Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: David Watson on February 18, 2012, 05:35:59 am

Title: Its all about the small details
Post by: David Watson on February 18, 2012, 05:35:59 am
Mark Dubovoy states, in his interesting and enjoyable piece, that "it is all about the small details" and then goes on (paraphrased by me) to say that you cannot be a great or even good photographer unless you spend years and years of painstaking work to master "the basics".

This is what he says:

At a recent workshop, Michael Reichmann mentioned "The 10,000 hour rule".  What this rule states is that to master the basics of most worthwhile human endeavors takes 10,000 hours (roughly 4-5 years of pretty much full time attention).  The point he was making is that one cannot grab a camera, take a course or two,  or read a few books and be a good photographer.  To master the basics takes 10,000 hours.

(For those readers that sometimes take things too literally, no, I am not saying it takes exactly 10,000 hours and not a minute less to master something.  I am saying that I thoroughly agree that it takes years of  time and dedication to become reasonably proficient).


Whilst in no way disagreeing that one way to become a truly great photographer is to spend this amount of time Mark does not mention the fact that this alone does not in any way guarantee greatness or even moderate competence.  Without an eye and talent these years of effort are largely a waste of time. Mark states categorically that the only way to become a "reasonably proficient" photographer is to spend years mastering the craft.  I so disagree that this is the only way to produce great photography or art using a camera.

I have two objections really to this way of thinking.

Objection number one is that it reduces the pool of possibly great photographers to those with a good eye, talent and the time and money to spend years perfecting their craft.

Objection number two is that all other photographers who do not do this "apprenticeship" must therefore by definition be poor photographers - not true.

For years and years we part time and amateur photographers laboured under the myth that even the best amateur was not as good as the lowliest "pro".  The "pro's" protected their pre-eminance by virtue of the necessarily high degree of craft skills required to be a proficient "film" photographer (no argument with you there Mark).  What has changed is the technology both in terms of capture and printing.  So many of the craft elements of photography have been automated or made easier to use that the learning curve is now actually quite short in terms of becoming proficient at the craft.  That does not however mean that being able to competently use a digital camera and make a good print results in a great photograph.  It does however mean that it is easier for someone with an eye for a good image to take that through to an excellent finished print.

Finally I would just like to emphasis that I am not in any way disagreeing with Mark's message regarding attention to detail but simply to his assertion that one nowadays necessarily has to go through years of pain in order to be just proficient.
  



Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: stamper on February 18, 2012, 06:00:31 am
His article seemed more balanced than the previous one. Did he edit it in anyway because of the furore of the previous one? I hope not  despite the criticism it received though I understand it. Possibly this one would have sufficed if the other hadn't been published? Overall a more thought proving one. Possibly the practitioners of hyper focal distance and where to focus will be a bit disturbed but I think he is portraying a more reasonable approach to this thorny issue.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 18, 2012, 06:10:55 am
Hi,

I also enjoyed Mark's second article. It is especially fascinating to read about the amount of time and effort known masters of the art invest in post processing the image.

Regarding hyperfocal distance and DoF scales I would believe that most photographers reading these forums are aware of the facts. Now, sharpness and unsharpness are both tools of the trade. Total sharpness from foreground to background may be important at times to times but many times we want to use selective focus instead. But deploy DoF scales or falsely calculated hyperfocal distances uncritically and we end up with pictures lacking focus.

Best regards
Erik


His article seemed more balanced than the previous one. Did he edit it in anyway because of the furore of the previous one? I hope not  despite the criticism it received though I understand it. Possibly this one would have sufficed if the other hadn't been published? Overall a more thought proving one. Possibly the practitioners of hyper focal distance and where to focus will be a bit disturbed but I think he is portraying a more reasonable approach to this thorny issue.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 18, 2012, 08:52:15 am
To put it simply:

There is no such thing like a free lunch in art.

But to me it is also clear, that intensity has not at all only a technical side,
(I also don't believe Mark intended such a message - his article is far from that).

But I also believe with the new upcoming about 40 MPix DSLRs and the next technology hysteria there will be many who hope to get such a free lunch.

And:
IMO Intensity is definitely possible with inferior equipment and technique,
but it will be harder to impress the naive with that,
since the intensity must come from something different then.

Of course one might impress the super-naive with just sloppy technique, but thats a special case. :P

Its a special challenge to create intensity with low end technique and technology.

Thats actually the reason why I bought a Zeiss Ikon Folder camera - no distance measurement, no exposure measurement, crappy viewfinder .... quite an amusing and educative experience ....
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: dchew on February 18, 2012, 11:15:25 am
I have two objections really to this way of thinking.

Objection number one is that it reduces the pool of possibly great photographers to those with a good eye, talent and the time and money to spend years perfecting their craft.

Objection number two is that all other photographers who do not do this "apprenticeship" must therefore by definition be poor photographers - not true.

In Stephen King's book, On Writing, he separates writers into four groups:

He then goes on to say, "...while it is impossible to make a competent writer out of a bad writer, and while it is equally impossible to make a [genius] writer out of a really good one, it is possible, with lots of hard work, dedication and timely help, to make a good writer out of a merely competent one."

Like so much of the rest of that book, I think it applies to photography too; I highly recommend it.  I also think this is in the context of what Mark is trying to say.

Dave
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 18, 2012, 12:09:57 pm
Enthusiasm in photography does not really qualify you to write about it. From the essay:

Quote
When Ansel was dissatisfied and decided to make his own tests, he discovered that he got much better results using a different ISO.  He typically rated Tri-X somewhere between ISO 160 and ISO 240 based on testing each emulsion according to his own methodology for testing film. This gave him far superior shadow detail versus using the film according to the manufacturer's specifications. He also discovered that using dilutions, agitating procedures and processing times that were quite different from the manufacturer's specifications he got better results. Finally, he developed (pun intended!) fixing and rinsing procedures for better archival permanence of the original negatives.

But the methodology needed to be refined further. This is a long story and there is not enough space in a short essay to go through it all. To summarize: As we all know, after many years of hard work, this culminated in the invention of the Zone System.  Working with the Zone System one often ends up with complete departures in ISO settings, exposure (versus the standard exposure indicated by a light meter) and development times that are drastically different from the manufacturer's recommendations.

Ansel Adams himself states that his work is just applied sensitometry. He actually took the work of others to formulate the Zone system. He says the Zone System was just an attempt to help photographers visualize the relationship between exposure and development. He, unlike the author, credits his work along side Fred Archer. All of the factors the author states that Adams used, agitation etc., were known before the Zone System. Adams admits to reading the work.

As far as single development recommendations, Kodak actually does not do that in their data sheet and the large volume of material they released to help photographers. If you understand film processing and tone reproduction, you also understand the what the published speed is. The large-format Tri-X I ever used was rated at 320 ISO by Kodak. If you understand the idea is a personal exposure index as Adams did, simply the shutter/lens/development combination can easily get you to working at lower ISOs. That does not invalidate the published speed. It also ignores all the publications Kodak made that states recommended film speed is based on certain criteria and how the criteria changes that.

While the author is correct that it is important to control the photographic process, he seems to be creating myths around photographers at the same time and giving a very distorted view of Ansel's contribution at the expense of others.

I am glad Mark enjoys photography and I am glad he has found a frame in which to define it for himself. However, this is simply a personal frame. I see no historical basis for his claims--how does he explain how Horst became one of the greatest fashion photographers when his fist job he got he never even used a camera, I believe the employer was Paris Vogue. There are all levels of technical skills in the work of photographers that are historically important.

I also do not see what he sees as "obvious" conclusions. I prefer the snow image with the "dimple." I do not find his canyon image very natural--the colors are over saturated. Nor can he claim that the highlights in his sand shot actually "make" the shot.

This article would have been better if he constrained it to what he personally does and likes. Invoking others to try to support his opinions does disservice to those photographers.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2012, 12:42:33 pm
Two kind requests to those who quote others:

1. Please make sure we know who you are quoting (and not just who, but also from which post)

2. Please SEPARATE the quote from your own comments, so that we know who is saying what.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: langier on February 18, 2012, 12:49:46 pm
Mark nails it, IMO!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 18, 2012, 04:15:59 pm
Much better essay than the first one because of the absence of silly stuff that was adequately documented on the earlier threads.  Two quick observations.

1.  The "10,000 hour" really applies to the performing arts and sports (and probably other stuff) where great manual dexterity and muscle training are required.  Playing a violin is much different than using a Nikon/Canon/__________ (fill in the blank with the camera name you use).  Mark goes over a number of things that need to be dealt with both big and small in capturing a good image.  It's arguable that 100 or 10,000 hours will make things much better.

2.  Ansell Adams zone system was well founded in science.  He and others who used the zone system understood densitometry and the chemical reactions needed to obtain a certain curve for the film and how that could be reproduced from negative to positive (see the appendicies in "The Negative").  Print deterioration was well known much before the Adams and there is an extensive German technical literature that both Adams, Kodak and others borrowed on to help address this matter.  Ultimately, sodium sulfite soak was settled upon. 
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Schewe on February 18, 2012, 04:34:09 pm
1.  The "10,000 hour" really applies to the performing arts and sports (and probably other stuff) where great manual dexterity and muscle training are required. 

Actually, I think Mike got the 10K rule from aviation....as in having 10K hours in a plane to have a high level of flying proficiency...at least that's what I recall him saying in our Camera To Print & Screen tutorial....

I think the main take away is practice makes perfect...and if you spend 10K hours doing ANYTHING you'll be a lot better at the end than you were in the beginning.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2012, 05:02:23 pm
The "10,000-hour rule" comes from the great book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. It is definitely not just about (manual) dexterity, but skills in general. It certainly does not take that long to learn how to operate your camera (600-page manuals notwithstanding ;)), but to learn everything else there is to learn about photography. He used examples of Bill Gate, the Beatles, the guy who founded Oracle (I think), etc.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: 32BT on February 18, 2012, 05:30:16 pm
There once was an interesting documentary in this regard about Vanessa Mae, called The Making of Me.
It deals with the question of nature vs nurture in talented people. An excerpt can be found here (http://www.vanessa-mae.nu/The_Making_Of_Me.htm). She visits amongst others a well known Music Psychology researcher who asks her to estimate the number of hours of practice she had during her entire life:

quote:

she comes with an estimation of 7107 hours:

'that is not too bad, is it,' she says 

John Sloboda tells her that this number fits well in the middle of estimates of how many hours of practice it takes a child prodigy to develop into a professional musician.

Then Vanessa-Mae argues against the views of John Sloboda that musicality and interpretation can't be trained but must be genetically inherited, according to her views. Sloboda answers that he believes we all have these capacities and that somehow only a few mange to unlock these. He estimates nurture and training to be 75 % over nature. Vanessa-Mae rejects, saying that music is about emotion and that we are not robots, she says: 'I think it is belittling that a player is here, only because of the hours spent practicing.'
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 18, 2012, 06:00:24 pm
The "10,000-hour rule" comes from the great book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. It is definitely not just about (manual) dexterity, but skills in general. It certainly does not take that long to learn how to operate your camera (600-page manuals notwithstanding ;)), but to learn everything else there is to learn about photography. He used examples of Bill Gate, the Beatles, the guy who founded Oracle (I think), etc.
Yup, I read the book and I disagree with my good friend Malcolm on the expansive definition of "10,000 hours" to gain expertise.  True for some areas but not others.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Schewe on February 18, 2012, 06:58:41 pm
The "10,000-hour rule" comes from the great book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

While he certainly popularized the 10K Rule, I'm not so sure he originated it...

This article (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/how-to-raise-a-superstar/) in Wired seems to suggest it was the work of K. Anders Ericsson, a pyschologist at Florida State University. I also remember hearing abut the 10K Rule in the mid 1990's (I think...my mid-term memory sometimes fails me :~)

But in any event, the operative concept is practice makes perfect...and it takes a lot of work to excel.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: eleanorbrown on February 18, 2012, 07:02:58 pm
I'm going to have to agree with you Keith.  We can talk about the quality of our pixels, cropping an image one billionth (well not quite ;-)  of an inch. carrying our camera strap a certain special way and any of the millions of other things that we photographers/artists call "necessary", but what can't be taught is that magical "something" that must be there in one's mind and heart and soul.  I like most artists, have things I always obsess about...some details make my image better, but in many cases it really doesn't make that much difference one way or another.  At least this is the way I personally see the making of "art"....:-) Eleanor

My experiences as a painter, illustrator and photographer and of painters, illustrators and photographers have led me to believe that those most likely to succeed are those who have ability that cannot be explained by education and or experience.

Call it what you will.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: daws on February 18, 2012, 07:18:51 pm
The "10,000-hour rule" comes from the great book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. It is definitely not just about (manual) dexterity, but skills in general. It certainly does not take that long to learn how to operate your camera (600-page manuals notwithstanding ;)), but to learn everything else there is to learn about photography. He used examples of Bill Gate, the Beatles, the guy who founded Oracle (I think), etc.

In art school in the '70s I remember the "10,000 drawings" rule, variously interpreted as the number of drawings/paintings it takes to become a competent artist, or the number of "bad drawings" every artist must get past before reaching proficiency.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 01:57:54 am
This article (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/how-to-raise-a-superstar/) in Wired seems to suggest it was the work of K. Anders Ericsson, a pyschologist at Florida State University.

For more context see The New York Times Sunday Review "Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html)

Also, "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell explicitly references Ericsson's work in the end notes: "One of (many) wonderful articles by Ericsson and his colleagues..." (http://books.google.com/books?id=3NSImqqnxnkC&lpg=PT172&dq=One%20of%20(many)%20wonderful%20articles%20by%20Ericsson%20and%20his%20colleagues&pg=PT172#v=onepage&q=One%20of%20(many)%20wonderful%20articles%20by%20Ericsson%20and%20his%20colleagues&f=false)

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 02:21:04 am
I also do not see what he sees as "obvious" conclusions. I prefer the snow image with the "dimple."
So does he - "If you see what I see, version one is perfectly balanced."
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 02:31:24 am
Mark Dubovoy -- "Cartier-Bresson was..."
What's the source? Mark Dubovoy doesn't tell us how he knows those things about Cartier-Bresson.

Mark Dubovoy -- "The above words by Henri Cartier-Bresson..."
What's the source? Mark Dubovoy doesn't tell us how he knows those words were said by Cartier-Bresson.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: stamper on February 19, 2012, 05:22:53 am
I think that it would be more appropriate to state it as the 10 year rule? After all who would be able to count all the hours.  The second essay hasn't - so far - produced the controversy of the first, which is good. As to to what Slobodan said he is correct about quoting. On another forum I was pulled up by a moderator for quoting fully a post of another poster because it took up too much band width. Ironically a couple of days later the moderator picked a sentence from someone elses post and replied to it. No reference to the original and quoted out of context when I finally tracked down the post. You can't win!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 19, 2012, 05:56:01 am
10.000 forum posts ....
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Hans Kruse on February 19, 2012, 07:40:45 am
10.000 forum posts ....

LOL!!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 19, 2012, 08:56:18 am
I think I've kept out of this so far -  but hell, Keith and Eleanor are obviously right. It's what I've maintained all my life - you can or you can't, and you're born with it or without it, for better or for worse, and in many cases (photography) it might have been a blessing to have been born without it.

The pretence that all it takes is time is bullshit; stinks of the snake-oil salesman.

Yes, you can polish your talent if you have it, but you sure as hell can't create it. I'm still waiting for the time I might be able to tune EADGBE to anything, never mind perfection! (Sensibly, I gave up that little adventure by my late teens.)

Nobody can have everything, and that doesn't mean exclusively governed by the wallet.

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Craig Arnold on February 19, 2012, 10:27:26 am
Before everyone gets too carried away with dissecting MR's "10000 hour" comment, he never intended it as anything other than a throwaway reference to Malcom Gladwell's book "Outliers".

If a conversation about that really needs to take place here, may I recommend reading it first? As no-one who has currently given their opinion seems to have the slightest clue about the origin of Michael's reference.

As to Mark's articles, well the second one was quite amusing, but nothing on the belly laughs the first one induced. The great thing about the internet is that I have no idea whether the articles were intended as parody or were serious. I'd rather not know. A great read either way! :P
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 10:55:12 am
On another forum I was pulled up by a moderator for quoting fully a post of another poster because it took up too much band width. ... No reference to the original and quoted out of context when I finally tracked down the post. You can't win!
False dichotomy.
We need to see just enough of the original text to understand the meaning of the words in context. We need a reference to the original so we can check that words are not being put into someone's mouth (or that mistakes have not accumulated through "chinese whsipers" or that it was not all just a misunderstanding from the beginning).
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 11:17:11 am
Before everyone gets too carried away with dissecting MR's "10000 hour" comment ... If a conversation about that really needs to take place here, may I recommend reading it first?

Here's the very short excerpt - "Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice" (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html)

Here's the one line quote - "Hence, continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience and in those domains where performance consistently increases aspiring experts seek out particular kinds of experience, that is deliberate practice ... --activities designed, typically by a teacher, for the sole purpose of effectively improving specific aspects of an individual's performance."

Let's correct some basic misunderstandings:

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 19, 2012, 11:30:09 am
... As to to what Slobodan said he is correct about quoting. On another forum I was pulled up by a moderator for quoting fully a post of another poster because it took up too much band width...

