and language. In reality it’s a little of all of those for each of us. Maybe I was born with relatively more visual awareness but that has developed over time too. I wasn’t born with a camera in my hand, nor did I take an interest in photography at an early age. Photography for me became an extension (and a more convenient one at that) of my desire to make pictures. I am still learning with practice what makes a reasonable image. Through photography I have a better appreciation of light and form and composition. Now when I shoot I can more comfortably rely on my instincts about what would make a good image.
My point is that this can be true of each of us. Photography is fortunately a craft where so-called talent is not an absolute requirement. We can learn to develop our skills and make truly wonderful images. We can find a niche that suits us best and realise an innate ability that we didn’t know we had. And I won’t write off the value of our gear since certain types of camera bodies and lenses help create a certain look and help acquire certain images (wildlife, sports, macro and portraiture to name but a few). Gear merely plays a part in our overall journey.
I believe with unrelenting practice, an effort to seek out worthy subjects and perhaps a little luck, all of us can develop our skills and produce magnificent work. Don’t be intimidated by striking images taken by someone else or cower in the mistaken belief that you couldn’t do produce something as impressive. You’re not supposed to replicate someone else’s unique vision anyway; you have plenty of your own. In fact, I’d argue your first obligation is to enjoy yourself; if that doesn’t happen then everything else is simply academic. I hope I don’t offend or upset anyone with this essay; my only wish is to encourage you to have faith that you can excel in your photography. Because if a simple, average nobody like me can learn to take a half decent photo there must surely be reels of hope for everyone else.
Warm Regards,
Sharif.
Enlightening article. We live in an entitled, politically correct world where Junior gets a medal just for showing up. But the truth is (and this applies to any endeavor, artistic or not) that some people have better chops than others – and I’m not just talking about “learned” chops. Sure, there are many aspects of the craft that can be refined through practice, repetition, keen observation – and decisive application. We can learn how to see more effectively, not just look. We can learn how to consistently translate what we’re seeing into a language our cameras can understand. And we can learn how to communicate emotion and intent through a better understanding of technical and artistic concepts . But make no mistake boys and girls, some people are better at doing this than others – and we’re fooling ourselves to think otherwise. Learned skills will only get you so far before instinct and innate creative ability takes hold. Some photographers have a better eye than others, naturally – and no amount of learning can compensate for this. The problem is, photographic talent is a hard thing to both qualify and quantify because it’s not black and white, and it lives on a continuum and within a medium that is highly subjective.
Ironically, we often know artistic talent when we see it. We just have a hard time trying to pigeonhole it into a definition that is universally agreed upon by all. Sure, that framed picture of an urban dumpster selling in a SoHo gallery for $10,000 may not be viewed as talent by some. But to others, it strikes of genius. Compounding matters is the fact that everyone and their Grandmother now has access to a camera-enable device, and everyone likens themselves as an accomplished photographer or artist these days. Whether we like to admit it or not, photography has become a commodity with low perceived value. The Internet is literally flooded with billions of mediocre photographs—made to look disproportionately better with fancy in-app filters. Photographically speaking (thanks to technology), we can in fact, polish a turd nowadays. In this Internet age we live in, it is too easy to confuse renown and popularity with true talent. This Kardashian-esque mentality has made it infinitely harder for those who have true talent to be noticed, because it’s never been harder to break through the static. Becoming noticed these days is often more predicated on being “in the right place at the right time” or on “who you know” rather than by the actual quality of the art. That has always been the case, although it’s magnified by the sheer volume of images out there.
I see many stunning original photographs at art shows that have trouble selling for $50. Those who choose generic cliché subjects like sunrises tend to do better. But that oil painter next door with beginner skills is literally raking in the dough. How many times have we shown breathtaking photographs to people, only to have them say, “your camera takes great pictures!” It’s not easy being a photographer these days, but it’s so much better when we purposely choose to do it for ourselves and nobody else. Like cream, there will always be those with talent who rise to the surface. But for every talented photographer who rises, there are twenty others who will live in obscurity.
Thank you for the comment Daniel. You articulate some very salient points. Those of us who aspire to be more than we are should of course be encouraged but you’re right in observing the deluge of mediocrity against which we struggle to do so.
The best piece of writing I’ve seen for quite some time.
You have encapsulated my own thoughts and feelings on this topic better than I could ever have done.
Hi Sharif,
I’m always think I have a bit of talent in Photography. Before you say I’m too proud of myself, let me give you explanation.
I started learning photography in 2009. I had a superzoom camera that I always put in auto mode because I didn’t know anything about photography theory. Then I started reading a basic photography book. I learned about exposure triangle and some composition rule. Then I took photography class from a local club. It wasn’t a very long lesson. It only last for a week. After learning from that club, I felt my ‘third’ eye was opened. I began to see the world in its form, texture, and shape. My photos was improved after that class.
Besides photography, I also love playing guitar. I started learning in late 1999 from local guitar teacher. I took a lesson from him for about 2 years. Nowadays, I still feel playing guitar is difficult. I can only play simple rock songs. Even tough, I like metal songs, I can’t play it because my playing technique is too low. Fyi, I never stop playing guitar. Whenever I have spare time, I pick up my guitar and play some songs.
