born or made?

[Cambot Mk. II]

I don't know how many times I've heard it...

"You're either born with a photographer's eye or you're not."

I even worked with a man, blind in one eye, who swore that his situation gave him a better ability to understand the single eye of the camera.

But is it true?

I took the time recently to go back to my first work three years ago... I was green as hell and just glad to be holding a betacam.

It was absolute crap.

Everything was just slightly out of focus; the result of a macro ring not locked down as I recall. It was blue and and looked as if it were shot during an earthquake.

I can remember that assignment and laugh now, but I also remember the talking-to that I got and how I questioned whether this would ever be a good job for me.

I'm asking the same question now, but for different reasons.

Going through my tapes from the past three years, I have watched my work slowly progress to something I can say I find acceptable, if not stellar. I have also made a point of trying to learn what this job is really all about.

What I have found is a mentality in danger of extinction in the United States.

When I started as a photographer, I thought the broadcast industry was a the realm of professionals. Instead I have found that Broadcast Photojournalism is, above all else, a collection of skilled craftsmen and women. The historical perspective I have found is that, just as it occured in the the early days of the industrial revolution, technology and the corporate hive-mind of broadcaster and manufacturer are actively trying to eliminate skill in favor of automation.

People have posted here and told us about how Videojournalists can be shot through a whirlwind program and produce emmy-results in weeks, thanks to auto-everything-low-cost cameras. I find that somewhat analogous to blacksmiths, producing functional works of art that lasted, being replaced by metal stamping machines producing things so flimsy and unremarkable that they have to be quickly replaced, lest the buyer have to do without.

The president of my company has told me (when he came to our station a few months ago) that he has no illusions about the future of photojournalism in our company. He said they'd have to wait and see what the technology produced, and that it might prove to be more cost effective to have as many cameras out in the community than to have a few expensive betacams in the hands of a few individuals.

As we have begun to see, now anyone can get a camera and produce something acceptable for broadcast without any thought toward the craft. The result is cookie-cutter reporting and a bland sameness to everything.

I don't know that I want to be in this business if that is what is expected. My job should not be just to satisfy a consultant who only picks up a camera to shoot birthday parties.

Now a new question comes to me again and again in my sleepless nights...

"If you're not born with a photographer's eye, can it be manufactured?"

Our bosses say it will be, and they can't afford to let us use it when it is.
__________________________________________________

Just my 2 cents. Sorry for the rant.

[BoomDrive]

Originally posted by Cambot2000:
What I have found is a mentality in danger of extinction in the United States.

...The historical perspective I have found is that, just as it occured in the the early days of the industrial revolution, technology and the corporate hive-mind of broadcaster and manufacturer are actively trying to eliminate skill in favor of automation.

People have posted here and told us about how Videojournalists can be shot through a whirlwind program and produce emmy-results in weeks, thanks to auto-everything-low-cost cameras.I don't know if we're really "in danger of extinction." Have you ever had to dust off a 3/4" tape for some really old file video of a murder in the '80s when the photog shot the scene (a house) from halfway down the block without a tripod and his car engine as nats? Ugh! :)

You can easily argue both ways, but I think it's a mix of the two. There were times when I'd try something new in a package, using suggestion from a past story critique handed down by my boss or a senior photog. One of my favorite lessons was shooting creative interviews. If you're talking to a factory manager about the economy, and his supply warehouse is filled with metal shelves, stocked floor-to-ceiling with supplies, why would you stick them behind their desk in the warehouse's ajoining office?

People not in our business simply don't understand why we take it so seriously. They think it's just "pick up the camera, throw it on your shoulder, hit record." Any idiot can do that.

But, do they zoom with their feet? Do they get background and foreground? What's their framing look like? Have they even heard of white balance? :)

You can't be taught any of this unless you're working with the camera on a daily basis.

Personally, I wanted to learn and try new things, but I wasn't sure how far I could push the envelope as far as what looks "news" and what looks "A Current Affair," if that makes any sense.

I'm still not sure, but I've definitely grown comfortable with trying new things. So, in that respect, I'd say my eye's become more developed since the first time I picked up a camera. Look for what I know works, look for what I'd like to work, and look for what I think could work.

It's like we tell our interview subjects: it doesn't have to be perfect now, because we edit it later.

You've got the tape. Burn it.

[<Mi3ke>]

Born.

Mi3ke

[<cinehead w/o password>]

I think it's a little of both. I don't think I've met any photogs, not matter how good, that didn't get better with experience and lessons. I've even several that were flat out awful at the start, but they stuck to it and studied then, somewhere along the line, they got it. On the other hand, I've worked with some that have put years in the business and in the words of Bill Parcells, have yet to "get it".

Just my 2 cents. And, probably still overpriced.

[Fisher]

You are born with an "eye". However... if you were born without a good "eye" you can still be a photographer. It just means you will never be a great photojournalist.