Ah, yes! Thanks stamper for reminding me of my third pet peeve (a.k.a. kind request to posters):

3. Please do not quote the whole text (especially not the lengthy ones) only to add such a profound comment as:"+1", "Well said", "I concur" or similar. Quite often it is a "cruel and unusual punishment" to read certain posts the first time, let alone being forced to glance at at again in someone's elaborate reply.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 19, 2012, 12:29:11 pm
Ah, yes! Thanks stamper for reminding me of my third pet peeve (a.k.a. kind request to posters):

3. Please do not quote the whole text (especially not the lengthy ones) only to add such a profound comment as:"+1", "Well said", "I concur" or similar. Quite often it is a "cruel and unusual punishment" to read certain posts the first time, let alone being forced to glance at at again in someone's elaborate reply.




Yes, I've often seen reference made to that line... so, just for the record, what does constitute usual punishment? I'm obviously not into S&M or anything of that ilk, so forgive my innocence as revealed in the question.

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 19, 2012, 01:04:27 pm
It is a legal term. From Wikipedia entry (http://goo.gl/nu7z): "Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person. These exact words were first used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and later were also adopted by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) and British Slavery Amelioration Act (1798)..."
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 19, 2012, 01:14:22 pm
It is a legal term. From Wikipedia entry (http://goo.gl/nu7z): "Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person. These exact words were first used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and later were also adopted by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) and British Slavery Amelioration Act (1798)..."



Obviously flawed: how can slavery ever be ameliorated?

I understand it's a legal term, but Wiki's a recent reference and I don't think it goes down for me as case history. However, I shall consult my definitive Erle Stanley Gardner.

;-)

Rob C


Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 05:28:26 pm
Mark Dubovoy -- "The above words by Henri Cartier-Bresson..."

As far as I can tell something quite like "the above words" appeared in French (http://expositions.bnf.fr/hcb/lecon/index.htm) in an interview in Le Monde of 5 September 1974, but in context it seems that Cartier-Bresson was trying to say something about photography as personal vision in contrast to photography as evidence -

Quote
Dans une interview au Monde du 5 septembre 1974, il insiste sur la nécessité de "s’abstraire, [de] ne pas essayer de prouver quoi que ce soit". « La photo ne veut rien dire, elle ne dit rien, elle ne prouve rien (…) Avoir investi dans la photographie cette valeur de “preuve”, affirme-t-il, a créé la concurrence et les photos “bidons”. Quand il s’agit d’une vision personnelle, il n’y a pas de concurrence. Ce qui compte, ce sont les petites différences, les “idées générales” ne signifient rien. Vivent Stendhal et les petits détails ! Le millimètre crée la différence. Et tout ce que prouvent ceux qui travaillent dans la “preuve”, c’est leur démission devant la vie. »

Quote
... When it comes to a personal vision, there is no competition. What matters, it's the little differences, "general ideas" mean nothing. Live Stendhal and the little details! The millimeter makes the difference. And all that those working on "evidence" prove is that they are resigned to life.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Tony Jay on February 19, 2012, 06:05:13 pm
Couple of points:

Having read MD's second article I cannot agree with some of the interpretations so far. In no way does Mark ever suggest that mere time will guarantee competence. It is possible that in different endevours and with different individuals more or less time is required to reach real competence.
However the principle stands. In my field of endevour, medicine, I see many junior doctors with real talent who make appalling errors of judgement because of lack of experience. With time they learn and their discernment improves. Some senior collegues I work with are poor clinicians and mere time has not improved their clinical ability. One can hone talent and ability but mere time cannot substitute for its lack.

These articles are not academic peer-reviewed level of writing and documentation. We have read MD's opinion. If he was forced to reference every comment the article would be substantially bulkier with no discernable benefit to most of the readers.
MD's opinions are just that - his opinions. Test his assertions if you dare. Some may stand. Some may fall. Your opinions may differ from MD's but lets test what he is saying with our photographic tools (howsoever defined) rather than with sniping comments. These comments say more about you than MD.

My $0.02 worth

Regards

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 19, 2012, 06:55:46 pm
+1.

I personally think that there is no such thing as inborn talent. Two traits that are mostly inherited are intelligence and physicality; without physicality you're not going to be a pro athlete. Without intelligence of a certain level you probably (I can't say "certainly') aren't going to become a famous artist or scientist. But most famous artists (since we're talking about photography) were actually trained into their jobs. They combined intelligence with the learned traits of perseverance and a willingness to work, with certain cultural possibilities (like opportunity) to become artists, but there's nothing in that that I would call inborn 'talent.' Trained differently, I think an exceptional scientist might well have become an exceptional artist.

I think there's something very true about the 10,000 hours. I've read all the books mentioned -- both 'Blink' and 'Outliers' are based on much more boring work, which is why Gladwell makes the big bucks: his books aren't boring -- and I'm pretty much a believer. It's not talent, but work, that makes the star. You just have to know exactly what talent you might be talking about...which is not always obvious. For example, I think Richard Prince's main talent lies in public relations.

But I have noticed that in most professions, it takes four to five years of steady work AFTER graduation in a specialty for even a very intelligent, hard-working professional to become truly competent in his specialty. It's true of law, surgery, engineering, etc. And 40 hours a week, for five years, is just about 10,000 hours. The 10,000 hours, by the way, is not to achieve basic competence as MD suggested, but to achieve a very high level of accomplishment.

JC
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Nick Rains on February 19, 2012, 07:20:53 pm
10000 hours to master the technical aspects and become thoroughly proficient in all aspects of your craft/skill set. That's OK. But no-one mentions personality and character. Many artists at the peak of their game, not to mention many prominent photographers are also slightly (or very) 'larger than life'. Often who you are, what you say about your work, and how you say, it can be more important that the work itself, particularly from a technical point of view.

I disagree with one part of Mark's essay - the image on the white background looks more contrasty to me, see Bartelson and Breneman (1976) who observed that perceived contrast not only increases with luminance levels but also with the lightness of the surrounds. (From Color Appearance Models by Mark D Fairchild, 2nd Ed, ref 6.9.)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 19, 2012, 08:20:23 pm
Your opinions may differ from MD's but lets test what he is saying with our photographic tools (howsoever defined) rather than with sniping comments. These comments say more about you than MD.
If the "Your" and "you" refers to a specific person then please identify the specific person, so we can keep Slobodan Blagojevic happy.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: ndevlin on February 19, 2012, 09:43:13 pm

Having recently passed the 10,000 hour mark in one of my fields of endeavour recently, my take on it is that it is best thought of as a marker of the point at which the basic components of a practice have been so thoroughly internalized as to allow the practitioner to focus on the higher realization of the form, rather than 'think' about what he or she actually doing - kind of like what athletes refer to as "being in the zone". 

In creative fields, this point (whatever the # of hours may be) is where you stop thinking about the act of photographing/painting/singing/playing/dancing and can just do it with a total focus on the creative drive, because the technical components are 2nd nature.

It is not, as others have rightly pointed out, a measure of talent, but rather competence. A mediocre photographer in his 11,000th hour will produce technical stellar but boring imagery.

My 2c.

- N. 
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Josh-H on February 19, 2012, 10:04:09 pm
Quote
Often who you are, what you say about your work, and how you say, it can be more important that the work itself

Thats a very good point Nick.

Peter Lik would be an excellent example of this IMO.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Nick Rains on February 19, 2012, 11:37:14 pm
LOL, indeed he would - although i do enjoy his work, particularly recent work since he set up shop in the States. You can't help but be seduced by the big prints in the glamorous gallery settings! Good for him I say.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: stamper on February 20, 2012, 04:15:02 am
 so we can keep Slobodan Blagojevic happy.


[/quote]

I think that would take more than 10,000 hrs? :) ;)

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 20, 2012, 05:08:07 am
I've known hundreds of students at art college. Most display no evidence of "inborn talent" and have to work hard to achieve. A handful have an exceptional talent that simply can't be explained by education or experience.

My father left school at 14 with no training and yet his level of draughtsmanship at this age was quite remarkable.

'Inborn talent', 'talent that cannot be explained', whatever, it exists.




Keith, I don't see many top snappers argue that talent does not exist; I do see many lesser snappers wishfully think that it can be attained. Most seem to have grown old hoping and waiting.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Broomways on February 20, 2012, 05:22:47 am
It seems to me that this second article makes a whole lot more sense than the first; at least I could understand the thrust of the message and the arguments put forward. The language is far less airey fairey this time.

The use of HCB and Ansel Adams was very interesting, but actually seemed to be counter to each other. AA may well have considered himself a photographic artist and spent much time in post-production (as well as the taking processes) to achieve his 'art'. HCB on the other did not. He is well known for not wishing participate personally in developing his film or printing; that was all carried out by others. Neither did he spend time agonising over cropping, insisting that most of his photographs were published with borders indicating that no cropping had taken place. The impression that I have is that HCB did not consider himself a photographic artist; that is a label given him by others. As he started off as a proper artist, in drawing and painting, and ended up doing the same after quitting photography, one must assume that he felt photography was not a methodology for producing true art.

If you haven't guessed already, I am firmly in the HCB camp. Don't be too quick to press the shutter, fine. But once done, don't use up my four score years and ten agonising over the image with Photoshop. Then again, I don't photograph to sell, maybe that's the difference. Perhaps people won't buy work unless they feel the photographer has spent 10,000 hours fine honing his 'art', has shed blood over fiddling with masks and layers, to dimple in snow or not to dimple, and so forth.

One last thought. Jobbing masters like Gainsborough, Constable, Hogarth and others, often worked fast. The quicker they finished a commission, the quicker they could move on to the next. Paintings were regularly delivered to exhibitions still wet, or not yet finished (they often finished them on the wall!). They were in such demand as artists that they couldn't afford (literally) to dither. They used their 10,000 hours of experience not to prolong the process of their creation with endless changes, but to get the job done as quickly as possible. I would argue that HCB is more like the past masters than AA. Pragmatism and art have always been synonomous and I think that photographers sometimes get a bit too precious about a process that, to HCB anyway, ended in the sub-second opening and closure of the shutter.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: NikoJorj on February 20, 2012, 06:30:14 am
The impression that I have is that HCB did not consider himself a photographic artist; that is a label given him by others.
That could be better studied in a Art History thesis ; but some elements, as his famous quote "To take a photograph is to align the head, the eye and the heart. It's a way of life." could lead me to think he considered himself doing a form of art, even if he did certainly not use the same kind of craftmanship as Ansel Adams did.

The reference to Henri Cartier-Bresson is indeed very interesting in Mark's essay, as it seems to me that HCB, while on the one hand agonizing over the composition and timing of his images, did not care so much about some others technical details, eg optimal sharpness (eg this one (http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZS66RZE5O&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm&IID=2S5RYDW48L31&ALID=2K7O3R14TE52&PN=11&CT=Album), and more generally the compromise of using a small-format camera).

Is it that all of the small details count, or some small details count depending on what you intend to show?
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Dave Millier on February 20, 2012, 06:53:39 am
I think that it would be more appropriate to state it as the 10 year rule? After all who would be able to count all the hours.  

No one seems to have quite got this 10 year/10,000 hours idea right so far. There's an additional factor: the 10k hours aren't just hours spent practicing, they have to be hours spend pushing the envelope, going where the practioner hasn't been before.

One of the better illustrations I've seen of this is the example of amateur golfers. It is apparently quite common for keen, determined amateur golfers to quickly rise to a decent standard then get stuck. The obvious explanation (normally assumed) is that they improve to their natural limit. The 10,000 hr proponent's interpretation is quite different and goes like this.

At the beginning, when motivation is very high, the newbie golfers practise intensely despite the obvious difficulties of starting a new skill. They improve rapidly at first. Then, when they reach a certain level of proficiency, they stop improving, quite suddenly.  However, it's not that they stop practising. No, they keep that up, and likely still feel they are working hard to improve but they make no further progress. At this point is quite normal to get frustrated and blame the lack of development on the limits of talent.

What the 10,000 framework says is what has happened is a subtle change in their practice regime. Instead of constantly pushing beyond their skill level, they start repeating the things they can already do.  And that is apparently the key factor of the idea: it's not practice as such that is important, but practising what you can't currently do...
 
The reason this happens to people is primarily motivation limits not talent limits. Because they reach a level of skill where they can play well and have enjoyable competitive matches sub consciously they relax because they are satisfied with where they are. On the conscious level, they still recognise that practice is necessary but because constantly pushing the envelope is mentally and emotionally demanding the young golfers take the easier route of practising what they can already do instead of slowly learning new skills. And that is why they stop developing.

With the photographic field, the idea there is "talent" that cannot be achieved by practice translates into "a skill that can be achieved but only by people who are prepared to put the effort into working on things they can't currently do, inch by inch, remorselessly for a very long time...".

That is not to denigrate the existence of raw, precocious talent, it is certainly around. However, it is quite rare that precocious talent translates into world class life success, as many long term studies of "genius level IQs" have shown. People tend to romantically imagine there is no substitute for natural talent but the real world usually shows that there is really no substitute for obsessive determination...


EDIT: Sorry, should have read ALL the posts before pontificating.  Gladwell's ideas are obviously reporting prior research but yes the term I was looking for was "deliberate" practice.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 20, 2012, 06:57:43 am
The shocking truth:

The human race is inherently lazy ..... by nature ....
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: 32BT on February 20, 2012, 07:46:28 am
The shocking truth:

The human race is inherently lazy ..... by nature ....

+1

I think the true artist differentiates himself or herself, not because of mere practice in combination with some innate talent, but primarily because the true artist knows what they are looking for. And know what goals to set. And then of course to have the proclivity and persistence to actually try to achieve those goals.

Practicing 10000hrs may be required, or it may not. But one thing is for sure, obsessing over 1/16th of an inch is not an example of meticulous craftsmanship, it's simply indecisiveness, possibly because a sharp image of a fuzzy concept can never be cropped properly…
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: PierreVandevenne on February 20, 2012, 08:46:44 am
No one seems to have quite got this 10 year/10,000 hours idea right so far.

But of course you did  ;)

That's probably because it's just a memorable shortcut for a vague notion for "a lot of work for a long time for most people _if_ they can achieve anyway".

Anyway, this, the HCB  quote and the AA quote are just there to enliven the piece: this is an opinion piece, not Wiles demonstration of Fermat's last theorem. And even if the HCB quote sounds even more unrelated to the  issue and ambiguous in French than it does in English - it's the kind of open ended stuff recognized artists often say to journalists in order to leave room to interpretation...

I believe we should cut MD some slack: his article is a perfectly reasonable and moderate (compared to previous ones) opinion piece.


Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 20, 2012, 11:19:20 am
this is an opinion piece, not Wiles demonstration of Fermat's last theorem.
Ooh! I'd love to read whatever Mark might have to say about Fermat's last theorem!     ;D
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 20, 2012, 12:35:25 pm
AA may well have considered himself a photographic artist and spent much time in post-production (as well as the taking processes) to achieve his 'art'. HCB on the other did not. He is well known for not wishing participate personally in developing his film or printing; that was all carried out by others. Neither did he spend time agonising over cropping, insisting that most of his photographs were published with borders indicating that no cropping had taken place.

Yes!

It's so well known that it's reported in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/arts/04CND-CARTIER.html?pagewanted=2) obit - "He insisted that his works not be cropped but otherwise disdained the technical side of photography; the Leica was all he ever wanted to use; he wasn't interested in developing his own pictures."

If there's still any doubt about his lack of interest in developing and printing, we can just watch Cartier-Bresson answer (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3615) when Charlie Rose says You never printed your own photographs? (@04:55)

The real Cartier-Bresson is being re-shaped to fit the "Everything matters" slogan.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2012, 12:36:07 pm
so we can keep Slobodan Blagojevic happy.
...

I think that would take more than 10,000 hrs? :) ;)



Ha! You got that right! I spent definitely more than that, my whole life journey practically, and have not gotten there yet. Admittedly, there were some shortcuts I took, some forks in the road, brief stops and detours that, for a moment, I thought will get me there, but, alas, it turned out to be just another mirage.  ;) :D ;D ??? >:( :'(

On a related note, isn't it quite amusing that the Spanish word "ilusion" actually means "hope" in English?

And on an unrelated note (to my happiness, that is), here is a corollary to my 3rd kind request to posters using quoting:

Please note that a quote has the beginning and the end, denoted by the following convention: [ quote ] ...[ /quote ]. Omitting either one will just blend the quote with your own text.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 20, 2012, 12:54:10 pm
... some elements, as his famous quote "To take a photograph is to align the head, the eye and the heart. It's a way of life." could lead me to think he considered himself doing a form of art, even if he did certainly not use the same kind of craftmanship as Ansel Adams did.
Yes, Cartier-Bresson doesn't seem to have been fond of labels - neither photographer nor artist but just a sensitive receptive human being (July 6, 2000 interview @08:08) (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3615).