From these two hobbies, I know that a bit of talent can be beneficial for learning art. I only learn photography for a short time and my photography skill is improving. If I dedicated more time for photography, I believe I can make better photos.
On the other hand, I love Master of Puppets from Metallica, but to play that song properly I still need to practice the technique first. Only after that, I can learned to play it. I don’t think one week is enough to learn all of that.
On side note, I always think digital camera makes photography so simple. Everyone can be a photographer and learning photography is so easy. Give a child a camera or tablet, put it on auto mode, and he can take family photos that everyone love. On the other hand, give a man a guitar, but don’t teach him anything about guitar or music. I bet he can only make noise that everyone hate.
Hi Johnny,
I enjoyed reading your comment and I am pleased your skills in both photography and music are growing. I think much of what you say is true. Some innate talent is undoubtedly a good thing when learning any art, but practice is needed to develop it and help it flourish. With photography, I think many people can learn the craft through practice, trial and error, and as you say, have their third eye opened for them.
Many thanks and regards,
Sharif.
There are countless thousands of untalented people who achieve competence and even excellence through hard work, study and application.
Talent is something else altogether.
I think perhaps you are confusing working at something new with talent.
The two are only loosely related in that without work, talent can never be fulfilled, but without talent, no amount of work will produce excellence.
www.tmelive.com/index…28/24.html
Scott, thanks for this link. I especially like his self-support suggestions. Too many times I look at my work and think it’s crap, but he’s right – with practice, you get better. Just don’t give up, and don’t ever believe you have nothing more to learn.
“Too many times I look at my work and think it’s crap”
Sadly, too many times it is!
(Speaking only for myself – of course!)
Alpha Whiskey has not only raised the highly pertinent point “how easily the word ‘talent’ is bandied about in the photographic community” — which is a long-standing controversial issue that is rarely discussed — he has very kindly presented this difficult-to-discuss subject to the readers of Photography Life in a manner that is, I think, very encouraging to everyone who is genuinely trying to improve their photography.
The word “talent”, in the context of Alpha Whiskey’s article, means:
1 [noun countable, uncountable] a natural ability to do something well. Examples:
– to have great artistic talent
– a man of many talents
– (talent for something/for doing something) She showed considerable talent for getting what she wanted.
– a talent competition/contest (= in which people perform, to show how well they can sing, dance, etc.)
2 [noun uncountable, countable] people or a person with a natural ability to do something well. Examples:
– There is a wealth of young talent in British theatre.
– She is a great talent.
3 “An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered ‘talent’. Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is developed knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained through learning.[1]” — retrieved from Wikipedia 2015-11-09.
From the above three definitions, I’m not surprised that the word “talent” is so frequently bandied about. We either forget, or we’re too polite, to ask the speaker: What exactly do you mean by your use of the word talent?
Good photography is both an art and a craft: two completely separate and unconnected skills. The production of fantastic works of art is orthogonal to having mastery of photography and vice versa. Similarly, an architect can design fantastic buildings without having to be a qualified builder; and the builder doesn’t need to be a qualified architect in order to construct the building from the architect’s plans.
When we look at the plethora of stunning photographic images that have been captured by an almost endless list of truly talented others, it gives us pause to think long and hard about what we are personally trying to achieve with our photography. Whatever equipment we buy, we cannot possibly begin to compete with the stunning images of our night sky captured via hugely expensive terrestrial and space telescopes; nor the pictures of the Moon taken by those who actually walked on it. Neither can we compete with the expert photographers who already specialise in any field of photography that we can think of.
My definition of talent is very simple: those who believe that they possess talent in a specific area of endeavour actually achieve much less in life than those who have some genuine talent(s) yet spend their whole life refusing to believe that they possess any talents. This perhaps illustrates the huge difference between the word “talent”, which is a qualitative word, and the quantitative terms with which it is far too frequently conflated: skill; expertise; level of professionalism.
As always, Sharif, thank you very much indeed for sharing your thoughts, experiences, and beautiful images,
Pete
Thank you Pete! I appreciate your comprehensive feedback! :)
I enjoyed the article Sharif. I don’t know what I think about innate talent for photographers, but I know that practice improves my work!
My wife paid me a compliment a few days ago when reviewing the latest batch of photos (mainly of our little boy) – “I think every new batch of photos we review is your best batch yet!” It’s nice to know that I’m both more satisfied with what I’m making and the primary consumer of my photos agrees with me.
I’m curious what Verm, Nasim, and the other professionals on this site think about your take. Verm’s so self effacing in his articles I’m sure he’d make a joke of it, but I’d like to know how does his beautiful wildlife work and his many thousands of hours view your take on talent.
Thank you Sean. I’m glad your photography is progressing to you and your wife’s growing approval!
The PL team are very accomplished photographers who are way out of my league; I had the pleasure of meeting some of them in Colorado in September and it was a very humbling experience. I have no idea what their take would be but given their skills it wouldn’t surprise me if they felt they didn’t need one :)
Regards,
Sharif.
