Luck or Talent?

[Ralph]

Ralph, I hope you travel to NL in the near future. The Puffins are always asking me, "Where's Ralph?" B^)

In my 30s , I made 3 trips there and even spent 3 days camping on Baccalieu Island taking photos of puffins before the island was protected. What a place! It was great. My friend and I were the only people there. We actually hired a fisherman from Bay de Verd to bring us and pick us up.

 

[Woodyg3]

I've been doing this photography thing for a long, long time. A few thoughts...

Are you "lucky" if you spend days traveling to get to just the right location? No.

Are you "lucky" to position yourself correctly for the best background, perspective, and light? No.

Are you "lucky" to have the right equipment for the job with you and know how to use it? No.

Are you "lucky" if you spend hours and hours in the field waiting for one golden opportunity? No.

Are you "lucky" if you have spent a great amount of time learning everything you can about your subjects' habits and tendencies? No.

Finally, you are not "lucky" if you fire off a thousand shots in certain situations to get that wall hanger. You are an intelligent photographer.

I could go on and on here, but, well, I had better stop.

 

[Feiertag]

I've been doing this photography thing for a long, long time. A few thoughts...

Are you "lucky" if you spend days traveling to get to just the right location? No.

Are you "lucky" to position yourself correctly for the best background, perspective, and light? No.

Are you "lucky" to have the right equipment for the job with you and know how to use it? No.

Are you "lucky" if you spend hours and hours in the field waiting for one golden opportunity? No.

Are you "lucky" if you have spent a great amount of time learning everything you can about your subjects' habits and tendencies? No.

Finally, you are not "lucky" if you fire off a thousand shots in certain situations to get that wall hanger. You are an intelligent photographer.

I could go on and on here, but, well, I had better stop.

For argument's sake, I would say yes, to most of your nos from what I have experienced in my 11 years. Especially your last comment.

 

[Patrick M]

Context is an issue. Some work hard, some get lucky, most of us are somewhere between. My sister says I’m lucky I can afford to go on a cruise….i worked 12 hr days for 40 years to afford it! In some ways, I feel photography is like that. One can work hard to get the results, but some won’t realise what that means.

 

[Woody Meristem]

Most of us make our own luck. But no matter how much effort we put into whatever we do there are things that are out of our control.

 

[splatbass]

They still have to know how to use a camera. I try to travel once or twice a year to do wildlife photography. I choose places I have a reasonable expectation of easily finding wildlife - like Rocky Mountain National Park during the elk rut for example. Does that mean I have no talent? I still need to know composition, exposure, depth of field, etc.

Do portrait photographers not have talent because they have professional models that do whatever they say? IMO it is a ridiculous assertion to say the photographer has no talent because they put themselves in a position to succeed.

 

[Robert S]

I take photos for fun and to fill the day between waking up and going to sleep. If I was out to make money from photography I would strive to get a sharp image of a Royal lady's knickers on a windy day. IMO that would be worth a lot more than an image of a cross beaked lesser spotted robin.
Another point relates to telling jokes. Lots of people can make you laugh after a few drinks in the pub. However a 'pro' type comedian can make hundreds of people laugh in a theatre at 8.40 pm when they are sober.

 

[ElenaH]

I watched the video of Tin Man Lee and subscribed
The only luck there was a fog IMO. Actually I liked Tin as a person, he told about his experience in a very emotional manner and mentioned a lot of important things like a clean background, good pose, show animal as a handsome, place it in the frame etc...

A few days ago I shoot about 4000 photos to get one I had in mind. And I am still not sure if it would not be possible to get a better one
There were European Bee-eaters fighting for the holes. The birds are very fast, you don't know where they start to fight. Once the pose was not so good, then the background , then the camera didn't get focus and so on .... And I must use 20fps because each millisecond they were somewhere else
If you have soemthing in mind you just won't stop trying to get that shot.