The reference to Henri Cartier-Bresson is indeed very interesting in Mark's essay, as it seems to me that HCB, while on the one hand agonizing over the composition and timing of his images, did not care so much about some others technical details...
Perhaps not agonizing but "perpetually evaluating" - "A photographer’s eye is perpetually evaluating. A photographer can bring coincidence of line simply by moving his head a fraction of a millimeter. He can modify perspectives by a slight bending of the knees. By placing the camera closer to or farther from the subject, he draws a detail. But he composes a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter, at the speed of a reflex action."
p385 Photography in Print, excerpt from The Decisive Moment 1952 (http://books.google.com/books?id=U3qXOp1iT6QC&pg=PA385&lpg=PA385&dq=A+photographer%E2%80%99s+eye+is+perpetually+evaluating.&source=bl&ots=Tf9k36gjGP&sig=zIxBjq4kfkQpGPc4Qawsq4ztt_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eIdCT9OmDejZiQKNktHCAQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=A%20photographer%E2%80%99s%20eye%20is%20perpetually%20evaluating.&f=false)


Is it that all of the small details count, or some small details count depending on what you intend to show?
iow Cartier-Bresson is a counter-example to the "Everything matters" slogan.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2012, 12:59:32 pm
... I disagree with one part of Mark's essay - the image on the white background looks more contrasty to me, see Bartelson and Breneman (1976) who observed that perceived contrast not only increases with luminance levels but also with the lightness of the surrounds. (From Color Appearance Models by Mark D Fairchild, 2nd Ed, ref 6.9.)

Indeed Nick!

Funny how nobody else spotted that, but everybody noticed power cables (in the first installment), although getting this right (i.e., human perception) is so much more important for photographers.

But I think it just might be an honest mistake (i.e., writing "on the right" instead of "on the left"), in which case he should correct the article.

And for the reference, in addition to Nick's source, you can check "Perception and Imaging" by Richard D, Zakia, page 132, 3rd edition.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: lenelg on February 20, 2012, 01:08:51 pm
Research on "expertise" comes down strongly on the side of the ten year/10 000 hour rule, rather than native talent. For a pop version, see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/110/final-word.html
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 20, 2012, 01:15:46 pm
Research on "expertise" comes down strongly on the side of ...
Which research? ;-)     "Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Lost on February 20, 2012, 01:35:41 pm
It is not, as others have rightly pointed out, a measure of talent, but rather competence. A mediocre photographer in his 11,000th hour will produce technical stellar but boring imagery.

I disagree fundamentally with this.

If you spend your 10000 hours playing with the mechanics of the camera, then yes, this is what would result. However, if you spend your 10000 hours taking photographs - looking and thinking about the image and how to improve it, you will produce "better" photographs, where "better" depends on what your interests are.

Fundamentally, the quality of the photography depends on the amount of time spent in concentrated effort and the feedback channel used to assess the result.

I also disagree strongly with the notion of inherent talent dominating everything. In my experience, what people call talent is largely down to an almost obsessive interest in a subject. In visual art, that does not just mean "time spent clicking a shutter" - it means time spent using your eyes and thinking about what you see in terms of its visual impact.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: David Watson on February 20, 2012, 06:14:57 pm
Research on "expertise" comes down strongly on the side of the ten year/10 000 hour rule, rather than native talent. For a pop version, see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/110/final-word.html

Yes agreed but only in respect of expertise being defined as craft and not talent
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: David Watson on February 20, 2012, 06:21:39 pm
I disagree fundamentally with this.

If you spend your 10000 hours playing with the mechanics of the camera, then yes, this is what would result. However, if you spend your 10000 hours taking photographs - looking and thinking about the image and how to improve it, you will produce "better" photographs, where "better" depends on what your interests are.

Fundamentally, the quality of the photography depends on the amount of time spent in concentrated effort and the feedback channel used to assess the result.

I also disagree strongly with the notion of inherent talent dominating everything. In my experience, what people call talent is largely down to an almost obsessive interest in a subject. In visual art, that does not just mean "time spent clicking a shutter" - it means time spent using your eyes and thinking about what you see in terms of its visual impact.

This is total BS.  A talented photographer will take great pictures if they have a high degree of craft skills.  They make take great pictures without any craft skills.  An untalented photographer with craft skills may occasionally be lucky and take a great photograph but it will be only luck.

Photography is an art form that is enhanced by craft. It is no longer a craft that is enhanced by art.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2012, 06:32:30 pm
... Photography is an art form that is enhanced by craft. It is no longer a craft that is enhanced by art.

Ah, the seductiveness of wishful thinking!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 20, 2012, 07:28:31 pm
Most people who disagree with the 10,000 hours concept (and it's only a general concept) will cite examples of people who allegedly have this inborn talent, like the guy earlier in this tread who mentioned that his father was an excellent draughtsman at 14. Well, Picasso was allegedly a fine draughtsman even earlier than that, and because Picasso is so well-known, and obviously some kind of genius, his career has been traced back to its beginnings. And what do we find? That his father was an art teacher, and that Picasso had art training that went back to the time he was a baby. You see that all the time in instant, over-night, youthful success. Tiger Woods went on a national TV show, with a golfing demonstration, when he was *two years old.* Do you think that he organized himself into such a show? No: he was trained to play golf from the time he was a baby by his obsessive father, Earl. By the time he won the masters, he'd been handling golf clubs for two decades. Or look at the history of Michael Jackson, who became a leading member of a national music act when he was six years old -- and who said later that he'd been physically abused by his father (who played in a part-time R&B group) when he didn't perform adequately during incessant rehearsals.

If there's such a thing as inborn talent, then why are the paintings of western Europeans so different than Chinese paintings? Is there some kind of racial "talent" that changes an appreciation of the laws of perspective? No, there isn't -- the art forms are different because the Chinese training is different than the European training. Not better or worse, just different.

I can even tell you how it happens. A kid picks up a crayon, and his parents say, "Ooo, he's talented," and encourage him, and he works more with crayons and pencils. He finds himself distinguished from his school mates by his ability to draw, and so draws more, and becomes known for his drawing skills. Then, at some point, because of personal discipline that it is instilled in him, a personal drive, he begins the disciplined practice that results in what is often called "talent." He gets it the same way young obsessive "nerds" find friendship in computers and become obsessive computer users, and eventually brilliant programmers. They're not born with a talent to program -- you can actually watch it blossom. (I should add here that I am of the school that believes that very little worthwhile is accomplished by people who aren't nerds. You show me a genius in anything -- or even just a high-level performer -- and I'll show you a person who carries a strong strain of nerd. And that includes great athletes.)

But the idea of an inborn talent is simply laughable. I inherited a gene for photography? Where did that come from, in the past million years of human evolution? From primeval Leicas?

JC
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2012, 08:21:12 pm
... I can even tell you how it happens. A kid picks up a crayon, and his parents say, "Ooo, he's talented," and encourage him, and he works more with crayons and pencils. He finds himself distinguished from his school mates by his ability to draw, and so draws more, and becomes known for his drawing skills. Then, at some point, because of personal discipline that it is instilled in him, a personal drive, he begins the disciplined practice that results in what is often called "talent."...

A concept known as "cumulative advantage", also mentioned (but not invented) by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: ndevlin on February 20, 2012, 09:08:19 pm

Great photography is a coincidence of many factors.

Take Moonrise Hernandez (since Duby's failed to spark a flame war with this article, let me posit that this is the greatest landscape image of the 20th C.  :P).

The creation of that masterpiece required: (i) hardwork/luck in being there; (ii) talent in seeing and then composing the image and (iii) the technical mastery of the 10,000 hrs to capture it on 8x10 film in a handful of seconds.

- N.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 20, 2012, 09:40:55 pm
Then Vanessa-Mae argues against the views of John Sloboda that musicality and interpretation can't be trained but must be genetically inherited, according to her views. Sloboda answers that he believes we all have these capacities and that somehow only a few mange to unlock these. He estimates nurture and training to be 75 % over nature. Vanessa-Mae rejects, saying that music is about emotion and that we are not robots, she says: 'I think it is belittling that a player is here, only because of the hours spent practicing.'

This reminds me of a cyclist I know. He once commented that if it was just a matter of practice, everyone could be as good as him. He's a World Champion downhiller BTW.
When you see him flow smoothly over technical terrain that others fumble over, you realise what a huge talent chasm there is between those who have the skill and those that don't.

I do however believe many people can become quite competent with practice. However being competent is a long way from being good and a heck of a lot further away from being exceptional.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 20, 2012, 09:54:27 pm
And on an unrelated note (to my happiness, that is), here is a corollary to my 3rd kind request to posters using quoting:

Please note that a quote has the beginning and the end, denoted by the following convention: [ quote ] ...[ /quote ]. Omitting either one will just blend the quote with your own text.
You would be driven insane if this forum was also done by email, as say the Adobe Pre-release forums are. Not only is the quote formatting all over the place but posts often have all the email add ons too and to cap it off there's the 'sent from my...' nonsense as if anyone cares.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Dohmnuill on February 20, 2012, 10:11:11 pm
Broomways' views are very similar to mine, and coincidental where he refers to Gainsborough. Not of major importance but an ancestor of mine commissioned Gainsborough to paint his family - the job, according to the records, was done in remarkably swift time. Unfortunately, the painting was sold about 100 years ago to fix up a gambling debt...oh, well.

His thought that, " photographers sometimes get a bit too precious about a process", is one I've often harboured. The "dimple in the snow" tale from Mark (and yes, I enjoyed his essays and hope Michael will find room for more) is a case in point. It seems to attach a whole quantum leap in the Importance of a shot to claim the success of an image revolves around one physically small detail.  It's as if taking out an impurity (perhaps only seen with the eagle eye of a Master..) then allows perfect crystal formation into another masterpiece. Wow. Such insight, such initial recognition that the scene was ripe for crystallisation.

Ndevlin mentioned hard work/luck in regard to "Moonrise at Hernandez". I read that AA had often travelled that road and had considered such a shot. The late and brief afternoon light on the stones was the eventual clincher.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details and young Picasso
Post by: BJL on February 20, 2012, 10:24:52 pm
It is strange that so many people take the extreme positions of "it's all about innate talent" or "it's all about long, hard work". I see so many examples where talent showed young, but was then vigorously nurtured, and/or the talented child enjoyed the early accomplishments and so was naturally inclined to pursue that activity vigorously. And I happened to see an exhibit with some early Picasso drawings recently ... very good for a child, but his subsequent energetic studies and parental support certainly added a lot over the following years. Including some simple things like errors in proportion that any mediocre art teacher could fix, and did of course.

And of course there are other examples where clear early talent does not lead to much, due to lack of effort.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 20, 2012, 10:32:57 pm
I disagree fundamentally with this.

If you spend your 10000 hours playing with the mechanics of the camera, then yes, this is what would result. However, if you spend your 10000 hours taking photographs - looking and thinking about the image and how to improve it, you will produce "better" photographs, where "better" depends on what your interests are.
Oddly enough I completely disagree with you.  ;D
One innate talent you may have overlooked is the ability to learn [as is the drive to work hard]. Some people are very good at learning and those without that skill, tend not to do the good practice needed to excel at something.

Quote
Fundamentally, the quality of the photography depends on the amount of time spent in concentrated effort and the feedback channel used to assess the result
And there are those who can create great art, take wonderful photos almost as soon as they work out how to use a camera.
I'm pretty good with a camera, yet have had very little feedback on my work as such as I'm self taught and I am my main critic. One thing I did learn was that feedback may mean next to nothing about my work, as it was nothing more than a very personal opinion. I was once told that my colour work was great and should give up on the B+W by an art director, yet at the next magazine I visited that day, their art director said exactly the opposite.
Van Gogh famously struggled to sell his work and the Beatles were told guitar music is passe. Imagine if they had taken their critics advice and done something sensible. I also seem to recall that part of why the Beatles made the interesting music they did was because they didn't know the rules as they, like so many other successful bands just made it up as they went along. BTW I'm not comparing myself to either of these great artists - who aren't really to my taste either.

Quote
I also disagree strongly with the notion of inherent talent dominating everything. In my experience, what people call talent is largely down to an almost obsessive interest in a subject. In visual art, that does not just mean "time spent clicking a shutter" - it means time spent using your eyes and thinking about what you see in terms of its visual impact.
Did you ever consider that those who are talented at something may be fascinated/obsessed by the subject? I'm also seen many obsessives fail to be anything other than boringly competent. I think with creative endeavours, you either have that spark or you do not. You cannot teach flair.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 20, 2012, 11:35:42 pm
Most people who disagree with the 10,000 hours concept (and it's only a general concept) will cite examples of people who allegedly have this inborn talent, like the guy earlier in this tread who mentioned that his father was an excellent draughtsman at 14. Well, Picasso was allegedly a fine draughtsman even earlier than that, and because Picasso is so well-known, and obviously some kind of genius, his career has been traced back to its beginnings. And what do we find? That his father was an art teacher, and that Picasso had art training that went back to the time he was a baby.
His father being at art teacher is indeed significant as you normally tend to have to be quite skilled at art to do that job.  :P  So Pablo may simply have inherited that ability from his dad, which was then nurtured and not simply created by being taught art.

Quote
You see that all the time in instant, over-night, youthful success. Tiger Woods went on a national TV show, with a golfing demonstration, when he was *two years old.* Do you think that he organized himself into such a show? No: he was trained to play golf from the time he was a baby by his obsessive father, Earl. By the time he won the masters, he'd been handling golf clubs for two decades. Or look at the history of Michael Jackson, who became a leading member of a national music act when he was six years old -- and who said later that he'd been physically abused by his father (who played in a part-time R&B group) when he didn't perform adequately during incessant rehearsals.
But what you fail to see is all those other kids who were also forced to do stuff from a young age and failed to become great. Also note Woods Sr was an athlete at college himself and Jackson Sr was also a musician. So sounds very similar to Picasso's background. Plus the offspring may have inherited the father's drive which is a key part in success.
I should also mention I followed in my father's footsteps in parts of my life too. In ways that were not learnt from him as I was completely unaware of this behaviour and did so in ways that were in my time culturally unusual. So not just coincidence either.

Quote
If there's such a thing as inborn talent, then why are the paintings of western Europeans so different than Chinese paintings? Is there some kind of racial "talent" that changes an appreciation of the laws of perspective? No, there isn't -- the art forms are different because the Chinese training is different than the European training. Not better or worse, just different.
Ever heard of fashion? Art is just as fashionable as clothes, hence the stylistic differences. Which will then influence any teaching too.

Quote
I can even tell you how it happens. A kid picks up a crayon, and his parents say, "Ooo, he's talented," and encourage him, and he works more with crayons and pencils. He finds himself distinguished from his school mates by his ability to draw, and so draws more, and becomes known for his drawing skills. Then, at some point, because of personal discipline that it is instilled in him, a personal drive, he begins the disciplined practice that results in what is often called "talent." .......
Most parents think their Johnny is wonderful and encourage him, but no matter how much my parents would have encouraged me to draw, I would never have been any good. Oh and I was obsessed by comic book art and could recognise any artist by a couple of brush strokes. Never rubbed off on me though. In fact I was so bad at art [i.e. drawing/painting] it was dropped as a subject as soon as possible.
And yet despite nearly all parents thinking their kid is gifted, very few of us in reality are special.

Quote
......He gets it the same way young obsessive "nerds" find friendship in computers and become obsessive computer users, and eventually brilliant programmers. They're not born with a talent to program -- you can actually watch it blossom. (I should add here that I am of the school that believes that very little worthwhile is accomplished by people who aren't nerds. You show me a genius in anything -- or even just a high-level performer -- and I'll show you a person who carries a strong strain of nerd. And that includes great athletes.)
Many good photographers are anything but nerds. Many very creative people are anything but nerd like. Website design shows up this difference really well, the nerds do the coding and the non-nerds do the pretty stuff. My observation in several different areas is that nerds can be very competent but rarely have the artistic flair that makes one stand out in the creative fields. As they are well...nerdy.  ;)
Personally I learn enough technical stuff, so I can then not think about it when taking photos.


Quote
But the idea of an inborn talent is simply laughable. I inherited a gene for photography? Where did that come from, in the past million years of human evolution? From primeval Leicas?
I don't think you quite understand evolution. There is no gene for photography per se. A photographer as opposed to a GWC [guy with camera], simply has an aptitude that can be expressed through photography. I fell into photography completely by accident at 17. Never taken a photo before, but I had always been interested in visual arts and not through any adult pressure, it was simply my choice. As was photography.
Hard to say if you have an innate talent or not with regard to photography, as I do not know what your work looks like.

Another thing to think about is the higher than average number of left handed people in the creative industries. If you were to go by the number of lefties you see on our screens, you would never think that a mere 10% of the general population were sinistral. Were the people taught to act also taught to be left handed?

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 20, 2012, 11:39:41 pm
It is strange that so many people take the extreme positions of "it's all about innate talent" or "it's all about long, hard work". I see so many examples where talent showed young, but was then vigorously nurtured, and/or the talented child enjoyed the early accomplishments and so was naturally inclined to pursue that activity vigorously. And I happened to see an exhibit with some early Picasso drawings recently ... very good for a child, but his subsequent energetic studies and parental support certainly added a lot over the following years. Including some simple things like errors in proportion that any mediocre art teacher could fix, and did of course.