Everyone has people in their shop who can best be described as cameramen. These are the people who were born without a good eye and for whatever reason ended up photographers. These guys can shoot stories, show up to work on time, never call in sick, take care of their gear, ect... in the beginning they learn how to do the job just like everyone. After a while they learn how to operate the camera. They shoot pictures and tell stories.

However... these "cameramen" will never be able to manipulate the camera and be in the right place a the right time or whatever it is that makes a person with an "eye" shoot great video. The kind of great pictures that can only be made by a photographer with an "eye". Combine the "eye" with the ability to tell a story (a skill that must be learned) and ... you get a great photojournalist.

Have Fun :D

[NorthShore]

I have always said that some people shouldn't breed.

I also firmly believe that some people shouldn't shoot video.

I beleive that we are definitely "born".

[<Jeebus>]

^Many of those who think they're born with an "eye" really aren't.

They're all over this board.

[<ksbyer>]

i believe you are either more technically inclined or more artistically inclined. both are helpful in this business. for me, learning all the functions on the camera is easy but putting them to practical and creative use is the challenge. i have seen others who have a great eye for shots but have trouble editing efficiently. whatever your weakness is work on improving that and it doesn't matter if you are born with it or not.

[<Workhorse>]

Born, Made, And then a crap load of shoe polish!!!

We all made rookie mistakes but the thing that makes a great photog to a so-so photog is determination!!!

Yes, some have the eye(IT CAN BE LEARNED)...Some have tech knowledge(CAN BE LEARNED)....But it comes down to heart and the willingness to push ones self to a new level!!!!!

Hell...when was the last time you miked a flag!!!A Dog!!! A horse!!!???????

It is thinking like you own it!!!

If you are confident and stop complaining and take a look around and move your cam(be it on the shoulder or the sticks)..you will start to see the good shots and the bad!!!

But then, after you have figured all the "Shooting" stuff, you will start listening and anticipate and grab nats that have a purpose and that push the nats and the story in unity.......then you will see where they fit...

And that my friends is Experience!!!!!

It takes time just like anything...ask the old dogs and the young guns how they do it!!!

It is being involved in the process...Anyone can shoot, but who can compose!!

I am learning every day and been doing this for a bit now...more than 7 years, and hell if it ain't a new light or a new scrim jim or any other toy you can throw at me I will never figure it all out....But the truth be told (and that is key), it just comes down to telling the best story with the time you got!!!

And some are born with dealing with pressure better than others...so become a better manager of your own time by always learning and being infront of the curve!!!!

Peace
(more now than ever before)
The broken down horse that still pulls the battle wagon of news!!!

Workhorse!!!
late! :P

[SeattleShooter]

I would have to say 75% born and 25% made.

[<Sycophant (out of town)>]

I never believed the 'born not made' thing - but maybe there is something to it...

I have been shooting on and off with ENG cameras for about 6 years, never really professionally, but enough that I know what all the switches and buttons do and can focus, expose and white balance.

Now, I am going to 'film and TV school' for more learnifying - and there are people on my course who, until nine weeks ago, had never ever touched a camera. Now some of them are shooting video that could go on the nightly news - not all the time yet, but it's getting there. I was ahead of the game at the start, but not so much anymore - I guess they were more born into it than me :)

I think anyone who can think in the right way can be taught, but some people are more inclined naturally toward it.

[<DeepahKool>]

Originally posted by &lt;Sycophant&gt;:
Now some of them are shooting video that could go on the nightly news...That bad, huh? :D

[Jesster]

mix of both. However, practice makes you better, but gifts make you truly awesome. I am confident in my shooting abilities, but I don't think that I will be POY anytime in my career. I am happy to do the kind of work that I and my station are proud to air.

[WV24fpspro]

A bit of both (born and made) as mentioned earlier...

Whats missing is developed upon. Theres people who WRONGLY believe that they can learn the artistic, composition, and profession all in school- using very limited "lab and hands on time". Sorry but in order to be a real professional and know how to place a bit of artistic expression into ones stories, then a real artist can't learn that at school.

The statement should then be refined to read something like this...

A portion of it is born into most individuals- developed further in school in a well rounded education- and then further built upon by on the job experience.

[addixicon]

I shot my own birth.

[editor_dude]

Practice is the best of all instructors.

(fourtune cookie)

[ March 03, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: editor_dude ]

[elvezz]

I was 100% made.
Never took a picture in my life till i started in production.

[Hiding Under Here]

I believe some people are born with an attraction to working in a visual medium. Their brains process images better than other peoples' do. For instance, when I was a kid, I took a shoe box, cut a few holes in it and drew pictures of things around me. Then I pretended the box was a camera and pulled the drawings out making-believed I had taken them as pictures.

I think that natural inclination leads some people to investigate photography -- still or moving -- as a career or avocation. And in that way they are "born" into it.