About Africa sightings I can say you can learn to find animals. People, who are living there can agree with me. I've been there 17 times, started with guides and lodges. But now I learnt a lot about animals behaviour and was able to find lions by myself just by listening to alarm calls and watching impalas. Then I positioned vehicle and took picures. Luck? No. Just experience. And it was not only once that I found lions during lmy ast trip to Mana Pools.

By the way, Tin (or somebody else in his team?) was taking video as well. It is not obvious but I think behind that video was a lot of work.

 

[fcotterill]

All this extraordinary technology leverages luck, in that its reduces probabilities of missing key events/moments. Listing a few....
higher Frame Rates
Pre-Capture Release
Silent-Shooting
Hybrid AF Customization, including Recall Shooting Functions, and Preset Focus Distances
Low Light performance
Fast Focus-Stacking: Nikon Z9 captures 100 frame stack in 23 s

Several of Steve's videos underscore quite a few of these, including high fps - eg with the Z9:

 

[fcotterill]

Our generation(s) happen to be living in the Anthropocene, in all its burgeoning social and economic and above all environmental challenges; yet, ironically, we happen to be alive with the most extraordinary technology.

As for knowing one's subjects. Well, you never stop learning. Natural history in its broadest sense is the what matters ultimately when photographing wild subjects; and technology interfaces with the insights and predictions framed using the former. To rework phrases by Aldo Leopold, the human who doesn't show, nor nurture their Biophilia is going to struggle as an outdoor photographer, IMHO.

So many insights flow from reading signs in substrates: not only spoor. Walking in the 'real' African bush, aspects of this knowledge determine become a matter of life or death, to avoid walking into certain large mammals, and an empathy for animal behaviour is critical to knowing how to handle close up encounters. After all, this is where our species evolved alongside megafauna, together with many toxic and venomous species; there's the sound argument that the origins of tracking underpinned the evolution of scientific reasoning, which is essential for hunter-gather survival.

 

[BorderBirder]

Luck or talent?
I prefer to think in terms of blessings… We are still blessed with the wonders, beauties and fascinating stories that nature provides. I’m sure that’s the attraction for many of us.
Reflecting on my own most recent wildlife photography high, as here - https://bcgforums.com/index.php?thr...ith-z8-chapter-2-high-drama.24837/post-279539
I was blessed with being woken up by the dawn chorus, I had the motivation to use the experience to get out early. I was blessed with the call of a buzzard and something unusual about it - early in the day, and not riding thermals. The skill to hunt and find the buzzard on a hedge. The blessing of it taking off complete with rabbit and being mobbed by two crows . The blessing of a brand new Z8 and the tuition of Master Steve!! The blessing of some enjoyable images, including the Z8 tracking through the tree in the last image. And the blessing of this forum to post to……
Call me soppy!

 

[Feiertag]

For me, the plus/minus of taking a gazillion shots with digital equipment boils down to my tolerance for wading through them all in post. I don't think it's "cheating," just tedious. But I do have some feeling about safari-style photography vs going out into nature on my own. The only safari-style photo shoots I've been on were to Costa Rica and Yellowstone. Honestly, both felt more like going to a zoo than immersing myself in nature. I liked the photos I got and the places were both wonderful, but both trips seemed awfully "curated." As always, YMMV.

I'm with you. I have yet to take more than 6 frames of burst shots. I don't want to go through hundred captures of the same subject. Once I feel I have aced it, I become very picky or move on. It's like when I fly fished for Rainbow trout in British Columbia (where I'm from). It wasn't about the number of catches. It was about landing a decent-sized fish and releasing the others.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

I would like to point out one advantage of modern technology and high burst rates that could be considered luck, but I would not call it so:

Lovering shutter speed below certain threshold dictated by focal length will decrease the number of sharp pictures. But some pictures do require very low shutter speeds. (e.g. slow heli rotors require max 1/160 no matter what focal length is used. Otherwise the picture will look strange, with frozen rotor in the middle of the sky.) I may have 95% of soft picture with Z 800 PF, but I have some sharp ones.

