It’s the “nature/nurture” question. Is someone good at photography because they have talent or did they learn to be good.
When looking at some people, you may be awed at how they are able to take tons of great shots right out of the box. There just has to be innate talent giving them that ability. It’s something to admire and at the same time can be discouraging if you don’t think you’ve got what they’ve got.
But is it talent or just a knack for learning?
We aren’t born to use cameras. As humans we aren’t born to do much of anything except suckle. We’re pretty much useless little potatoes, but boy are we smart! Every second we’re alive we’re learning. That giant noggin is crammed full of brain eager to observe, absorb, deduce and deduct.
When you pick up a camera, you have to figure it out. You have to master it’s controls. You also have to master how to frame stuff within that little window in a way that is interesting. You got to learn yourself to see with that machine.
There are many excellent young photographers. How did they get so good so young and why do all the masters of the past seem to have gray hair?
Maybe it’s cultural nurture coupled with learning nature. Each generation of photographer grows up on the shoulders of the preceding ones. Those gray haired mastered who were the first photographers learned by doing coupled with their nature for liking the technology of the camera. We get to see what they learned and take it to a new level. The subsequent generations takes it even further.
I vote for nurture.