And of course there are other examples where clear early talent does not lead to much, due to lack of effort.
I don't think anyone is saying all you need is talent to succeed. Hard work is still absolutely necessary, but some people are thinking it's just the hard work that gets you to the top.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 20, 2012, 11:54:26 pm
Nature vs. nurture. To prove your point all you need to do is separate one from the other. The truth will most likely be somewhere in between.

But one thing is true, all generalizations are false.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 21, 2012, 12:33:11 am
Nature vs. nurture. To prove your point all you need to do is separate one from the other. The truth will most likely be somewhere in between.
Except you cannot nurture what nature has not provided.

Quote
But one thing is true, all generalizations are false.
;D
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: daws on February 21, 2012, 12:51:21 am
But the idea of an inborn talent is simply laughable.

Meaning no offense, you really-really-reeeely need to read Cave Paintings and the Human Spirit: The Origin of Creativity and Belief, by the archaeologist, anthropologist and leading rock art expert, David S. Whitley.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Lost on February 21, 2012, 01:10:30 am
This is total BS.  A talented photographer will take great pictures if they have a high degree of craft skills.  They make take great pictures without any craft skills.  An untalented photographer with craft skills may occasionally be lucky and take a great photograph but it will be only luck.

Photography is an art form that is enhanced by craft. It is no longer a craft that is enhanced by art.

You did not read what I wrote. The point was that the effects of obsessive practice applies to more than just the technical aspects of photography, and that it need not even use a camera in order to be relevant to taking effective photographs.

Fundamentally, the human brain is an amazingly plastic entity, particularly when young. When people refer to innate "talent", it is almost always because they are not aware of the myriad of processes that lead to the observed work. While there are inherent biological reasons why someone may be better at something than another, photography is a field in which utilises those inherent facilities that are most freely adaptable in people. Studies of musicians suggest that the most important characteristics for "success" (the definition of which is a whole different subject) are, as noted previously in the thread, down to practise. In music there are also physical constraints that affect success, such as dexterity and physiology (for example, jaw shape influences ability to play specific types of wind instrument). In photography, most of the things that matter are things that are amenable to learning.

The original article(s) make a very valid point: small details really do matter. However, I think that the examples given show more of the thinking processes of people who are completely absorbed in the photographic process than the importance of detail itself. Surely if someone was really talented he would not need to spend ages agonising over a few mm difference in framing - he would just mysteriously know what is correct...

Unfortunately, the entire concept of who or what is defined as "talented" or "successful" is mired in (like the article) personal and every changing cultural context. Rhine II, for example.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: C Debelmas on February 21, 2012, 02:21:08 am
The point is that we were not born equal (even though we are supposed to have equal rights - but that's another story). We are all different. And not only physically. And a difference when combined with an other may yield different abilities or behaviours. These differences may be ironed out by cultural, educational environments, practice, etc. But they may develop under the same conditions.

Nothing is white or black: it's all grey.

What could be proved as to whether talent or pratice prevails, should be proved statistically, on a very large basis and even so, only some correlations and trends might be revealed. So, please stop trying to prove anything with individual examples, be it Picasso, or Ansel Adams: it's nonsense. They can't even be true counter-example since they are never "pure" enough to be valid.
It is so intricate that there is no easy answer, easy in the sense that non specialists in an internet forum about photography could get THE answer.

Once it has been said that hard practice goes in the right direction when it comes to improving one's craft well above average and that some persons are better photographers than others, then maybe we could stop squabbling over personal beliefs and move to other aspects of MD's article?
For example, am I the only one who gets bored by the teacher's tone of the article? Who would prefer MD to tell us about his own experiments and pratice in such or such case? Or what kind of details are important to him when it comes to HIS way of making photographs?

Thank you in advance.

Christophe
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 21, 2012, 02:22:44 am
In one of the books about talent and nature/nurture, a Hungarian guy named Laszlo Polgar decided to attempt to prove that nurture was more important than nature. So, he advertised for a wife who would be willing to go along with his planned experiment on his children, found a woman who was willing to go along with it, and they had three daughters. He then, from a very young age, had them heavily --- obsessively -- trained in chess. One of the daughters, Judit Polgar, is the strongest woman chess player in history, and has been rated as high as eighth in the world. She is an International grandmaster, and both of her sisters are highly rated players...grandmaster and international master, or something like that. Their mother had little interest in chess (she was a school teacher.) Polgar himself is a chess expert, but not a great player.

As far as such skills like downhill bicycle racing are concerned, those are physical skills. There's a limit to what you can achieve physically without inherited physical traits, just as there may be a limit to what you can achieve intellectually without inherited intelligence (this is less apparent, IMHO, than with the physical skills situation.) But neither of those inherited things can be called "talent." Talent involves achievement, and it's absolutely possible for a person with a genius IQ to wind up as a homeless alcoholic, and for a person with great athletic potential to spend his life as a couch potato. Inherited traits guarantee nothing, but open the door to certain possibilities.

I once wrote a book on plastic surgery, and ever since have been haunted by the question, "Can appearance be considered a talent?" In many ways, starting with what is essentially an inherited trait, appearance is cultivated and worked by some people much like an art form. How else to explain Marilyn Monroe?  

 
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Craig Arnold on February 21, 2012, 03:36:52 am
Note that Gladwell does not suggest that all human activity is amenable to the 10,000 hours effect.

Some things clearly are: playing a musical instrument, or golf for example. These easily identified items share some very obvious characteristics; there are fairly easily measurable standards - often grading systems in every country, the yellow pages are filled with coaches, etc.

At the other end, some things are clearly not: for example using a light switch. Once given a few seconds instruction the principle is mastered and no amount of practice can ever make you any better at it.

The craft of photography is clearly more complicated than flicking a light switch, but is it amenable to the 10,000 hours effect? I suspect not. Once the principles and basic practice with the equipment is mastered I am not convinced that any more practice can make any meaningful difference. Perhaps one's skill with a Leica might be I suppose, never having to think about focus, never having to think about metering, etc. But as mentioned, that may not lead to anything more than perfectly sharp pictures of fuzzy concepts, and by purchasing a Nikon D4 most of that stuff is achievable by a novice with only a few weeks of instruction.

The art of photography is not obviously or unequivocally amenable to the 10,000 hours effect, even in principle. And if it is then it is not at all clear that practising photography is the best way to learn it. I am open to pursuasion, but I have not yet heard any case made as to how it could be.

The art side is clearly not an easy case - there are no recognised standards for measuring excellence, teachers of the art (though not of course the craft) are hard to find.

I suspect that the best and most interesting art emerges as the product of disordered or borderline minds, not outliers of performance.

(Actually this makes me quite hopeful for my future efforts; all I need to do is let go of my fingertip grip on normality and see what emerges.)  :)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 04:28:20 am
(Actually this makes me quite hopeful for my future efforts; all I need to do is let go of my fingertip grip on normality and see what emerges.)  :)



Let me vouch for that technique's efficacy!

;-)

Rob C

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on February 21, 2012, 05:15:51 am
I disagree with one part of Mark's essay - the image on the white background looks more contrasty to me, see Bartelson and Breneman (1976) who observed that perceived contrast not only increases with luminance levels but also with the lightness of the surrounds. (From Color Appearance Models by Mark D Fairchild, 2nd Ed, ref 6.9.)

A similar situation obtains in music, in Indian ragas in particular.  Expression (and hence the emotion associated) of a 'note' is a function not only of the central 'note' but of what follows, precedes, surrounds it.  I put 'note' in quotes because there is no satisfactory English translation for the Indian term "swara."
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: hjulenissen on February 21, 2012, 06:35:29 am
Yup, I read the book and I disagree with my good friend Malcolm on the expansive definition of "10,000 hours" to gain expertise.  True for some areas but not others.
Can this be posed as a kind of "economic" question? Photography can never be "good enough", unlike aviation (always landing in time and not having an accident is perhaps "good enough"?).

If only the top 1% of photographers will ever be counted as "excellent", then no matter the advances in technology, one might assume that those top 1% will have to have extraordinary talent and/or stamina, or some other magic ingredient that the others lack. If 10.000 hours was needed to master photography in the 1950s, technology may be able to shave off hours to produce similar images today, but then peoples expectations rise, and you still have to put in those 10.000 hours (or some other scarce resource) to sell your work.

I think that talent and sheer luck can replace training. If the goal is to impress other people and/or sell your work and/or make a name for yourself in history, this can be done early in your career for some.

-h
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Dave Millier on February 21, 2012, 07:58:19 am
I disagree fundamentally with this.

If you spend your 10000 hours playing with the mechanics of the camera, then yes, this is what would result. However, if you spend your 10000 hours taking photographs - looking and thinking about the image and how to improve it, you will produce "better" photographs, where "better" depends on what your interests are.

Fundamentally, the quality of the photography depends on the amount of time spent in concentrated effort and the feedback channel used to assess the result.

I also disagree strongly with the notion of inherent talent dominating everything. In my experience, what people call talent is largely down to an almost obsessive interest in a subject. In visual art, that does not just mean "time spent clicking a shutter" - it means time spent using your eyes and thinking about what you see in terms of its visual impact.

Yes, some of the 10,000 hours obviously needs to be spend on the craft side, so the photographer can so stuff readily without being consumed by the something as simple as focusing etc. However, the bulk of that time will need to be spent on identifying what photography you want to do, working out what makes it work (for you), practising so you get good at it, then pushing to the next level by adding something new or extra or trying for a slightly new approach etc etc.

There are presumably many ways to practise photography, mastering whatever techniques are pertinent, but one thing that can be practised by anyone (especially in these internet days) is to really look  at other people's work and try and figure out what are the common features of photos you like.  For example by doing this, I have gradually discovered (quite by accident) that I am strongly drawn to monochrome photography. Not just B&W but colour photography that is largely monochrome. I think pursuit of any pastime or profession is made a lot easier by understanding yourself first: what appeals to you and what you want to do. That way you can concentrate your efforts.

Are there many photographic masters that are equally regarded in multiple fields. I don't remember Ansel being well known for his sports photography nor HCB for his still life of graffiti but I guess there must be counter examples...



Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 08:38:13 am
jjj

Remarkable, but as far as your recent input in this thread is concerned, I have to agree 100%!

Lot's of false arguments have been raised here to discount the worrying concept of talent; worrying, because it implies the existence of something that can't be bought or attained or derived from repetition. In other words, it's not egalitarian and must therefore be denied.

As I've said ad nauseam, photography has to be one of the easiest, most simple processes to learn: an ape could do it. Hell, even I managed that! The divide between photo-mechanics and photo-philosophy is vast. As for Picasso, if you look at his early work and then switch to the stuff he was doing when fame arrived, you could be forgiven for thinking you'd stumbled onto one of the greatest sell-outs in history. But that's probably not a popular argument either.

If you seek photographic examples of technique killing creatvity, then for my money, look no further than the classic Playboys! What did you find? What you discovered was beautiful freestyle glamour in the editorial pages contrasted with stillborn pyrotechnics in the centrefolds. And so it plays, time after time.

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John R Smith on February 21, 2012, 08:56:11 am
Lot's of false arguments have been raised here to discount the worrying concept of talent; worrying, because it implies the existence of something that can't be bought or attained or derived from repetition. In other words, it's not egalitarian and must therefore be denied.

That is exactly correct. There are some things which simply can't be learned, or purchased, or, sadly, attained through hard work. Even 10,000 hours of hard work. I could give many examples from my own experience of wonderful and also not so wonderful musicians. Some people just have the "touch", and always have had it. My brother has always had this almost miraculous ability to pick up an instrument - any instrument - and not only be able to get a tune out of it, but also to sound good straight off. I think this ability is pretty much the same thing that makes a good photographer great. Ansel nailed it when he described "pre-visualisation". My brother can hear in his head what the music should sound like before he plays it. A great photographer knows what he wants the image to be before he even gets the camera out of the bag. This ability to create and conceive a picture in the mind - and then go and find it - is what it is really all about.

John
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 09:39:02 am
A great photographer knows what he wants the image to be before he even gets the camera out of the bag. This ability to create and conceive a picture in the mind - and then go and find it - is what it is really all about.

John

Like Capa's images of the Normandy invasion? I would image that documentary photographers do not visualize, how can they when they don't arrange the facts. Are you saying the Smith visualized the girl in the bath tube being held by her mother in his Minamata project when it was her mother that suggested the scene? Granted, he had the skill to carry it off, but this is not him visualizing, unless visualizing is just looking.

I am not really sure what is firing up folks about the article. The author is simply idealizing what he thinks is his perfect model of a photographer. He is then just picking (and inventing) "facts" to support his hypothesis. All in all, it was not a very useful article beyond a statement of personal preference.
Title: dismissiveness about the need for experience and practice, along with talent
Post by: BJL on February 21, 2012, 10:58:46 am
I don't think anyone is saying all you need is talent to succeed. Hard work is still absolutely necessary, but some people are thinking it's just the hard work that gets you to the top.
Hopefully not, but the original claim was mainly about the necessity of a long period of practice to excel in almost any field of artistic endeavor, not that this is sufficient to become a great photographer, so the more intense disagreements with that do seem to drift in the direction of "it's mostly innate talent, and in photography, the learning required is mostly a few simple mechanical things, quickly learnt."


I suppose that this debate is in the spirit of paying attention to all the small details, in having dozens of posts analyzing and debating two words from the entire essay: "10,000 hours".
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 11:18:38 am
Naturally, the whole idea there is a definable end point for a photographer is a bit far fetched. What if I am doing passport photos? Do I really need 10,000 hours? Why are passport photos somehow less than formal portraiture--are we thinking Vogue or Sears? Adams's work is not ground shaking in an absolute sense, it was at the time he did it (which is an important reference), but he was not the only one doing this type of work. Where do we find a quantifiable scale?

Is money the defining element? No amateur photographers allowed like Julia Margaret Cameron or Imogen Cunningham? Professional photographers simply run, if it is going to last, a profitable business, talent is secondary and "greatness" is marketing.

I don't think there is an easy solution to the problem--the top ten list to being a great photographer. However, two things could be said, if you don't have an eye (whatever that means) and you don't put in any effort, you are probably not going to be taking pictures that have interest outside family and friends, at least beyond a few moments of fame when your image goes viral on Flickr. And most likely, no repeat performance.

One thing is certain about those individual we lump into the "great" crowd, none of them achieved greatness following the same path.
Title: Re: dismissiveness about the need for experience and practice, along with talent
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 01:11:26 pm
I suppose that this debate is in the spirit of paying attention to all the small details, in having dozens of posts analyzing and debating two words from the entire essay: "10,000 hours".
With several honourable exceptions, I think it's been more like obsessing over those two words without paying attention to any of the details.

Mark Dubovoy's "10,000 hours" comments are just wrong - those comments are simply a misunderstanding of the reported research, that's a pretty big detail but a very ordinary kind of mistake.

The original researcher has helpfully provided a 1100 word summary (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html) so we can easily come to a correct understanding of their "10,000 hours" research.

Once we have a correct understanding of their "10,000 hours" research, we might take the next step and consider the research that shows deliberate practice is not the only factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html?_r=1).
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 21, 2012, 01:13:08 pm

Lot's of false arguments have been raised here to discount the worrying concept of talent; worrying, because it implies the existence of something that can't be bought or attained or derived from repetition. In other words, it's not egalitarian and must therefore be denied.

Actually, I think the worrying concept here is that talent has to be earned. You can't excuse yourself by saying "I just wasn't born lucky." I think that people who believe in in-born talent should read the books we've been talking about (if they're really interested in the question of talent. If not, then don't worry about it.) These are not one-note books -- talent is a very complex thing, as is learning, and these books make that point. For example, the guy here who talks about his brother who can coax a tune quickly from almost any instrument. It's possible that his brother has perfect pitch, which makes that much easier. But perfect pitch is learned. Most Chinese and Vietnamese have it, because their languages are tonal, and they're taught pitch from the time they're infants. Some westerners also have it, but it's learned. And, I suspect this brother can mostly play certain kinds of instruments -- perhaps guitars and pianos, where the note relationships are easily learned. I bet he can't pick up a trumpet or an oboe (without previous training) and get good notes from it...

When you're discussing those things, you have to pay very close attention to what you call "talent." For example, Anthony Shadid, the New York Times reporter who just died in Syria (of an asthma attack) won two Pulitzers, and was one of the most highly regarded reporters in the world. But, he wasn't a great writer, nor, in terms of actual question-and-answer stuff, did he seem to be a great reporter. That is, he didn't ask questions that most other good reporters wouldn't ask in the same circumstances. What made him a great talent was actually his *will* to do things -- to go places that others would not (because of fear), to report on dangerous events, and to do it over and over and over. His talent was a will to witness, more than anything else. That's what makes most great war photographers -- the will to witness, and the bravery to stay with it. The camera work is actually relatively trivial. So, when you're talking about talent, you always have to ask, "Exactly what talent are we talking about?"

You also have to understand (about this argument) that "learning" is not mechanical. We're not talking about 10,000 hours learning to handle a camera -- we're talking about serious, in-depth investigation of ideas and themes that explore the whole range of photographic possibilities, or a few possibilities to great depth. You actually *can* think about such things, if you're inclined to. It's not all running out and shooting a lot of pictures. That's just taking snapshots, and like flicking a light switch, doesn't take a lot of ability. It's the thinking about new possibilities that's hard, and that develops talent.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2012, 01:35:12 pm
... Mark Dubovoy's "10,000 hours" comments are just wrong...