Would you consider it luck or is it pushing boundaries?
Copter 500mm, 1/160

 

[JoPoV]

I would like to point out one advantage of modern technology and high burst rates that could be considered luck, but I would not call it so:

Lovering shutter speed below certain threshold dictated by focal length will decrease the number of sharp pictures. But some pictures do require very low shutter speeds. (e.g. slow heli rotors require max 1/160 no matter what focal length is used. Otherwise the picture will look strange, with frozen rotor in the middle of the sky.) I may have 95% of soft picture with Z 800 PF, but I have some sharp ones.

Would you consider it luck or is it pushing boundaries?
Copter 500mm, 1/160

Try a tripod.
Just kidding

 

[Feiertag]

Geez, I wonder how in the world the photographers from the past managed without 30fps+ or burst in general? The challenge must have been brutal using only their talent. How unlucky for them, to say the least. B^)

 

[Woodyg3]

For argument's sake, I would say yes, to most of your nos from what I have experienced in my 11 years. Especially your last comment.

Okay, but it's not an argument or discussion if you just make a statement like this. Maybe you could offer reasons as to why you would answer yes to these points.

 

[BlackHorsePhotos]

The other day I watched a video of a professional nature photographer. The location was Serengeti National Park with a guide. During a short time frame, 1000 shots were taken of this one particular lion. Of course, he ended up with a few wall hangers. The odds are in your favour when you take that many shots of a slow-moving and sometimes stationary animal.

To me, this does not require talent or skill. You may as well take a video and pick your best frame from it.

What do you think? Luck or what.

Isn't the whole point of digital versus film that you have the extraordinary option to just keep shooting until your memory cards are full?

You should do whatever it takes to not miss the shot. If you're willing to wade through 1,000 photos for a few keepers, then that takes a form of discipline and skill all of its own.

If that's his style, more power to him. Doesn't mean you have to follow it.

 

[Doug Herr]

Geez, I wonder how in the world the photographers from the past managed without 30fps+ or burst in general? The challenge must have been brutal using only their talent. How unlucky for them, to say the least. B^)

Customer (or, viewer) expectations have changed along with the technology.

 

[Feiertag]

Okay, but it's not an argument or discussion if you just make a statement like this. Maybe you could offer reasons as to why you would answer yes to these points.

Are you "lucky" if you spend days traveling to get to just the right location? -
I lived in British Columbia where there were 18 Bald Eagles on one tree, 25-minute drive from my home. Another year, there were 50-plus Snowies in the field (Boundary Bay, BC) near my home in Delta, BC.

Are you "lucky" to position yourself correctly for the best background, perspective, and light? -
When shooting birds in flight, you don't always have that luxury.

Are you "lucky" to have the right equipment for the job with you and know how to use it? No. -
Agreed but that doesn't take talent only money.

Are you "lucky" if you spend hours and hours in the field waiting for one golden opportunity? -
Does this take skill or talent to spend hours in the field? I don't think so.

Are you "lucky" if you have spent a great amount of time learning everything you can about your subjects' habits and tendencies? -
It is the same in any sport or hobby. You take lessons, read, talk to the experienced ones, etc. You don't buy a bag of golf clubs and hit the course without some knowledge of what to do or how to use the equipment.

Finally, you are not "lucky" if you fire off a thousand shots in certain situations to get that wall hanger. You are an intelligent photographer. Is-
Intelligent because you keep your finger on the shutter button to take multiple shots? It couldn't be easier. Again, no skill or talent is required for this mode of taking pictures.

