I think that there are two really dangerous words here: instinct and intuition.
My Father (who was a wonderful photographer) always used to say to me "Get a grab shot, and then stop and think and get it right". What I've found to be more and more the case is that the grab shot is the best one.
Then, last year I heard a program about 'First Stage Thinking'. The research was done at Imperial College in London and was done with the co-operation of a lot of chess grand masters - basically they wrote down their 'instinctive' 'Grab Shot' move (within the first seconds) - and then what they actually did - and evaluated which was better (when it was different). The result was startling - I can't remember the exact figure, but something like 95% of the time the 'instinctive' move was the correct one. They then went on to do brain scans and discovered that there was a huge amount more brain activity in the first few seconds than in the rest of the time available for the move.
Of course, if you're no grand master your 'instinctive' move is going to be rubbish . . .
Anyway, the upshot of the research was to realise that "First Stage Thinking" is not conscious, but it encompasses in extremely short time everything you know about a situation - everything you've read and everything you've seen and everything you've been taught. 'Instinct' and 'Intuition' imply some kind of magic and are thus slightly derogatory. . . . . . and Luck is not really the point either - I certainly find these days that I get many many more 'lucky' shots than I used to - my brain knows that juxtaposition of motifs has just occurred , but not my conscious brain.
As far as the kit is concerned - of course I prefer to use a rangefinder as well, but in actual fact the only real requirement is that you know how to make it work really well, so that you don't waste precious time making (the wrong) decision and muddling up the special results of your " first stage thinking"
Realising all this has really changed my approach to shooting almost everything - I trust myself to get it right without having to work it out, and that changes everything.
Sorry - blather blather :lecture:
Hmm, sounds like an academic attempt to validate instinctual and intuitive reactions. Hardly "magic", both are informed by our own personal combination of attained knowledge, creative experience and emotional sensitivity (how open and connected we may be with our surroundings?).
What none of this explains is the murky territory of "Talent". Seems some naturally have it, some gain it, some never get in touch with it.
As example, "Prodigies" rarely have had the training, experience or apparent emotional maturity to academically explain their heightened level of ability or talent. IMO, it stands to reason that if there are Prodigies at one end of the talent scale, there exists degrees of it.
We explain those with an artistic talent as having an "ear for music" or an "eye for drawing". When my son was 7 years old, he was introduced to music at school, and chose the flute. Once he understood the basics of how to make a sound with it, he could hear most any piece of music and play it "by ear". As he moved through life and pursued other interests, he lost that raw intuitive musical talent, (or more likely applied the creative thinking to the other pursuits).
When shown children painting in a classroom, Picasso was asked what he thought of their efforts ...
"When I was their age I could draw like Raphael. It has taken me a lifetime to learn to draw like them."
The point is that we can become over-informed, over-taught, over-exposed to the point of polluting our own unique and intuitive take on the world around us.
What resonates with me is your comment on "Trust". If we trust our initial instincts and intuitions, try to get in touch with them and stay aware of them as we "learn" by trial-and-error, exposure to different thinking, or academically, I believe that experience/knowledge then serves rather than leads our particular creative efforts.
When I teach photography, I promote the notion of looking without the camera. To learn to see, to become aware of those around you more intensely, to see the light, to feel the pulse of life ... it seems to help keep the logical operation of the photographic tool in perspective a bit better.
What I particularly like about the "Decisive Moment" approach, it that it is never ending because life's milli-moments are in constant flux ... both our's and everyone/everthing around us.
Anyway ...
- Marc