Perhaps you would enlighten us as to just how and why they are "just wrong", in your own words, instead of asking us to obtain a PhD first, in order to understand it?
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 21, 2012, 02:10:35 pm
Quote
Once we have a correct understanding of their "10,000 hours" research, we might take the next step and consider the research that shows deliberate practice is not the only factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html?_r=1)/

The cited New York Times piece doesn't mean much -- it just means that smarter people do better than less-smart people, in highly defined circumstances where there's an extreme emphasis on being smart, .i.e. being a certain kind of academic and writing papers. But, "talent" is usually defined as performance compared to a peer group, not some other group. So the Times' article authors should have compared performance between members of the 99.9% group, and what they would have found is, that some of them were more "talented" in writing papers than others. And that "talent" would have been learned, not inherited, since they're all more or less equally smart.

Nobody has said that intelligence isn't important in many fields. It's just that intelligence and talent are different things. And talent is earned, not inborn.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 02:29:48 pm
Perhaps you would enlighten us as to just how and why they are "just wrong", in your own words
I already have - note that the bullet points are not in quotation marks, they are my own words. (It's sweet of you to place such a high value on my words, but it would be far more reasonable to place a higher value on the words of the people who actually did the research.)

Previously -
Let's correct some basic misunderstandings...


...instead of asking us to obtain a PhD first, in order to understand it?
I'm confident that you are able to understand that very short research summary - it's written in straightforward English.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 02:49:46 pm
The cited New York Times piece doesn't mean much...
I pointed to that article simply as a reminder that although deliberate practice stands out as a dominant factor, that still doesn't make it the only factor.

But, "talent" is usually defined as...
"a special natural ability to do something well, or people who have this ability" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/talent?q=talent)


Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 03:10:52 pm
And talent is earned, not inborn.

Can you cite a source? Hard to believe it is simply learnt as the outliers seem to prove otherwise--if everything is learnt, how do we progress as we could not innovate beyond what is known. Where does "insight" and "inspiration" come from. Nor does there seem to be any biological foundation to that view--not all skill is learnt.

BTW, I think you did not carefully read the Times article. There was a study between peers where those with better memory function could sight read music better than their peers given equal practice times. This is not paper writing.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 03:15:37 pm
Nobody has said that intelligence isn't important in many fields. It's just that intelligence and talent are different things. And talent is earned, not inborn.



Well, John, that's where I'm afraid we have to part company; talent is neither earned nor learned: it's the flux that lies within the aether in which specific abilities lie dormant until their moment comes. Then, it's the catalyst that makes those abilities flourish. IMO.

I've been listening to almost constant music for what I imagine must be a most unusual, daily, amount of time: from radio beamed into India from Radio SEAC in Ceylon during the 50s to pirate radio ships filling the darkroom and studio during the 60s and 70s; from cassettes to even more radio now streamed into my Spanish office from Lerose in Louisiana. My head is filled with the stuff and I imagine myself perfectly capable of telling when a singer hits a flat note. But, the moment I open my own mouth to give forth, the only cheers I receive, even from myself, sound suspiciously like advice to shut the hell up.

Those Chinese and Viets that you mentioned must have something else; I wonder if it's talent?

;-)

Rob C 
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 21, 2012, 03:20:23 pm

Nobody has said that intelligence isn't important in many fields. It's just that intelligence and talent are different things.
Really! You can't be very talented if you think that.  ;)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 03:27:33 pm
Once the principles and basic practice with the equipment is mastered I am not convinced that any more practice can make any meaningful difference. Perhaps one's skill with a Leica might be I suppose, never having to think about focus, never having to think about metering, etc. ...

In this context, I think "skill with a Leica" is the same as mastering the equipment.

The art of photography is not obviously or unequivocally amenable to the 10,000 hours effect, even in principle...

Yes! The research findings are for activities where performance consistently increases beyond acceptable performance. So we should ask - Have there been photographers who kept making better and better photographs? (Whatever that might mean.)

"Although his range of subject matter is wider than that of many other well-known photographers -- portraits, landscapes, abstractions, machinery, details of natural forms, architecture, and village life in various parts of the world being among his recurrent themes -- his methods and his ways of seeing changed so little that the photographs he made in Mexico in 1966 are impossible to differentiate from those he made there thirty years earlier." (My emphasis.)

p15 Paul Strand: sixty years of photographs (http://books.google.com/books?id=fBI5AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Although+his+range+of+subject+matter+is+wider+%22&dq=%22Although+his+range+of+subject+matter+is+wider+%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GgRET_uJOKTaiQLzzpmrDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: PierreVandevenne on February 21, 2012, 03:40:04 pm
As I've said ad nauseam, photography has to be one of the easiest, most simple processes to learn: an ape could do it.

_can_ do it

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/05/monkey-hijacks-photographers-camera-and-shoots-self-portraits/
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 03:43:56 pm
I don't remember Ansel being well known for his sports photography...

Ansel is very well known as a documentary photographer that photographed the conditions of the US concentration camps for US citizens of Japanese descent. I would also look up Gordon Parks that was a documentary, fashion, and fine art photographer as well as a novelist, poet, and movie director. Margret Bourke-White was a commercial photographer and documentary photographer. Domon Ken and another Japanese photographer that escapes my name, also switched the type of work they did. David Hockney and Man Ray also come to mind. And Salgado is trying his hand at landscape and nature photography. Would you like me to go on?
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 21, 2012, 03:44:46 pm
When you're discussing those things, you have to pay very close attention to what you call "talent." For example, Anthony Shadid, the New York Times reporter who just died in Syria (of an asthma attack) won two Pulitzers, and was one of the most highly regarded reporters in the world. But, he wasn't a great writer, nor, in terms of actual question-and-answer stuff, did he seem to be a great reporter. That is, he didn't ask questions that most other good reporters wouldn't ask in the same circumstances. What made him a great talent was actually his *will* to do things -- to go places that others would not (because of fear), to report on dangerous events, and to do it over and over and over. His talent was a will to witness, more than anything else. That's what makes most great war photographers -- the will to witness, and the bravery to stay with it. The camera work is actually relatively trivial. So, when you're talking about talent, you always have to ask, "Exactly what talent are we talking about?"
Talent is simply an inherent ability that is over and above other people abilities in the same area. Being prepared to work really hard, to push yourself further, to persevere, these are all talents. Just as good hand eye co-ordination, intelligence, artistic flair, physical strength, musicality are also talents.
Practice can certainly make people more able than those who are too lazy to make use of their talents, but with equal practice some will simply excel, due to the simple fact they are more able. Schools are the obvious demonstration of this in practice. The whole population goes there, but only a few ever excel in any subject or activity. Same applies to language - people can live for decades in a new country and still never master the language as well as your average native.

I've been involved in dance and martial arts for a very long time and it's so obvious that some people simply have the ability to do the activity well from the get go even though they may never have practiced this activity before. Others with a lot of practice can become very capable. But no matter how long they train, will never excel as they simply lack the aptitude. In dance it is musicality that separates the technicians from the real dancers.

I have to say I find it utterly baffling that anyone thinks people can be gifted at something simply with practice. It's like saying anyone can run a 100m in 9.5 seconds if they practice long enough. And physical skills or attributes are as much a talent as mental prowess and capability. And surely no-one here is going to try and claim we can all be Nobel Prize Winners.


Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 21, 2012, 03:46:28 pm
_can_ do it

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/05/monkey-hijacks-photographers-camera-and-shoots-self-portraits/

From the petapixel article cited:

Quote
Here’s an interesting question: doesn’t the monkey technically own the rights to the images?
Title: Dismissiveness about the need for experience and practice, along with talent
Post by: BJL on February 21, 2012, 03:54:54 pm
Once we have a correct understanding of their "10,000 hours" research, we might take the next step and consider the research that shows deliberate practice is not the only factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html?_r=1).
That last phrase sounds like 'flogging a straw man': attacking the other extreme doctrine that "only effort matters, and innate ability not at all". And the evidence cited there is rather weak: the numbers I see are that in explaining the sight-reading ability of talented pianists, practice might explain "nearly half", while "working memory capacity" explains about 7%.

So already, as a teacher, if I have to choose between emphasizing the controllable factor [practice] that contributes about half, or the uncontrollable factor [allegedly innate memory capacity] that contributes far less, I know where I would put my emphasis! Then there is the question of whether testing of adults for "working memory capacity" measures a purely innate talent or a mental ability that is to some extent improved by its more frequent exercise in activities like, say, memorizing music.

Of course the correlation between amount of practice with achievement cited earlier in that opinion page piece also proves very little: talent or already achieved competence in a particular area is likely to motivate one to more practice. I know that I as a student I had the bad habit of studying more in my best subjects than in the ones where I had the most need of and room for improvement.

Finally I would avoid the extreme cases of the most egregiously accomplished people. For most of us, the more relevant question is how much various factors contribute to achieving a good level of artistic of professional accomplishment, not whether practice alone can produce a photographic Da Vinci.


Note to Slobodan: All text in double quotes refers to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 03:55:10 pm
Perhaps one's skill with a Leica might be I suppose, never having to think about focus, never having to think about metering, etc. But as mentioned, that may not lead to anything more than perfectly sharp pictures of fuzzy concepts, and by purchasing a Nikon D4 most of that stuff is achievable by a novice with only a few weeks of instruction.


I just can't believe I've read that on a photography forum.

In my innocence, I believed that the Leica, having no af, would actually demand that the snapper snap with care; having a simple metering system with the Ms indicates to me that a sound understanding of metering would be essential. As for the Nikon you cite, I think it would cause the neophyte more than a little sweat under the armpits or at least across the brow! I found the switch to digital cameras a friggin' nightmare of learning just how much I could safely ignore and how to best revert the thing to as close to manual as it permitted!

Please tell me you were being sarcastic and that I simply didn't catch on!

Rob C
Title: Re: Dismissiveness about the need for experience and practice, along with talent
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 04:10:41 pm
Finally I would avoid the extreme cases of the most egregiously accomplished people.
That "10,000 hours" stuff really is about the most extremely accomplished people.

For most of us, the more relevant question is how much various factors contribute to achieving a good level of artistic of professional accomplishment...
Yes!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 04:12:27 pm
Ansel is very well known as a documentary photographer that photographed the conditions of the US concentration camps for US citizens of Japanese descent. I would also look up Gordon Parks that was a documentary, fashion, and fine art photographer as well as a novelist, poet, and movie director. Margret Bourke-White was a commercial photographer and documentary photographer. Domon Ken and another Japanese photographer that escapes my name, also switched the type of work they did. David Hockney and Man Ray also come to mind. And Salgado is trying his hand at landscape and nature photography. Would you like me to go on?



Yes please! My interpretation of the law of averages indicates that you'll eventually come to me and I'll have my fifteen minutes again, if only because all the other options will have been exhausted!

Oh - en route chez-moi, you'll also come across Don McCullin who switched from documentary and war to some advertising and landscape. As for St Ansel, I tend to believe that his people stuff is only known because of the fame that came from his landscapes. However, with these changes, I suspect that the motivation comes from outwith the photographer. Changing business opportunities (read lack of) can lead to substantial and frequent Damascene Moments. However big and established one seems to be to the world outside.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Dismissiveness about the need for experience and practice, along with talent
Post by: BJL on February 21, 2012, 04:19:23 pm
That "10,000 hours" stuff really is about the most extremely accomplished people.
The work of Ericsson described in Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html) is not about the one in a million or even rarer level of accomplishment that achieves the accolade of 'genius', and nor is Mark Dubovoy asking about what it takes to achieve that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It is about (to quote Ericsson, op. cit.) becoming "expert" in the sense of "highly experienced professionals such as medical doctors, accountants, teachers and scientists". Which we seem to agree is what us 'sub-geniuses' are curious about!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Craig Arnold on February 21, 2012, 04:21:23 pm
Rob,

I clearly didn't explain myself properly.

I think achieving proficiency with an M to the extent that one is able to focus very quickly (not having to think about which direction to turn the button to focus for example) and adjust aperture, etc to get the correct metering is something that can take a long time to master and can be improved with practice.

By contrast learning to use say A-priority mode, shoot RAW, use auto metering and a 61 point AF system on a D3/D4 is something that can be learned very quickly, and the camera will almost always make sure you have a well exposed and in focus image ... of something. Not a great deal of practice required. An amazing piece of equipment no doubt, but not something that needs years of learning to master.

Of course using colour negative film in an M7 in A-priority is also pretty forgiving.

Anyway, my point was that it's somewhat dependant on the camera, I know Large Format is much harder to get right than a modern DSLR. But I don't think either require 10,000 hours of continuous improvement. They are much closer to a light switch than they are to a piano.

I found the comment about being able to articulate and comment out loud on one's games of chess or musical performance as being indicative of the kind of thing that can benefit from continuous practice very interesting. When I was just starting photography I found it very difficult to comment for my images "what the picture was about" as Michael phrases it. Now I don't find it difficult at all. Of course it can sound very pretentious, but I can talk about my images, and for other photographers whose work I love I find it easy to talk about a picture. For those whom I cannot - well I find that often those are the photographers whose work I just don't "get" or like.

I could hardly talk for 30 seconds on an Ansel Adams picture, but can wax boringly on for hours (to myself, I don't subject others to it) about Manuel Alvarez Bravo, or Andre Kertesz, or Robert Adams.
Title: Re: Dismissiveness about the need for experience and practice, along with talent
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 04:27:27 pm
It is about (to quote Ericsson, op. cit.) becoming "expert" in the sense of "highly experienced professionals such as medical doctors, accountants, teachers and scientists".
You've quoted from the introductory paragraph not the paragraph talking about the "10,000 hours" stuff -

"For example, the critical difference between expert musicians differing in the level of attained solo performance concerned the amounts of time they had spent in solitary practice during their music development, which totaled around 10,000 hours by age 20 for the best experts,  around 5,000 hours for the least accomplished expert musicians and only 2,000 hours for serious amateur pianists." (My emphasis.)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 04:34:49 pm
... also switched the type of work they did... Would you like me to go on?
The Book of Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=YrslAQAAIAAJ) does a decent job of showing that as they say - "Photographers and their pictures usually can't be pigeon-holed. Many photographers work in more than one genre and some appear more than once on these pages."
Title: And 5,000 hours for the "least accomplished experts"
Post by: BJL on February 21, 2012, 04:53:08 pm
You've quoted from the introductory paragraph not the paragraph talking about the "10,000 hours" stuff -
Agreed: I am not agonizing one the specific number of 10,000 hours, but just the general idea that most worthwhile levels of accomplishment require a substantial amount of effort, as well as some level of innate ability. The bit about 5,000 hours for the "least accomplished expert musicians" suggests that the practice factor is associated in that research with both mid-level and high-level expertise. (Not that even the top 20 experts in that study puts us into the realm of "one in a million" genius.)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 04:58:42 pm


Yes please! My interpretation of the law of averages indicates that you'll eventually come to me and I'll have my fifteen minutes again, if only because all the other options will have been exhausted!

Oh - en route chez-moi, you'll also come across Don McCullin who switched from documentary and war to some advertising and landscape. As for St Ansel, I tend to believe that his people stuff is only known because of the fame that came from his landscapes. However, with these changes, I suspect that the motivation comes from outwith the photographer. Changing business opportunities (read lack of) can lead to substantial and frequent Damascene Moments. However big and established one seems to be to the world outside.

;-)

Rob C

So, are we confusing talent with fame? Are you saying Adams had no talent in his documentation of the camps? Are you suggesting this work was so he could pay his rent? And how does this relate to the idea of nature vs. nurture?
Title: Re: And 5,000 hours for the "least accomplished experts"
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 05:11:33 pm
...but just the general idea that most worthwhile levels of accomplishment require a substantial amount of effort, as well as some level of innate ability.
Okay, when I wrote -- That "10,000 hours" stuff really is about the most extremely accomplished people -- I was being quite specific about the "10,000 hours".

I don't know what to make of "most worthwhile levels of accomplishment" - even what I accomplish sometimes seems worthwhile to me :-)

(Not that even the top 20 experts in that study puts us into the realm of "one in a million" genius.)
I don't understand. Where does it say anything about the sample size? The only "20" I can see in that summary is "by age 20".
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: David Watson on February 21, 2012, 05:28:16 pm
Everyone seems to have forgotten to a greater or lesser degree my original point when I started this thread.

Here's what I didn't say:

1. Practice is not worthwhile.
2. An innate talent cannot be improved by practice
3. Famous and well recognised photographers are lucky, talented or not talented.

What I did say was that it wasn't a prerequisite of being a good photographer that you need 10,000 hours of work or that the said 10,000 hours would automatically make you a good photographer.  Having said all of that it does not hurt to work at your art.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 21, 2012, 05:49:50 pm
Rob,

I clearly didn't explain myself properly.

I think achieving proficiency with an M to the extent that one is able to focus very quickly (not having to think about which direction to turn the button to focus for example) and adjust aperture, etc to get the correct metering is something that can take a long time to master and can be improved with practice.

