Bob Randall Photography wrote:
The masters, such as Irving Penn, would argue this point with you. You can't really be effective without both.

Many photographers from the cubist or abstract-expressionist movements would seriously disagree w/ the lighting technique over "the eye."

Christopher Bush wrote:

this is about to get very socratic, but can something be learned that cannot be taught?  i would consider 'developing' the 'eye' to be synonymous with learning, but there is no teacher.

Yep, it just got socratic.

There is no such thing as teaching.  What we call "teaching" is really just facilitating learning. 

I believe in another forum I put it this way: "Formal education only works on those who are willing to teach themselves."

However, I would say that in "developing the eye" there can definitely be a teacher.  But it's a more intimate relationship and it almost never happens in a classroom.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

They're all part of the same thing.

What you're talking about is where someone falls on the continuum between strategy and tactics. When you master either you realize that they're connected and, in order to master either, you wind up mastering both. Or neither.

What he said.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Yep, it just got socratic.

There is no such thing as teaching.  What we call "teaching" is really just facilitating learning. 

I believe in another forum I put it this way: "Formal education only works on those who are willing to teach themselves."

However, I would say that in "developing the eye" there can definitely be a teacher.  But it's a more intimate relationship and it almost never happens in a classroom.

I believe that developing "the eye" is an inate ability, thats strenghtens with experience.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
And I know other masters personally who disagree with this statement.

Do not take me wrong. I have little patience for photographers who think there's an easy way to greatness. And every photographer that aspires to greatness should learn technique, it's liberating. But this emphasis on technique first I very strongly feel is patently wrong. And I know masters in person who feel that as well.

Well shot drek is just that. God, poorly shot, is still God. That answers the OP's assignment. However, without technique you cannot approach photography as a professional, as you will never be in control of your shoot nor be able to assure a specific result. Further... as at its essence an image is shadow and light, not understanding lighting and how to control it is a gross disrespect to the very nature of your medium, IMHO.

Thanks, Mark for the masters reference... LOL ;-)

oldguysrule wrote:

Well shot drek is just that. God, poorly shot, is still God. That answers the OP's assignment. However, without technique you cannot approach photography as a professional, as you will never be in control of your shoot nor be able to assure a specific result. Further... as at its essence an image is shadow and light, not understanding lighting and how to control it is a gross disrespect to the very nature of your medium, IMHO.

Thanks, Mark for the masters reference... LOL ;-)

Thought you'd get a kick outta that. ;-)