I really enjoyed Sharif’s take. I would say I fall into Sharif’s “acquired judgment” category. When I feel my images succeed it is usually through tons of practice, study, putting myself in the right place, waiting for the right light and persevering when it doesn’t go right. My girlfriend Dawn is an amazing photographer with a terrific ability to stand inches from me and at the same exact moment snap a much better photo. Was she born with a better eye, or did she just practice more?
I’m not sure I believe such a thing as talent exists, much as I don’t believe in the concept of “deserve.” As a formally trained scientist and son of a mechanical engineer, the left side of my brain is perhaps overdeveloped or at least the only side utilized. Dawn, on the other hand, is almost entirely right-brained, a creative’s creative. (Between us we have an entire brain!). Because I preferentially break things down into equations and such, I tend to think of “talent” as consisting of favored genetics combined with an overwhelming desire to excel, not some magic essence some of us have and others don’t. Even if I wanted to outrun Usain Bolt I never could because of his superior genetics. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are other humans out there with better genetics than his that still won’t outrun him because they don’t have the determination or desire to do so. I was quite successful in the rockclimbing world in my day, though when put in the sports medicine lab and tested I was declared average for a male my age. “You mean average for an athlete my age, right?” Nope. Average for any American my age, even a desk jockey. Damn did I hate being called average. Fortunately my performance on the rock was above average because my determination was not factored into the test results.
What we might consider talent in photography might eventually be broken down as superior synapse function and right-brain utilization combined with a burning desire to express ourselves or tell an important story. Though Dawn thinks with the right side of her brain, she has spent a lifetime studying art, design, music, composition and the like. We spend mornings pouring through the works of great photographers – Avedon, Weston, Witkin, Watson, Bourke-White, Newman, Lange, Parks, Curtis, Capa and on and on. It’s great inspiration. Whether they possessed some “talent” the rest of don’t have is debatable. Wasn’t isn’t in question is they all worked exceedingly hard to produce the work the did.
Summing up, I’d say I don’t believe such a thing as talent exists except in one case: when Dawn stands right next to me and captures a way better image of the same scene, she has an incredible talent for pissing me off :)
Cheers,
Verm
A fascinating and salient take. Thank you John! :)
Funny and have similar thoughts about this…
Nice article, really enjoyed reading it and had a good laugh with the Spiderman-on-the-wall.
I guess talent can be somehow compared to knowledge … it’s worth nothing if you don’t work on it, improve it and get more experience.
I’d say talent is like the 1% when you want to get to 101% at what you do. Hard work can possibly get you as far as talent, and given a “lazy talent”, even farther.
That’s a good way of looking at it, Marcos. I’m pleased you enjoyed the article. Many thanks :)
One of the best articles I’ve read here. Simple and true. Here in Brazil I always say that photography is an elite profession. Not always the person may have a good camera, traveling the world and photographing in Indonesia and the Himalayas or even in Peru or in the interior of Brazil and more I ask you, participants in the Blog. Who of you, honestly, know these photographers: Vilmos Zsigmond, Vittorio Storaro, Conrad Hall, Janusz Kamiński, Gordon Willis. The cinema has greatly influenced in the way we see through the lens … even if we think that is not true. Who did not see: ET, The list of Schidler, The Godfather, Buch Cassidy … etc. The picture beyond the technical study have to have a cultural study and this especially in a third world country like Brazil … it’s very difficult. Talent comes with the cultural heritage. But also I believe in talent, and talent is something more, something sensational we can not explain. Some photographers for me are talented and brilliant and then from a list as Cartier Bresson, Sebastiao Salgado, Steve McCurry and some others … but this is another story. We all have plenty of opportunities to make great photographs. Happy birthday! Great post.
Thank you Andre! Your observations are very interesting. It’s funny, whenever I watch a movie I always find myself observing the lensing skills of the director/cinematographer.
Btw had the great pleasure of visiting Brazil this year. It is a beautiful country. Thank you for your comments :)
Regards,
Sharif.
When you come to Brazil send me an email, maybe I can help in something.
Not sure when I’ll re-visit but I may just do that, thank you, Andre. Likewise if you’re ever in London… :)
A really well thought out article!…. Most important take away for me has been “I’d argue your first obligation is to enjoy yourself; if that doesn’t happen then everything else is simply academic” …..
Exactly Mayer! Thank you; )
I love your humility and your point of view! I do feel somewhat intimidated by other people’s work and equipment. But I love the rush I get from photographing something beautiful, often at the dawn of the day. Part of the draw of Photography for me is that no picture can really be exactly duplicated. You are in that spot, at that time of day, with those clouds or light or fog or whatever and it’s yours and yours alone. So your words in this article and the one before really help to remind me why I love to do it and not to let the expensive equipment (that I’ll never own) discourage me from continuing to learn and grow and shoot, shoot, shoot. Photography so much more than the equipment or comparing ourselves to what others do. I will continue to enjoy the work of others but not let it detract from my joy.Thank you!
Thank you Susan! Don’t worry about the equipment, it’s just a tool to realise yr vision. Keep shooting and having fun! :)
Regards,
Sharif.
Thank goodness I am the follower of Photographylife !!!!!!
Yes!!!