By contrast learning to use say A-priority mode, shoot RAW, use auto metering and a 61 point AF system on a D3/D4 is something that can be learned very quickly, and the camera will almost always make sure you have a well exposed and in focus image ... of something. Not a great deal of practice required. An amazing piece of equipment no doubt, but not something that needs years of learning to master.

Of course using colour negative film in an M7 in A-priority is also pretty forgiving.
Actually I'm on Rob's side here.  I found that I had to invest a heck of a lot of time when making the switch from Nikon film to Nikon digital.  Once I learned how to properly meter with film, it was pretty simple to focus, set the aperture or shutter speed and capture the image (also didn't have to worry about diffraction and could stop the lens down all the way if needed for good DOF).  With the Nikon autofocus, and all the choices that are involved things were not really as simple as point and shoot.  You have to know how the AF works, what the different ISO settings do with respect to noise, realize that diffraction is an issue and going beyond f8 for many lenses will lead to issues, and a myriad of other things.  Though well short of 10,000 hours with the D300, I'm pretty accomplished in terms of knowing the ins and outs of the camera.

Alan
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 21, 2012, 06:04:42 pm
I have to say I find it utterly baffling that anyone thinks people can be gifted at something simply with practice. It's like saying anyone can run a 100m in 9.5 seconds if they practice long enough. And physical skills or attributes are as much a talent as mental prowess and capability. And surely no-one here is going to try and claim we can all be Nobel Prize Winners.

And I find it baffling that you could have gotten this far in this thread, making several comments along the way, without bothering to read the things you're commenting on. It's been said several times that such things as physicality and intelligence ARE mostly inherited. Nobody without the right inborn physicality is going to run the 100m in 9.5 -- but there may well be people with that inborn physicality who either can't learn, or don't bother to learn, how to do it. (You don't just get off a couch and run 9.5; there actually IS a learning process associated with the best times in running.) The people who do learn how to do it we call "talented runners." The people who don't bother to learn it, but have the innate physicality, we don't call anything, because we never hear of them. The same with intelligence. Most everybody knows somebody who is very, very bright, and who excels on the tests that measure intelligence, but "doesn't use it." We even have a name for them -- slackers. Do we call them talented? I don't -- I call them bright and unmotivated. Talent is a measure of performance, not intelligence or physicality. And yes, talent usually is a mixture of several psychological and physical factors; it's not a simple thing. The idea of "practice" is not simple, either. It's not just pushing the button on the camera over and over and over. It's a very particular kind of focused work, that many people can't do. By the way, do you know why an outrageously high percentage of pro hockey players are born in January and February?

But, I think I'll quit this now. For anyone really interested, read "Blink" and "Outliers" and the Ericsson stuff. As I've said before, these are not simple-minded discussions, and most of the objections to the idea of talent being primarily a learned quality are extensively discussed there.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Schewe on February 21, 2012, 06:23:23 pm
Having said all of that it does not hurt to work at your art.

What is what Mark was saying in the article...I'm glad we've now come full circle. If you want to get better, work at it. Maybe, if you're good (and lucky) it won't take to 10K hours...but it might. Either way, the best way to learn is do...as Yoda said "Do or do not... there is no try.”
Title: Re: And 5,000 hours for the "least accomplished experts"
Post by: BJL on February 21, 2012, 06:54:46 pm
I don't understand. Where does it say anything about the sample size? The only "20" I can see in that summary is "by age 20".
Sorry, my misreading. Still, I doubt that the sample was big enough to distinguish the effort level associated with 'one in a million' levels of greatness, just degrees of 'expertise'.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 08:25:35 pm
Who would prefer MD to tell us about his own experiments and pratice in such or such case? Or what kind of details are important to him when it comes to HIS way of making photographs?
I would!

I happily accept that Mark Dubovoy is the source for information about his own photographs, so I was much more interested in what he had to say about "Dick's Secret Canyon" and "Dune and Dead Branch" than in what he has to say about Cartier-Bresson.

I would have liked him to tell us the specific details that lead him to say "The Pond" "is an excellent example of The Unseen" (I can think of some, but I'd like to hear what he sees that wouldn't have been apparent to him at the scene.)

Of course, that doesn't mean I won't get stuck on things in the photos: Are those distant buttes tilted in "Butes From The Ranch"? Is "Wine Glasses" better with the glass stem reflection down to the bottom of the photo or would it be better without a reflective surface? (Would it work at all without a reflective surface?)

"F/8 for 35 mm full size sensors" And be there! :-)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2012, 08:30:35 pm
Everyone seems to have forgotten to a greater or lesser degree my original point when I started this thread.
You mean we've been commenting on Mark Dubovoy's essay rather than commenting on your comment about Mark Dubovoy's essay? Is that surprising?
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 21, 2012, 08:55:14 pm
And I find it baffling that you could have gotten this far in this thread, making several comments along the way, without bothering to read the things you're commenting on.
That's a very dumb and ignorant thing to say. I actually make a point of carefully reading and rereading before posting on forums - which is time consuming and why I don't frequent forums too often. Just because I have a different opinion to yours does not make me illiterate.

Quote
It's been said several times that such things as physicality and intelligence ARE mostly inherited.
Which is talent.  :P

Quote
Nobody without the right inborn physicality is going to run the 100m in 9.5
Which is exactly the point those of use who do not believe practice is everything have been saying.

Quote
-- but there may well be people with that inborn physicality who either can't learn, or don't bother to learn, how to do it. (You don't just get off a couch and run 9.5; there actually IS a learning process associated with the best times in running.) The people who do learn how to do it we call "talented runners." The people who don't bother to learn it, but have the innate physicality, we don't call anything, because we never hear of them. The same with intelligence. Most everybody knows somebody who is very, very bright, and who excels on the tests that measure intelligence, but "doesn't use it." We even have a name for them -- slackers. Do we call them talented? I don't -- I call them bright and unmotivated. Talent is a measure of performance, not intelligence or physicality.
Now this is where you get it very, very wrong. Talent is simply an ability, whether or not you choose to use it does not make you more or less talented. Nor does whether or not you were financially successful in your endeavours necessarily have any bearing on your talents. What if you simply have no interest in selling your creation? What if you are smarter than everyone else and come out with all these clever ideas that are rejected by a conservative society? What if you create art that is too bizarre for most people, yet years later you are recognised as a genius? Despite being a complete failure in his own lifetime, Van Gogh managed to break a few auction records for the prices of his paintings some years later.
Being more technically capable can also be of no relevance. What's the difference between a jazz guitarist and a rock guitarist? - One knows 3 chords and plays to 3,000 people, the other knows 3,000 chords and plays to 3 people.  ;)

 
Quote
And yes, talent usually is a mixture of several psychological and physical factors; it's not a simple thing.
Again nothing we disagree on here.

Quote
The idea of "practice" is not simple, either. It's not just pushing the button on the camera over and over and over. It's a very particular kind of focused work, that many people can't do.
And there are those who can take great photos as soon as they've mastered the fairly simple mechanics of how to use a camera. Some people just know how to do stuff.

Quote
By the way, do you know why an outrageously high percentage of pro hockey players are born in January and February?
Is it to do with the timing of the school year and physical development of students at certain ages? In my school year I was one of the youngest and others in my class were nearly a year older. Makes a big difference when doing some sports and if selection is due to when you are born, you can end up being a year behind if you are at wrong end of year.

Quote
But, I think I'll quit this now. For anyone really interested, read "Blink" and "Outliers" and the Ericsson stuff. As I've said before, these are not simple-minded discussions, and most of the objections to the idea of talent being primarily a learned quality are extensively discussed there.
The fundamental flaw in Ericsson's observations regarding those who have practised playing their instruments a lot and thus become 'experts' in 10,000 hours, is that it is based on a self selected group of people who were actually good at something to start with and is very probably why they then did the many hours practice. Not to mention they were being judged on what is basically a mechanical skill [a very complex one admittedly], which is the sort of thing that responds very well to long term practice.
Now if the study had instead gathered a group of people that was representative of the entire population and had them practice for 2,000, 5,000 and 10,000 hours that would then be a much more significant and relevant study. And if the testing of ability included creating music as opposed to merely playing someone else's now that would be even more interesting. Many musicians and artists do great work when their talent is raw and unpolished.
Even more telling is the number of musicians who are not anywhere near being experts in the technical sense, but produce great music not in spite of this, but because they do not have their uniqueness polished out of them.

I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed by Gladwell. Whenever I see an article about his latest insightful observation, I usually think. So what? I already knew that, it was either obvious to me or previously reported upon.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: DaFu on February 21, 2012, 10:27:05 pm
jjj said:
Quote
Talent is simply an ability, whether or not you choose to use it does not make you more or less talented.

I quite agree. In 30 years+ of martial arts teaching there were more than a few times where a new student came to class with no prior experience and after a month or so it was utterly, completely obvious they were talented. Talented to the point they could do some things better than good students who had been practicing for a decade. What was very, very interesting was that often they didn't last very long. I came to think the problem was that they found things too easy—there was no challenge. What they didn't realize, of course, was that some things come easy, but the ability to do them at any time, in any place, as part of some complex situation where simple reactions are not enough, comes with practice. Lots and lots and lots of practice. If there is something about an art that catches the talented person's fancy (and the stories from top performers in any discipline bear this out: "Something just fascinated me about it and I had to find out more . . .") and they have the drive, then they can become superlative. As for the rest of us schmucks, if you enjoy it and keep at it you'll be better and you'll have had some truly pleasurable experiences.

Dave

P.S. I hasten to add that I have also seen students who "blossomed" sometimes after years of just good work. Why, I suspect in their cases, is very complicated.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 21, 2012, 11:42:44 pm
I was also going to mention the talented students leaving issue, which I've also encountered in teaching martial arts.
But you've already said what I was going to.  :)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Rob C on February 22, 2012, 04:12:02 am
So, are we confusing talent with fame? Are you saying Adams had no talent in his documentation of the camps? Are you suggesting this work was so he could pay his rent? And how does this relate to the idea of nature vs. nurture?




According to a DVD that I have, Adams had a hard time paying for anything until he was a fairly old man, at which time it rolled in. Once I find it and verify the authors I'll let you know, but it really does seem he was under quite strong financial pressure very much until his old age when he was taken under the wing of someone who then promoted the hell out of him and pulled his name up into starhood and into political interest groups and powerplays.

No, I don't think a whole heap of the shots of his that I've seen on the 'camp' genre. To be even more brutal about it, he strikes me as very good on technique and relatively empty on content; a stationary Ferrari, if you will. That's one of the penalties of raising people to the heavens: they usually can't deliver.

That's just my own opinion, and many many more disagree, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

As for confusing talent with fame - no, not in my mind; I'm very clear about the difference. Nature/nurture? Come on, you think that nature has no rôle, that nurture can stuff a dead turkey with the power of flight?

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 22, 2012, 08:41:07 am
According to a DVD that I have, Adams had a hard time paying for anything until he was a fairly old man, at which time it rolled in.
Rob C
When I moved to the Washington DC area in 1978, Harry Lunn still had his art gallery that specialized in photography down here.  One of the photographers he represented was Adams and at that time you could still buy an Adams signed print for $250 (though not Moonrise, as far as I remember that one went for $1500).  Lunn later moved the gallery up to New York.  This obituary (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-harry-lunn-1196714.html) from the Independent provides an interesting snapshot to Lunn's life.  His first gallery show of Adams was in 1971 (Adams was 69 at that time).

Alan

Edit added:  My regret was not buying a print at that time but I was just a 'poor' post-doctoral fellow and $250 was a significant sum of money.  One of my neighbors did buy a 16x20 print of Aspen Trees!
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 22, 2012, 09:40:32 am
Nature/nurture? Come on, you think that nature has no rôle, that nurture can stuff a dead turkey with the power of flight?

Rob C

I am not on any particular side of the fence. I think this is a complex process where talent can be both innate and learnt to various degrees.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 22, 2012, 10:07:17 am
I am not on any particular side of the fence. I think this is a complex process where talent can be both innate and learnt to various degrees.
To start splitting hairs - Except that is not what talent means. Talent is normally used to refer to inherent/natural skills, ability would be a better word to describe both learned and innate skills.

I think anyone can be taught all the technical aspects of photography there are and yet still not be a photographer. Most of us can learn to be good at most things with enough time and effort. But when it comes to creativity and that certain flair that's the bit that cannot be learnt. Though many hide their lack of this by copying other's work.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 22, 2012, 10:09:34 am
Nature/nurture? Come on, you think that nature has no rôle, that nurture can stuff a dead turkey with the power of flight?
Ha, ha.  ;D
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 22, 2012, 10:38:21 am
This is an interesting story which potentially could shed a lot of light on this debate. But because it was an amoral study on twins that were deliberately separated at birth to observe Nature Vs Nuture, the result have been put under wraps. Even Dr Neubauer, the chap in charge finally realised that maybe it was an unacceptable experiment and decided that to reveal the results would be harmful to those involved. Which if there was no correlation between the twins behaviour, harm is unlikely to be the outcome.

Twins seperated at Birth (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15629096)

More info re study on a one pair of twins (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wright-twins.html)

Interview with another pair of the separated twins (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/nature-experiment-for-twins/story-e6frf7lf-1111114793928)

"It was just a natural instinct to start comparing . . . we had 35 years to catch up on. How do you start asking somebody, 'What have you been up to since we shared a womb?' "
THEY discovered similarities: they both sucked the same pointer and middle fingers, studied film at university, edited their high school newspapers and took pride in their typing speed and have a habit of "air typing". They shared the same tastes in books and slept with toy bears into their adulthood.
"Actually, I still do that," admits Schein. "Paula slept with a bear until she met her husband."

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: stamper on February 22, 2012, 11:49:05 am
Call that interesting? More like still born.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 22, 2012, 12:38:27 pm
Call that interesting? More like still born.
I said the story was interesting and the study amoral, so what point are you making?
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 22, 2012, 01:44:01 pm
Like Capa's images of the Normandy invasion?
(I realise that you were commenting about something quite different; but I'm going to hijack your example and use it to slam "Everything matters in photography" some more, and slam that slogan because I don't think it's in-the-least helpful or useful.)

"Over the next hour and a half, however, [Capa] managed to shoot two rolls of film before jumping onto a landing craft taking wounded soldiers back to a ship. As soon as he landed in Portsmouth, he had the films sent to the London office of Life. There, the picture editor urged his darkroom staff to develop and print the negatives as fast as possible in order to put them on a plane to New York in time for the magazine's next issue. In the event, they worked too fast, putting the 72 negatives into an overheated drying cabinet. All but eleven were ruined, and even these were blurred. But the results turned out to be some of the most memorable photographs of that extraordinary day: the blurring only makes them more dramatic."

p168 Eyewitness: Hungarian Photography in the Twentieth Century. Brassaï, Capa, Kertész, Moholy-Nagy, Munkácsi (http://books.google.com/books?id=P9rKcQAACAAJ)


There is a trivial sense in which "Everything matters in photography" -- What if Capa's parent's had never met? -- yada yada yada.

Apart from that, Capa's D-Day photographs show example after example of details that we would sensibly think should matter but actually don't.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: John Camp on February 22, 2012, 02:17:04 pm
@jjj,

The root of our disagreement is in definitions. You're using a common definition of 'talent' which is not used in these books we're discussing. You're using 'talent' like most people use 'theory,' where theory=guess, or general idea, which is correct in popular usage, but not in scientific usage.

In the books we're discussing, talent is always seen as a product of performance: you're not considered talented unless you demonstrate that talent. Intelligence and physicality (among other things) are inherited, in this scheme, but talent is developed. The question is, where does the talent come from? These books argue that what we regard as "talent" largely derives from a particular kind of training.

The reason that a huge percentage of NFL hockey players are born in January and February is that the best and most extensive hockey training is done in Canada, and Canada divides its hockey classes by birthday, starting with January 1. That means that kids who are born early in the year are as much as a year bigger and stronger than kids born very late in the year. They therefore get more attention right at the beginning, get higher in league play faster, and therefore get better coaching, etc. Their physicality (inherited) results in talented players (training). Following the logic that you propose, everybody with X level of physicality is a "talented hockey player," even if he's born in Brazil and never saw a puck. What the authors of these books define as a "talented hockey player" is a person who plays hockey at a very high level.

Our disagreement is that simple: I've adopted the implicit definition from these books of talent=performance. You've stepped back from that, and said that intelligence=talent or physicality=talent, and these books would not do that. These books would say that intelligence and physicality are simply inherited traits that may or may not be developed into specific talents. Arguing about that is pointless. It's like arguing that the popular definition of "theory" is better than the scientific one, when in fact, they're simply different.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 22, 2012, 03:08:57 pm
@jjj,

The root of our disagreement is in definitions. You're using a common definition of 'talent' which is not used in these books we're discussing. You're using 'talent' like most people use 'theory,' where theory=guess, or general idea, which is correct in popular usage, but not in scientific usage.
No, I'm not confusing my word usage, you or your precious authors are.
Talent and theory as words are not exactly comparable. One has a common meaning and a scientific meaning and the other simply has a common meaning.

Quote
In the books we're discussing, talent is always seen as a product of performance: you're not considered talented unless you demonstrate that talent. Intelligence and physicality (among other things) are inherited, in this scheme, but talent is developed. The question is, where does the talent come from? These books argue that what we regard as "talent" largely derives from a particular kind of training.
And it's a simplistic view based on poor studies. Please try and address the specific points I raised about these flawed studies and even worse the generalisations from a specific example in a prior post and not simply ignore anything that contradicts your argument.