 

[AlexY]

Many years ago, I attended a presentation given by a photographer who regularly took pictures for National Geographic magazine; unfortunately I've forgotten his name - an age thing, no doubt! One of his remarks has stuck with me, and that was that the photo editor for the magazine wanted to see not only the 'keeper' photos, but also the rest of the photos taken...the whole film, in other words. This was a means of looking for alternative 'keepers' and also looking at the 'success' rate, I suppose. Pity the poor photo editor of today were this procedure still in practice
I believe that being prepared - technical skills, location scouting, appropriate camera/lens combinations, spare batteries, etc. is very important - but luck can play a part as well....fortune favours the prepared mind.
cheers,
Alex

 

[JoPoV]

Yes, lot's change.

I attended a presentation given by a photographer who regularly took pictures for National Geographic magazine; unfortunately I've forgotten his name - an age thing, no doubt! One of his remarks has stuck with me, and that was that the photo editor for the magazine wanted to see not only the 'keeper' photos, but also the rest of the photos taken...the whole film, in other words. This was a means of looking for alternative 'keepers' and also looking at the 'success' rate, I suppose. Pity the poor photo editor of today were this procedure still in practice

I talked with a wild photographer following bird migration in the whole europe (about 10 destinations over one year) for a Swiss agency. This agency send his images to a british agency which collect images from several other agencies for National geographic.
Never the name of the photographer that take those photos appears anywhere. Everything is signed by a national geography photographer.
But he is happy to be able to live from his work and travells.

I would say he is talented but not lucky.

 

[StefanSC]

The other day I watched a video of a professional nature photographer. The location was Serengeti National Park with a guide. During a short time frame, 1000 shots were taken of this one particular lion. Of course, he ended up with a few wall hangers. The odds are in your favour when you take that many shots of a slow-moving and sometimes stationary animal.

To me, this does not require talent or skill. You may as well take a video and pick your best frame from it.

What do you think? Luck or what.

Well... there are places where getting a good shot is easier than others (e.g: Serengeti National Park).
And taking a lot of shots of a subject does increase the chance you get that best moment when the subject does something interesting or has a certain look on it's face or similar.

That being said, if you lack talent and skill and situational awareness you'll just end up with same-y looking pictures and a lot of bad pictures at that.

I've been doing this photography thing for a long, long time. A few thoughts...

Are you "lucky" if you spend days traveling to get to just the right location? No.

Are you "lucky" to position yourself correctly for the best background, perspective, and light? No.

Are you "lucky" to have the right equipment for the job with you and know how to use it? No.

Are you "lucky" if you spend hours and hours in the field waiting for one golden opportunity? No.

Are you "lucky" if you have spent a great amount of time learning everything you can about your subjects' habits and tendencies? No.

Finally, you are not "lucky" if you fire off a thousand shots in certain situations to get that wall hanger. You are an intelligent photographer.

On a simple human level this feels very obtuse and insensitive.
Yes, most photographers are bloody lucky to live in a country that makes it easy to travel days to get to the right location.
Yes, most photographers are bloody lucky to have the social and economic standing that allows them to buy the right equipment for the job and to travel.
Yes, we are lucky to live in an era where information about subjects and technique is easily available.
And even between photographers, in a certain way, some are lucky enough to be at a place in their lives where they have enough time to spend on their hobby to do everything you are saying there.

Nothing to be ashamed of but something to be aware of ...

 

[Len Shepherd]

During a short time frame, 1000 shots were taken of this one particular l

For me - how many shots I took would depend on issues like the lighting, what the lion was doing (how they tear open a carcass is interesting), whether as a guide I was a producing "advertising photos", and what other photo opportunities might be encountered moving on.

In days of slide film the most I ever took in a single morning was 10 rolls - of 3 separate lion kills.
Today with high fps cameras 360 shots shooting to get peak action (assuming there is worthwhile action) takes well under a minute.

How anybody else shoots is their decision. How I shoot is my decision - and it is a safe bet 10 photographers have 10 options on a standard for a "wall hanger".

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

This was taken in poor lightt - with "interesting " action that lasted about 2 seconds.

