visually impared photographers

Thats just what I would have said but John beat me to it

As for why different people see different things;
This is true of almost everything, why do some people love the taste of Marmite and others hate it? Answer, we are all different, even identical twins suffer from being human

I don't understand you at all. Why do some people like one novel and others don't? Why do some people like one food but not another? Why do some people like one colour but not another? Why do some people like shooting wide angle and others don't? It's all personal taste. Is that so hard to understand?

Didnt I just say that Tim

The world would be a very dull place if we all saw the same picture!

I spent more than 14 minutes typing mine

Tim.
your 'I don't understand you' is an echo of what my wife is constantly saying to me.

My 'being different' is an insatable need to know why.

However!! We have slipped from my original question of whether our ability to 'see' a picture is born in us or learned. I had assumed from my own approach that it is something within us, but with the ability to develope.

My wife is a snapper and satisfied whatever the result. All I get for my pictures is a 'yes dear, that's lovely' It would be more intersting if I thought I could 'develope' her appreciation of what is possible.

regards Thoramay.

I think this is one of life's mysteries, Thoramay, one you'll never get a satisfactory answer to.

We are all different (thankfully), and enjoy different things, also in pictures. If you have a talent to start with, it's good, but the abilities can be developed with training.

Like my wife, who didn't understand classical music when we met. Over the years she has developed quite a liking for the old masters.

I think the concept of 'seeing' in respect of both composition and appreciation of pictures is a product of natural creativity, experience and taste.

An expert was once described as "someone who has made every mistake in a narrow field", which suggests that by taking and showing many photographs you eventually get an idea of what works and what doesn't (i.e. learned rather than naturally occurring). This can only occur if their is an active interest in the subject at hand.

The natural creativity element may help you get to the point of having a good grasp of what works more quickly (i.e. less experimentation is needed), and may open up possibilities that people hadn't thought of before.

Taste also plays it's part as you're unlikely to take or appreciate pictures you just don't like, regardless of their merits in the eyes of others.

I think in terms of composition, the experience & creativity aspects are the most pertinent, whereas in terms of appreciation, experience and taste are more important than creativity.

So in response to the OP, I think elements of 'seeing' can be learned, but it is easier to learn if there is a natural creativity or at least an active interest.

I don't think you'll ever get as simple an answer as I think you desire though.

Food for thought there, Robbie.

When submittimg pictues for the Society Comp' I am constantly 'advised' by the senior members that I need to submit pictures that 'please' the Judges, so I do actually take pictures of subjects that do not interest me.

It goes against the grain not to take pictures that pleases me yet I cannot complain when I end up top of the Society league in digital images. SO! Pleasing other people does get its reward, even if no real satisfaction.

One of life's mysteries.

Thoramay.