Quote
The reason that a huge percentage of NFL hockey players are born in January and February is that the best and most extensive hockey training is done in Canada, and Canada divides its hockey classes by birthday, starting with January 1. That means that kids who are born early in the year are as much as a year bigger and stronger than kids born very late in the year. They therefore get more attention right at the beginning, get higher in league play faster, and therefore get better coaching, etc.
Which is what I said. Being older gives them an edge, because of a selection system. The problem that undermines your stance, is that some of the players that were born in Nov/Dec may actually have been even better than those in Jan/Feb if given the same opportunity, as opposed to being severely disadvantaged.  Plus it may be the case that the NHL players whose birthdays are in Dec got through a system that was biased against them, because they were more talented.

Quote
Their physicality (inherited) results in talented players (training). Following the logic that you propose, everybody with X level of physicality is a "talented hockey player," even if he's born in Brazil and never saw a puck.
Lots of people have latent talents that they have never explored for whatever reason. Doesn't make them any less talented does it? It's like saying people who have never had the chance to go to college as they live in a college free zone must all be thick as they never went to college.

 
Quote
What the authors of these books define as a "talented hockey player" is a person who plays hockey at a very high level.
Using commercial success as a the yardstick of talent is simplistic, especially if you again widen a specific definition  of success to other non-related fields. Again you have not addressed the examples I gave of how talent is not necessarily measured in the now or by money.

Quote
Our disagreement is that simple: I've adopted the implicit definition from these books of talent=performance. You've stepped back from that, and said that intelligence=talent or physicality=talent, and these books would not do that. These books would say that intelligence and physicality are simply inherited traits that may or may not be developed into specific talents. Arguing about that is pointless. It's like arguing that the popular definition of "theory" is better than the scientific one, when in fact, they're simply different.
Sounds like backtracking on your part to me not on my part. You say that the books meaning is 'implicit', so have you conflated talent with success, which have distinctly different meanings and not the authors?
And if a couple of books use talent in a different way to everyone else are we all supposed to jump in line, despite 'talent' not being a scientific term like 'theory' is?

I'm curious, do you have any experience of teaching and in complex skills that are not simply rote learnable?
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: daws on February 22, 2012, 05:49:34 pm
The question is, where does the talent come from? These books argue that what we regard as "talent" largely derives from a particular kind of training.

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the fundamental question, "who trained the first trainers?"

See David S. Whitley's Cave Paintings and the Human Spirit: The Origin of Creativity and Belief.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: hjulenissen on February 23, 2012, 05:07:49 am
Mathematicians are more likely to do their Nobel-price winning work while they are young (in their 20s?).

This seems to indicate that the bulk of experience and knowledge accumulated through a long career is not the only factor in doing groundbreaking work.

I suspect that the level of creativity and dedication needed to do a mathematical breakthrough is similar to what a photographer would have to do to stand out.

-h
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 23, 2012, 10:25:08 am
(http://www.gouptoday.info/avatar1.jpg)Please make sure we know who you are quoting (and not just who, but also from which post

It would be nice just to know what we are talking about...
Title: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: BJL on February 23, 2012, 10:25:23 am
Mathematicians are more likely to do their Nobel-price winning work while they are young (in their 20s?).
That is a bit of an urban legend, and certainly the 20s is too young: even most of the greats are still in graduate school at that age. My experience is that maybe 30's to 50's is the common peak: youth counts, but so does several decades of education and work! And again, in a discussion that started with advice on how to become a good photographer, not how to go back in time and be born a genius and child prodigy, it is misleading to judge the path to excellence by looking at the extreme outliers like Nobel prize winners: the vast majority of very good science is done only after a very long education, with not only a doctorate but some years of post-doctoral training beyond that. Most of us do not even have steady employment until age about 30!

But on the subject of youthful genius, the current most famous exemplar of a mathematical prodigy is Terry Tao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao), who was famous by his mid-twenties, but was also learning (and even teaching!) mathematics from age two, and taking university-level courses by age nine. As often, one can make a case for both a strong innate component, early strong parental support, and lengthy preparation.


Aside: mathematics does not have a Nobel prize, so we have to settle for the things like the Fields Medal (Canadian content!). Curiously, that Fields Medal has an age limit of 40, but that does not mean that the winners do nothing as good afterwards.
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: hjulenissen on February 23, 2012, 10:48:17 am
...in a discussion that started with advice on how to become a good photographer, not how to go back in time and be born a genius and child prodigy, it is misleading to judge the path to excellence by looking at the extreme outliers like Nobel prize winners: the vast majority of very good science is done only after a very long education, with not only a doctorate but some years of post-doctoral training beyond that.
I think that you are misinterpreting me. I am not suggesting that people go back in time and being re-born as a genius. I suggest that genes and young foolishness are significant contributors to doing ground-breaking work, and that a model that puts a lot of emphasis on 10.000 hours of training might conceal this. People may be offended or inspired by such a correlation, that does not change its correctness (if it is even right).

I am guessing that photography (to a larger degree than maths) benefits from "originality", "freshness", etc. If true, this would make it possible for a guy to "come from nowhere", get a camera, start making striking images, being discovered, having commercial success. Perhaps also artistic success, although that is a lot harder to measure objectively. I am certain that this happens from time to time with musicians.

-h
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 23, 2012, 11:09:44 am
I am guessing that photography (to a larger degree than maths) benefits from "originality", "freshness", etc. If true, this would make it possible for a guy to "come from nowhere", get a camera, start making striking images, being discovered, having commercial success. Perhaps also artistic success, although that is a lot harder to measure objectively. I am certain that this happens from time to time with musicians.
More like most of the time it is the fresh faced newbies who do new and original things in music.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Ray on February 23, 2012, 11:28:58 am
@jjj,

The root of our disagreement is in definitions. You're using a common definition of 'talent' which is not used in these books we're discussing. You're using 'talent' like most people use 'theory,' where theory=guess, or general idea, which is correct in popular usage, but not in scientific usage.

No, I'm not confusing my word usage, you or your precious authors are.
Talent and theory as words are not exactly comparable. One has a common meaning and a scientific meaning and the other simply has a common meaning.


I think this gets to the crux of the matter. So many disputes such as this arise as a result of different 'assumed' definitions of key words; in this case, talent.

The word 'talent' was used in Old English as talente, from the Latin talentum meaning unit of weight or money.

The word is now bandied around to refer to anyone who is particularly successful in any field, whether it be rock music, fashion designing, car racing or business acumen.

However, I wonder if those who argue that talent is not just an aquired state of skill above the ordinary, but something one is either born with or without, realise how arrogant their stance is.

Such a stance implies that they know exactly what talent is and its origins. It also implies that they can always recognise talent when they see it. Bear in mind that Van Gogh would have faded into oblivion had not the wife of his brother vigorously promoted his paintings after his death.

I also wonder if such people realise how negative they are being in asserting that 'talent' is something you either have or have not. Pompous, arrogant and negative, I would describe such people. Consider the many cases of people in history, who have later been recognised as having great talent, but who were informed early on by various authorities and contempories that they had no talent and should give up their pursuits.

One might wonder just how many people in history, of great 'talent', simply gave up because teachers and authorities, such as many posters in this thread, argued that talent was not something that could be acquired.

However, if one transcribes the generally understood meaning of talent to a more scientific phrase along the lines of 'inherited trait that may, by accident, be beneficial to an individual's survival or success', then one cannot deny that such traits exist. They are the basis of the Theory of Evolution.

As I understand, the process of Evolution relies upon both randon mutation of genes and the genetic variation resulting from different combinations of the male and female genes during procreation in life forms that have two sexes.

Is that 'talent'?  When an individual in a hot climate near the equator receives a survival advantage because he's born with a slightly darker skin than his fellows, as a result of what one might describe as an accidental mutation; is that 'talent'?

If that's your definition of talent, then you are right. Talent is something you are born with or without.

Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: BJL on February 23, 2012, 11:30:53 am
I suggest that genes and young foolishness are significant contributors to doing ground-breaking work ...
No dispute from me or almost anyone else.
... and that a model that puts a lot of emphasis on 10.000 hours of training might conceal this.
And I was pointing out that your urban legend about mathematical greatness hides the decades of preparation, well over 10,000 hours I would estimate, that was needed even by a child prodigy like Terry Tao to reach his greatest accomplishments. Ditto for Picasso, by the way: his first great works came after well over a decade of training and work. So I see not the slightest refutation of the idea that many, many hours of preparations are _also_ important.

And surely, when giving advice, it makes sense to emphasize the part that people _can_ do something about! One frustration that I have as a teacher of mathematics, is this myth (far more common is the USA than in most Asian countries) that mathematical ability is an innate dichotomy, "you either have it or you don't", so often used by both students and parents as an excuse for not even trying.
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: hjulenissen on February 23, 2012, 11:41:17 am
So I see not the slightest refutation of the idea that many, many hours of preparations are _also_ important.
Sure. On average, training, genes, motivation all seems to play a significant part.

For any individual, it seems that one or two factors can occasionally dominate the outcome. It _is_ probably possible to make a "successful" piece of art with no training, but basing your choice of education and future on such an event to happen is probably very unwise. It _is_ possible that a few documents from a bored patent engineer will rock the world of physics, but chances are that they won't.

My experience as a student (not as a teacher) is that some get a reasonable understanding of maths with moderate effort, while others don't really grasp maths even though they seem to put considerable effort into it. Some are good teachers without ever taking ped classes, others have 5 years of university education in pedagogics but should never have been allowed to be a teacher. Some bands struggle for 20 years without ever having success, while others are "discovered" at their first ever concert at age 17. Life can be fair or unfair, but it is up to you to make the best out of what you got and enjoy the ride.

-h
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 23, 2012, 11:50:26 am
And surely, when giving advice, it makes sense to emphasize the part that people _can_ do something about! One frustration that I have as a teacher of mathematics, is this myth (far more common is the USA than in most Asian countries) that mathematical ability is an innate dichotomy, "you either have it or you don't", so often used by both students and parents as an excuse for not even trying.

And I wonder if that comes from the Western myth of the genius--the artist that is just brilliant. In Asia, or Japan with which I am more familiar, there is the idea of studying the form from a master and that skill can be handed down. Once the skill is mastered, then the artist has the potential to push the art beyond that. Spontaneous artistic expression, like we have in the West, is not really recognized in the traditional arts. This is not to say the Japanese model of traditional arts is not flawed, but it is a difference. Where the West stresses the ego, the East rejects it.

While we cannot teach an artist to be innovative, we can teach methods and techniques to be competent in a medium--just like math. Creativity does not have to be unique, it can also simply mean applying known conditions to create solutions.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Ray on February 23, 2012, 12:35:46 pm
The point regarding apparent differences in martial arts talents, that some posters have mentioned, seems a bit specious to me.

Whilst it may be obvious that two newbies to the sport may exhibit vastly different talents, it may well be he case that the person who seems a 'natural'  has previously engaged in activities that require similar skills.

A young child who has already had experience in opening windows, and who then successfully opens a door for the first time, may seem to be innately talented in door-opening. However, opening windows is very similar to opening doors, so one should not assume that such ease in opening doors is an indication of a special inherited talent.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 23, 2012, 12:48:30 pm
Whilst it may be obvious that two newbies to the sport may exhibit vastly different talents, it may well be he case that the person who seems a 'natural'  has previously engaged in activities that require similar skills.


But is the "natural" talent the martial art or physical dexterity? I would think that a martial artist would also be good at dancing. Can a painter and photographer share the same talent of an intuitive understanding of spatial qualities? I would imagine that talent would be useful to both. It would also be useful in architecture. It think the specific discipline is irrelevant, but the attribute that allows proficiency in a discipline is more important.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 23, 2012, 01:06:21 pm
Come back Mark Dubovoy all is forgiven!

The generalities and special pleading (and unsourced factoids that won't check out) in the comments over the past day are no better than the reasoning in Mark Dubovoy's essay - and at least he managed to talk about photography! ;-)
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: Rob C on February 23, 2012, 01:12:06 pm

.And I was pointing out that your urban legend about mathematical greatness hides the decades of preparation, well over 10,000 hours I would estimate, that was needed even by a child prodigy like Terry Tao to reach his greatest accomplishments. And surely, when giving advice, it makes sense to emphasize the part that people _can_ do something about!

One frustration that I have as a teacher of mathematics, is this myth (far more common is the USA than in most Asian countries) that mathematical ability is an innate dichotomy, "you either have it or you don't", so often used by both students and parents as an excuse for not even trying.



And here we go again: regarding talented kids, I spent some early school years in India, and one event that amazed me to the extent that I remember it still, was as follows.

Our maths master brought into the classroom a man, and a boy of around twelve years of age. The maths master wrote up a long list of multi-digit numbers on the blackboard in the form of a typical addition sum. This boy looked at the list, and without benefit of paper or pencil, almost instantly wrote down the total. He was correct, on every different such set of numbers he was given to face. So how would you classify that ‘skill’ if not as some sort of inborn talent? Devil-worship?

My wife, who coached me through a maths exam during an engineering apprenticeship I had undertaken, could add up a shopping list more rapidly and accurately in her head than I could with a pocket calculator. Her Dad was the same. In school, she sailed through maths and advanced maths where I managed to go down thrice and only come up twice. In English, she was faultless regarding grammar but feared writing essays; I never gave grammar a thought and loved essays as a route to higher marks than the majority of the kids in the class. Again, where the benefit of those friggin’ 5000 hours: all of us brats had to put in the same time, few of us came out of it with similar abilities or desires or even levels of achievement.

Ray commented that there was a sense of superiority associated with the belief in talent. I don’t accept that as necessarily being the case. I see the belief in talent as a straightforward example of one’s experiences in life. Indeed, I have known several people who just ‘had’ it in their discipline; why should that be considered negatively? I would also add that that talent didn’t mean that they were especially intelligent or great in all the other aspects of their lives…

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 23, 2012, 01:20:49 pm
I could hardly talk for 30 seconds on an Ansel Adams picture, but can wax boringly on for hours (to myself, I don't subject others to it) about Manuel Alvarez Bravo, or Andre Kertesz, or Robert Adams.
What's the role of context in your appreciation of a Robert Adams' pictures?
What's the role of Ansel Adams' "...clouds of Michelangelo. Muscular with gods and sungold" in your appreciation of a Robert Adams' pictures?
What's the role of Ansel Adams' American West in your appreciation of a Robert Adams' pictures?
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: BJL on February 23, 2012, 01:28:20 pm
So how would you classify that ‘skill’ if not as some sort of inborn talent? Devil-worship?
I would characterize it an inborn talent: is your question addressed to someone else who is denying the significance of inborn differences completely, or is it not clear from my comments that I acknowledge both variations in innate potential and the need for much time and effort to turn that talent into the ability to do something of great value? As stated in the subject line of my post and your reply, for example? Because that ability to do arithmetic in one's head alone is not enough to win you the Nobel Prize, or Fields Medal, or even get you a low-level academic job.
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: BJL on February 23, 2012, 01:35:58 pm
And I wonder if that comes from the Western myth of the genius--the artist that is just brilliant. In Asia, or Japan with which I am more familiar, there is the idea of studying the form from a master and that skill can be handed down.
Maybe in part, but I suspect not entirely: surveys indicate that with many educational accomplishments, American parents do in general give significant credit to the importance of hard work (in the spirit of the power of positive thinking, protestant work ethic, "every child can grow up to be president" and such), but some areas like mathematics are far more likely to get the "you have to be born with it" attitude. So this "mathematical fatalism" seems somewhat common even in parents who vigorously encourage their children to work hard from an early age in other endeavors like music or sports.
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: Rob C on February 23, 2012, 03:43:05 pm
A.   I would characterize it an inborn talent: is your question addressed to someone else who is denying the significance of inborn differences completely, or is it not clear from my comments that I acknowledge both variations in innate potential and the need for much time and effort to turn that talent into the ability to do something of great value? As stated in the subject line of my post and your reply, for example?

B.   Because that ability to do arithmetic in one's head alone is not enough to win you the Nobel Prize, or Fields Medal, or even get you a low-level academic job.



Okay, let's take the points in the order as I've separated them:

A.  I'm glad we both agree about the existence of 'inborn talent'; your post was quoted because it included the points I wanted to respond to in the simplest way.

B.  'Doing arithmetic in one's head' is a very offhand way of describing what that small Indian boy could achieve in the twinkling of an eye! I couldn't have done that, then or now, with any amount of time allowed. Further, your reference to winning awards has little to do with talent per se; talent does not need to be turned into some form of gain to exist; it's sufficient unto itself - it just is.

Rob C
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: Dave Millier on February 23, 2012, 04:23:06 pm
Ultimately, the limits of any living thing is genetically determined, that is trivially obvious: blue whales are very bad at sipping nectar from orchids irrespective of the amount of practice they may put it.  Somethings simply benefit from certain design parameters, some things from other design parameters. This is so obvious it barely needs discussion. It's also rather irrelevant and uninteresting to this thread. And those like Rob who are pursuing the idea it's all about "talent" are just espousing bar room prejudice.