 

[Maljo]

I am not going to comment on the "luck v talent" question, but instead consider the merits and drawbacks of the technology that we are using.
- To begin, it is very hard not to make compelling images of wildlife if you visit a wildlife rich destination like the Serengeti where charismatic megafauna can be found. A good guide will position your vehicle in the best location and in favorable light. Having been on two safaris one of which was with my point and shoot wielding 70 year-old mother who had no photography skills. Many of her 500 images made with an 8 MP P&S would have been wall hangers.

- I think the real question here relates more to the power of technology vs knowledge and experience of the photographer.
Having been a nature photographer since the mid 1980's where knowledge of exposure theory and the narrow latitude of slide film was essential in the production of a few keepers out of a roll of 36 images, I can tell you that making images of wildlife has become infinitely easier. In the past, I'd go to Alaska with 30 rolls of film and hope I came home with 10 good pictures. Today, I can go to the local pond with my Z9 and various telephoto lenses and produce what I would have called 10 (or more) keepers in the film days.

As someone who has been on the camera and lens upgrade path throughout the year, I can comfortably claim that I am bored with my photography. In the period of a week I photographed a rookery via kayak, beavers and muskrats by a road-side pond, and an albino deer in etherial light. 25 years ago, I would have been astonished by my work and have had material for 3 publishable photo essays. In this current era where there are so many wildlife images, I am bored with what I have produced. Herein lies part of the problem with the technology... the gear has made the production of images very easy and very cheap. As a result, we (collectively) think less and are reactive without contemplation.

I am beginning to rethink my approach to nature photography as the shear volume of photos now results in images without soul and story... As a start, I've set my low continuous to 5fps and will spend a few weeks in that space. I am also going to commit to not cropping in post to see if I can spend my time looking for "THE" shot instead of "A" shot.

cheers,
bruce

If you're bored, take a trip to someplace new and different, perhaps India? Try a new type of photography: macro or portraits or bike races or rock climbing. Very good images are still hard to make judging from the images we routinely see.

 

[arbitrage]

Are you "lucky" if you spend days traveling to get to just the right location? -
I lived in British Columbia where there were 18 Bald Eagles on one tree, 25-minute drive from my home. Another year, there were 50-plus Snowies in the field (Boundary Bay, BC) near my home in Delta, BC.

Are you "lucky" to position yourself correctly for the best background, perspective, and light? -
When shooting birds in flight, you don't always have that luxury.

Are you "lucky" to have the right equipment for the job with you and know how to use it? No. -
Agreed but that doesn't take talent only money.

Are you "lucky" if you spend hours and hours in the field waiting for one golden opportunity? -
Does this take skill or talent to spend hours in the field? I don't think so.

Are you "lucky" if you have spent a great amount of time learning everything you can about your subjects' habits and tendencies? -
It is the same in any sport or hobby. You take lessons, read, talk to the experienced ones, etc. You don't buy a bag of golf clubs and hit the course without some knowledge of what to do or how to use the equipment.

Finally, you are not "lucky" if you fire off a thousand shots in certain situations to get that wall hanger. You are an intelligent photographer. Is-
Intelligent because you keep your finger on the shutter button to take multiple shots? It couldn't be easier. Again, no skill or talent is required for this mode of taking pictures.

So my take away from all this is you care more about the process than the result. You see being able to time the shot and take a single frame as talent....this seems to be your only definition of talent. Everything else is luck and no skill involved? It is just that ability to have a better human reaction time than the next guy to push that shutter one single time and come home with the perfect shot....that is what you call skill or talent?

If you really believe this then I presume you only shoot in One Shot, AF-S? Because AF-C would be cheating, any FPS setting would be cheating. Somehow I doubt you really subscribe to that extreme.....so please enlighten us with what your criteria is? When does one cross the line from talent to luck? Is it switching the camera from AF-S to AF-C? Is it 3FPS, 10FPS, 20FPS?

I'm pretty sure when you shoot incoming puffins in flight on the cliffs in NL that you aren't shooting AF-S at 1FPS.....and if you are, I wouldn't call that talent or skill....I'd just call it stupid.