Having an "eye" is, I believe, somewhat of a natural thing. Give some people a camera for the first time and they take crappy, immature, uncertain pictures. Hand it to another virgin photographer and they bring back something akin to art.

Television photography is, by and large, the realm of the craftsman, not the artist, in my estimation. And I don't say that to be cruel or contentious. We don't take artful pictures day in and day out because we don't really control what and how we shoot. Learning to do what the television photographer does can be learned. You don't have to be born with the innate skill of framing shots in a video viewfinder. A good sense of mimicry -- how the process works universally at other television stations -- will get you through, and does get most people through, in this business.

I think having a "natural" eye can be beneficial for a TV photog, yet it's not essential. From my experience, the people who are drawn to this work were predisposed to do it because they didn't have to memorize rules and regulations (like a lawyer) or stay in one place for too long a time (like a school teacher or dentist). They were attracted to the excitement of the work, the constantly changing environment, and the opportunity to stand back and inspect something they had made and feel good about their efforts.

When you take a picture, something about who you are and how you feel about the world is expressed through it. That happens in TV photography. But more often than not we are really assessing our ability to recreate cliches (live shots, stand-ups, interviews, hand-held b-roll, etc..) that other photogs are recreating as well. When we see our work on a monitor we aren't looking for originality. Instead we're trying to determine how we stack up against an ambiguous standard. There simply are not a lot of unique images available in this line of work.

That's why I believe the word "storyteller" is so attractive to television photographers -- because it circumvents the photographic aspects of the work and gives the job renewed meaning. Personally, I think the better description would be "story follower". But that doesn't sound as proactive as the former designation. Truthfully, though, I think following a story IS what we do, when the assignment warrants. And while it is important to have a keen eye at those moments, it's also important to have an active mind, an open heart and a sense of adventure.

[ March 02, 2005, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Tom Fahey ]

[nozoom4u]

I've seen photogs in the business for years, who never "get it". Some have an eye for composition and the use of depth of field which can, over time be taught. But if you ask me our job is about so much more. I took pictures for years and did hundreds of hours in a darkroom before I ever tried shooting with a video camera, I knew about composition and how to take pictures but the minute I got my hands on a video camera I found a whole new world of opportunity. We are telling stories and that's the bottom line. I used to get all upset when my best shots weren't used, but slowly learned that if I didn't want them to use it then I shouldn't turn on my camera. It's not about pictures as much as it's about the story and catching moments, not the obvious one's but the ones the other photogs on the shoot don't see. It's about making the story "yours". It's about taking chances and communicating with your reporter, and getting in there. Think outside the box, look for the story everyone else isn't going to tell and tell it to the best of your ability I've seen a lot of shooters that took awesome pictures, and told awful stories, it's when you can do both that your going to be succesful.

[biff]

I think most have it right. Mostly inert ability and a lot of practice. Same way with sports. I started as a still photographer. When I go back and look at some of my oldest stuff. Stuff shot on an argus C3, which I still have and occasionally pull out. Most of it is good photography. Some of it is great stuff. You can see the progression of my skill as a photographer in those photos. Now, I believe that I am a very good photog. Not yet pulitzer or emmy winning, but I don't really try for that type of stuff. I won't kid anyone here. There are a lot of negatives that will never see the light of day. I have shot miles of film to develop my craft. I have months of video that will should be burned. But if not for the ability to 'see' that moment and to know when it will happen, I would be taking school pictures right now.

[MilVid19+]

I'd have to say that I personally was born with an eye but didn't really realize just HOW I was capturing the images that people liked so well until I had to step out of my role as a shooter and into the role of instructor. Teaching new recruits the importance of things like sequences, white balance, exposure, and depth of field helped me hone my skills even more. Also the opportunity to watch all of the first time errors of 25-35 green shooters once every couple of weeks teaches you what NOT to do...

[Shutterfinger]

I think its just like with anything else.

There are those who are naturals, but don't try very hard.

There are those who aren't naturals, but they work really hard to make up for it.

The naturals can have real talent, but don't understand what they are doing right. Its hard for them to teach because they can't articulate what for them is so instinctful.

Both can have a passion for photography and do great work.

I've never been a natural at anything, I fit into the "learned" catagory.
I see those who do good work and I model myself after them. Our best photog has great stuff so I watch his archived stories and try to imitate him. I think in a way I can develop "his" eye and other's eyes to create my own eye.

[ March 02, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Shutterfinger ]

[Capitol Beat]

I'd have to say news photographers are made...The time I spend shooting vs. the time I spend driving, setting up live shots, editing, and protecting and maintaining my gear far exceede the time I take to improve my photography skills. I would like to be a perfect shooter but I don't have time to do that...It's unfortunate but that is the run and gun world I live in.

[Son-of-Spam]

The best analogy i could think of would be to say it is like playing an instrument...you can train a person to play an intstrument and they will/could become very talented...but only certain people are able to create music that above and beyond what others could do...

Just hoping to have a little of that goodness myself...