Excellence at certain skills (like photography) where both the skill and the recognition of excellence are often arbitrary, fashionable or disputed is very different from simple measures like height, eye colour etc that are generally distributed as a bell curve with the majority clustering around the mean and an increasingly smaller percentage at the extremes.  The idea that best photos are only produced by the greatest talents is ridiculous. Photographic skill isn't measurable in a simple sense. First of all, there's no fixed undisputed way of judging the "best" photographs, it's a matter of personal taste. Fashion, cultural traditions and any number of other things make declaring something the "best" to be meaningless.

Even if it were somehow possible to agree a universal ranking for photographs, how ever could we decide the reason why a particular photographer produced the "best" work? It's easy to declare your favourite photographer "a talent" but what does that mean (beyond you happen to like their work)? Production of a photograph isn't something that depends on a simple measure like how tall you are or how fast you can run, it is a complex amalgam of multiple factors, some related to the photographer, some to the means at their disposal for making photographs and some more to do with the audience than the photographer. 

Even if we stick to just the photographer's contributions, how can we possibly decide which of the many factors a photographer contributes to the process are the cause of the greatness? Is there work the result of insights gained from suffering childhood trauma, or insights gained from long hours in the darkroom? Or maybe they had a friend whose style they liked and copied, worked on and developed and then brought to the wider attention of the world through the influence of a good agent? How can we tell, we always have incomplete knowledge about the mix of circumstances, politics, fashion, friends in high places, practice, talents and dumb luck that all play a part.

It is probably true that there have been untrained artists who produced splendid work at the first attempt because they have some instinctive visual flair; it is also true that great work comes as the end result of a lot of personal development and learning first. Many endeavours are mostly craft with a dash of inspiration, most aren't things that just spring fully formed from the ether (even if John Denver claimed he didn't compose songs, they just arrived fully formed!). Successful artists, like physicists, musicians, mathematicians and any other trade are often falsely stereotyped as 'genius' as if that were all that were required to explain success. In truth, no two people become successful in exactly the same way by exactly the same route and as the result of exactly the same abilities - and indeed lots of people are not recognised at all until change in the vagaries of fashion propels their previously ignored or overlooked work into the limelight.

Yes, genes set the absolute limits but they are very rarely the significant limits and anyone who claims that lack of talent is holding back their photography would do well to examine rather a lot of other factors before falling back to that one... 







And here we go again: regarding talented kids, I spent some early school years in India, and one event that amazed me to the extent that I remember it still, was as follows.

Our maths master brought into the classroom a man, and a boy of around twelve years of age. The maths master wrote up a long list of multi-digit numbers on the blackboard in the form of a typical addition sum. This boy looked at the list, and without benefit of paper or pencil, almost instantly wrote down the total. He was correct, on every different such set of numbers he was given to face. So how would you classify that ‘skill’ if not as some sort of inborn talent? Devil-worship?

My wife, who coached me through a maths exam during an engineering apprenticeship I had undertaken, could add up a shopping list more rapidly and accurately in her head than I could with a pocket calculator. Her Dad was the same. In school, she sailed through maths and advanced maths where I managed to go down thrice and only come up twice. In English, she was faultless regarding grammar but feared writing essays; I never gave grammar a thought and loved essays as a route to higher marks than the majority of the kids in the class. Again, where the benefit of those friggin’ 5000 hours: all of us brats had to put in the same time, few of us came out of it with similar abilities or desires or even levels of achievement.

Ray commented that there was a sense of superiority associated with the belief in talent. I don’t accept that as necessarily being the case. I see the belief in talent as a straightforward example of one’s experiences in life. Indeed, I have known several people who just ‘had’ it in their discipline; why should that be considered negatively? I would also add that that talent didn’t mean that they were especially intelligent or great in all the other aspects of their lives…

Rob C

Title: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: BJL on February 23, 2012, 04:38:06 pm
'Doing arithmetic in one's head' is a very offhand way of describing what that small Indian boy could achieve in the twinkling of an eye!
And could he already discover wonderful new mathematical results? I severely doubt it. My point is simply that early manifestations of inborn talent like that, while somewhat common in areas like mathematics and music, totally fail to justify all the skepticism in this thread about the need for many hours and years of preparation before achieving valuable results, because in virtually every case I know of, the inborn talent alone is far from enough: it is a seed.
Quote
Further, your reference to winning awards has little to do with talent per se; talent does not need to be turned into some form of gain to exist; it's sufficient unto itself - it just is.
My reference to winning awards was just a figure of speech, picking up on someone else's comment about Nobel prizes: it was a reference to accomplishments, not "talent", which I prefer to use in the original biblical sense of inborn assets.  If it helps, translate "prizes" as "discover wonderful new mathematical results" or "produce a body of memorable artists works" or such.


P. S. Since the word "talent" arose from a biblical parable, and the talent there was a gift of money, not itself an accomplishment, the source might be worth citing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: Dave Millier on February 23, 2012, 04:42:30 pm
I have a paper somewhere by a mathematics teacher on teaching children who have difficulty with mathematics. It is a very interesting read.

It contains a number of ideas that I imagine would surprise many people: for example that the potential to learn mathematics to the level of a bachelor's degree is within the capabilities of the majority of children (because although such achievement sounds impressive to lay people, the level of mathematics involved is achievable by graft alone). Another is that although there is a wide range of mathematical ability amongst children at an early age, often it is the case that those who find it easiest at say age 7 might go on to be the ones that struggle at say age 13. Why is that you might think? The author does not claim that there is no instinct in mathematical success; quite the opposite, true mathematical invention requires insight.  He says an awful lot of basic maths depends on process, not inspiration. And that children who have a natural early knack tend not to knuckle down and graft their way through learning the rules and techniques by rote, instead relying on their intuition. They are often encouraged to do this at the beginning because it's a good party trick. But later in their education, when the problems get harder, they cannot do it by intuition any longer. Because they have skipped learning the step by step, skill layered upon skill drill, they can flounder and drop away completely.

Most lay people don't know really know what is involved in attaining mastery of many disciplines and are too easily impressed by displays of competence in fields outside their experience. This ignorance leads to myths such as the idea that "it's all natural talent".

Maybe in part, but I suspect not entirely: surveys indicate that with many educational accomplishments, American parents do in general give significant credit to the importance of hard work (in the spirit of the power of positive thinking, protestant work ethic, "every child can grow up to be president" and such), but some areas like mathematics are far more likely to get the "you have to be born with it" attitude. So this "mathematical fatalism" seems somewhat common even in parents who vigorously encourage their children to work hard from an early age in other endeavors like music or sports.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Craig Arnold on February 23, 2012, 04:54:58 pm
@Isaac

You want an essay? :)

Context of course is important in all discourse, and photography is no exception.

My appreciation of Robert Adams is only minimally informed by Ansel Adams' work; although I have spent a little time with many of AA's books and images, they don't hold my interest. I have borrowed many from the library but have never purchased any to own and return to many times. I don't "get" them, and I don't see them in RA very much except as a reaction. I see far more of Edward Weston and Dorothea Lange in his images, and I see parallels to other non-American photographers too, photographers of the African landscape for example. That is the personal context I bring to RA's work. And of course I see RA everywhere you look in today's famous photographers in art, landscape, documentary and even fashion photography.

If you tell me that I might have a fuller appreciation of RA's work if I studied AA more, and it's time I cured my ignorance -then well, that I suppose is a reason to look again at AA, but not for the work itself which I don't really find terribly interesting in its own right. Maybe as I continue to read and study I will be able to appreciate AA in the same way as others do. That would be just fine by me. And I'm sure that if I do then I will be able to sit and think and talk about the things that interest me about the images.

But this is a digression, and the point I was originally trying to make was the correlation between that characteristic of studied practice which Gladwell describes as being able to maintain a running dialogue or commentary on the thought processes involved when analysing a game of chess or a musical performance and comparing that to MR's notion of being able to articulate what your own pictures are about and the importance the process this plays in his tutorials.

This is why I so dislike the forum habit of selective quoting of parts of posts; the bits that are often stripped out for comment often miss the overall thrust of what the original poster was trying to say.
 


Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: Rob C on February 23, 2012, 05:11:06 pm
... because in virtually every case I know of, the inborn talent alone is far from enough: it is a seed.



And there, I think, you've come full circle to my point of view though you might not accept that, even though we both seem to agree that talent exists. I call it talent, you call it seed, but without it the ground remains stony. Much human ground is pretty well littered with friggin' great rocks! You can't develop what isn't there, no matter how many precious hours you devote to the exercise. But, you certainly can develop any number of mediocre abilities to the top level of their natural mediocrity.

But I need air; that's all on this particular circular (yet another one!) topic from me. Over and oot!

Rob C
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 23, 2012, 08:21:36 pm
I don't "get" them, and I don't see them in RA very much except as a reaction.
Yes - as a reaction - as reaction to a landscape tradition reaching back more than a century, as a rejection of that traditions relevance in the face of suburban sprawl, as lost landscapes that can no longer be shown.

This is why I so dislike the forum habit of selective quoting of parts of posts; the bits that are often stripped out for comment often miss the overall thrust of what the original poster was trying to say.
Conversation as usual - people pick up the thread that they feel they can say something about and are then tugged back to the points others wish to discuss, and around we go until everything has been said clearly ;-)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 23, 2012, 11:34:07 pm
The point regarding apparent differences in martial arts talents, that some posters have mentioned, seems a bit specious to me.

Whilst it may be obvious that two newbies to the sport may exhibit vastly different talents, it may well be he case that the person who seems a 'natural'  has previously engaged in activities that require similar skills.
I mentioned this from a teacher's perspective, but let me add to it from a student's perspective. Before doing martial arts, I used a bike to get around town and otherwise I spent most of my life avoiding sporting activities. I did swimming at school, simply because being in a warm pool made more sense than running around in the cold wearing shorts.  Despite the lack of previous form,  I still found Martial Arts were something that was relatively easy for me to do.
 However, when doing dance later on, I used some of my martial arts skills to my advantage. But I should mention that many of my MA colleagues were simply dreadful at dancing. I had to teach my original sensei to count 1-4 when dancing to try and help him dance in time when clubbing as he was so dreadfully out of time. Yet without anyone ever telling me anything I could always dance in time/in rhythm without counting. In fact when I started being taught partner dancing, it was obvious to me that a lot of what I was being taught was simply wrong, despite having far, far less experience than my instructors.

Whilst no-one would argue that physical characteristics have a huge affect on say whether you would be Gold medal material, why do people think brain power/skills do not have the same bearing, despite all the very obvious evidence around us? i.e the entire population who are so vastly different in everything they can do. Even if they have had the same training. 
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 23, 2012, 11:46:59 pm
But is the "natural" talent the martial art or physical dexterity? I would think that a martial artist would also be good at dancing.
I touched on this in my post above. But to elaborate...many good dancers are also good martial artists. Not so true the other way around. Both skills require coordination and dexterity, but dancing also requires musicality. Which is something many people have with no training whatsoever and others despite years of practice, still lack it. To me musicality is such an obvious natural talent, just like having an eye for photography.
As an aside, to portray Bruce Lee in a biopic a few years back, a dancer was chosen. And not a martial artist. Bruce Lee was also a champion ballroom dancer.

Quote
Can a painter and photographer share the same talent of an intuitive understanding of spatial qualities? I would imagine that talent would be useful to both. It would also be useful in architecture. It think the specific discipline is irrelevant, but the attribute that allows proficiency in a discipline is more important.
Very true. Some attributes will be shared by say photographers and painters, but being good at one does not mean you will be any good at the other. I can see a scene, but completely lack the ability to control a brush to capture it that way. And I know very good artists who as rubbish at photography as I am at painting.
Title: Re: greatness is often innate talent plus lengthy preparation
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 23, 2012, 11:48:01 pm
That is a bit of an urban legend, and certainly the 20s is too young: even most of the greats are still in graduate school at that age. My experience is that maybe 30's to 50's is the common peak: youth counts, but so does several decades of education and work! And again, in a discussion that started with advice on how to become a good photographer, not how to go back in time and be born a genius and child prodigy, it is misleading to judge the path to excellence by looking at the extreme outliers like Nobel prize winners: the vast majority of very good science is done only after a very long education, with not only a doctorate but some years of post-doctoral training beyond that. Most of us do not even have steady employment until age about 30!

But on the subject of youthful genius, the current most famous exemplar of a mathematical prodigy is Terry Tao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao), who was famous by his mid-twenties, but was also learning (and even teaching!) mathematics from age two, and taking university-level courses by age nine. As often, one can make a case for both a strong innate component, early strong parental support, and lengthy preparation.


Aside: mathematics does not have a Nobel prize, so we have to settle for the things like the Fields Medal (Canadian content!). Curiously, that Fields Medal has an age limit of 40, but that does not mean that the winners do nothing as good afterwards.
The prime example (you should pardon the pun) of early mathematical expertise is surely Galois, who did his important work while still in his teens.

(And when Galois was my age, he had been dead for fifty-two years.)    :(

Eric
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: jjj on February 23, 2012, 11:53:30 pm
And I wonder if that comes from the Western myth of the genius--the artist that is just brilliant. In Asia, or Japan with which I am more familiar, there is the idea of studying the form from a master and that skill can be handed down. Once the skill is mastered, then the artist has the potential to push the art beyond that. Spontaneous artistic expression, like we have in the West, is not really recognized in the traditional arts. This is not to say the Japanese model of traditional arts is not flawed, but it is a difference. Where the West stresses the ego, the East rejects it.
And this difference may also partly explain why you get more British Nobel prize winners than you do Japanese.
114 Vs 15.

Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: stamper on February 24, 2012, 03:44:21 am
What is all this got to do with Mark's essay regarding photography? You have post after post talking about anything other than the subject at hand . It is a wonder the moderator hasn't closed this thread because of boredom. :(
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 24, 2012, 08:19:39 am
What is all this got to do with Mark's essay regarding photography? You have post after post talking about anything other than the subject at hand . It is a wonder the moderator hasn't closed this thread because of boredom. :(
I thought these were just some of the "small details" Mark was referring to. After all, "every detail matters."   :D
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: BJL on February 24, 2012, 09:38:04 am
What is all this got to do with Mark's essay regarding photography?
Some of us are thinking about the following small details in his essay, stated not only about photography but in more generality (and which, with the qualification "most" not "all", some of us are supporting, others disputing):

Quote
"The 10,000 hour rule".  What this rule states is that to master the basics of most worthwhile human endeavors takes 10,000 hours (roughly 4-5 years of pretty much full time attention).
-- http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/everything_matters_part_2.shtml
Quote
There are no shortcuts; spend (and enjoy!) your "10,000 hours" to master the craft and then break out and really bloom as an artist.
-- op cit.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: stamper on February 24, 2012, 10:08:41 am
Some seem to be adding to the small details making them B I G details. ::)
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 24, 2012, 12:20:03 pm
What is all this got to do with Mark's essay regarding photography?

Nothing. Nothing to do with the essay; and nothing to do with photography, and never going to be until at least the fundamental points listed by Dave Miller are addressed rather than ignored --

Photographic skill isn't measurable in a simple sense. etc etc
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 24, 2012, 12:26:33 pm
Some of us are thinking about the following small details in his essay ... "10,000 hours"

All we need to know about Mark Dubovoy's "10,000 hours" comments, which you repeat, is that they are just wrong - those comments are simply a misunderstanding of the reported research and we should stop repeating them.
Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: BJL on February 24, 2012, 06:57:02 pm
@Isaac, first, thanks for the various citations and comments: I have learnt a lot more from this discussion than from Mark Dubovoy's fleeting reference. But I am still puzzled as to what you think is outright _wrong_ about his comment: if anything, out of its sheer vagueness, it does not contradict your observation that the important thing is many hours of "deliberate practice", not just idle, unstructured activity (”one hour, repeated 10,000 times“, as the old cliché goes).

But never mind: getting the facts straight on the role of both "hours" and innate assets in achieving expertise is far more important than worrying about whether "someone is WRONG on the Internet" --- http://xkcd.com/386/

P. S. a version of Gresham's law comes to mind: in any sufficiently long photographic debate, people will eventually invoke Ansel Adams and/or Henri Cartier-Bresson.


Title: Re: Its all about the small details
Post by: Isaac on February 25, 2012, 12:24:59 pm
... getting the facts straight on the role of both "hours" and innate assets in achieving expertise is far more important than worrying about whether "someone is WRONG on the Internet"
And that's why I haven't been saying WRONG - to me it seems like the ordinary accumulation of misunderstandings that corrupt a message as it's passed from person to person, just wrong in a way that isn't even interesting.

But I am still puzzled as to what you think is outright _wrong_ about his comment...
Start with this -- "to master the basics of most worthwhile human endeavors takes 10,000 hours" -- and -- "To master the basics takes 10,000 hours." No, the research is not about mastering the basics it's about "further improvements" beyond that point.

...people will eventually invoke Ansel Adams and/or Henri Cartier-Bresson.
That is how the essay began, and I'll wrap-up with this generous acknowledgement -

Henri Cartier-Bresson once said of himself, Robert Capa, and Brassaï, “Whatever we have done, Kertész did first.”