if it is the equipment that matters, then how can some people get good pictures with even pro-sumer camera ?

if it's the skill then why are there so many people spending money on DSLR? fast f2.8 lenses ? VR/IS lenses ?

Luck ? no comment

Photoshop? camera phone will do, don't bother even getting a DSLR

p/s: the intention of this thread is to share knowledge on what makes a good photo...

This post has been edited by vincent_audio: Oct 2 2007, 04:31 PM

me thinks - all of the above, I'll put skill as priority. Equipment next.
luck yes, but not always la. for example you snap products, models or food - what luck is there la? for events like sports and all - YES!

Even with skill, there is a limitation on what your equipment can do. Hence the need to buy maybe faster lens or longer zoom lens. But I put my vote on skill first as it matters. Then equipment would follow next.

he he he... my skill can't justify all d spending on my camera.. but it's fun though..

skill, definitely skills. But for certain subject matter, equipment does play a role.

It largely depends on what kind of photography you like.

All above play role. For me priority is

1) Skill
2) Photoshop
3) Equipment
4) Luck

all of the above.
one cant sustain without the other...
and in today's world... photoshop plays a role in it too...

for me...everything on the above is plays an important role in producing good photographs...

1. you need to have skills to get good composition
2. you need a wide variety of lens to suit each scene
3. no camera is perfect. Photoshop enables you to do those touch-ups and ammendments. This is where post-processing plays its role.
4. Luck also helps. Imagine going to the seaside everyday for one whole week and you cant get a day which has good formation of clouds and good weather.

so all in all. I guess everything is needed

patience and endurance also important

anticipation, some sheer luck, good timing, fast response, the eye for great angle/position

skill ~ creativity?

For me skill come first.. the gadget come second.. luck is the bonus..
If the picture already superb, why need photoshop.? Photoshop only to make u create more creative picture..

Put it this way.
When you felt that your skill's limited by lack of equipment (genuine feeling), then equipment matters.
However, assuming you had everything you need, but still can't produce the quality you're expecting. You lack skill & experience.
Luck also play an important part, as some scene only come once.

BUT, instead of waiting for the scene to happen. Some master photog would try to create the scene.

Eg. Like I saw a photog went around the lake in a canoe, identifying the lotus he wants. Then he spray some mist onto it & put a frog (fake) next to it. Finally, went back to his spot, set up his equipment & wait for the right timing for the shutter. The picture won prize in contest.

This post has been edited by scorgio: Oct 2 2007, 11:42 PM

hehehee
typical salon photographer

Well I personally feel that a photographer has to know how to adapt and predict.


I know that I am in no position to comment as I am just a amateur photographer for the School Magazine.



Why adapt? Because gear is always the limiting factor.
Why predict? Because you may never know where and when to shoot next.



Just my 2 cents

Surely 1st is skill. Sometimes u will also need some suitable eq.(is suitable, doesn't mean tat the more expensive the better!) Also, without a luck, a perfect photo is also hard to get. Last few days had a talked with a sifu class photographer, he took a lot of nice photos during his trip, and he also said tat 1st thing is the skill and tat day when he went the trip the weather is juz nice. The last thing he said tat even u got a lot of exp eq, u also wont get a nice photo without skill. A something he said,"If u ask me izit worth on buying this lens(those cost u RM10k n above), i will tell u it is a good lens n worth if u got enuf money to buy it, but u still need skill".

i can't believe the poll results....

in digital age, we rely a lot on post processing. we rely a lot on chimping.

basically it isn't wrong to say that we're looking at a generation of less-skilled photographers compared to the days of film photography.

with digital, spam only mah. after 20 shots, sure 1 looks quite ok. can adjust with software some more.

Equipment. You get sifu using 3.2mp kodak camera and get noob using in auto mode DSLR (in3.2mp resolution) camera see the difference.

i have seen people using camera phone taking better pics then me using SLR

Your SLR got problem. Go buy another one.

I agree that
1st is skill
2nd is equipment
3rd is luck

DC n DSLR the difference is on the quality of the photo, not the way of how the photographer can take a photo.

If u got all those very expensive eq, u dun hv the skill, while a sifu using mayb juz a 3.2mp dc but wif skill, surely ppl will choose tat 1 wif skill not onli the quality.

U use DSLR but ppl use camera phone can take better pic the prob is skill.

If you juz say tat the SLR got prob, go buy another. IMO, this will onli shows tat u r a noob....No offense....

this is not really true, here come the contraversial thing. PnS is very good at macro shot, which cannot be done by most of the kitlens on DSLR. No matter how skillful u r, it's a no no !

turn the kitlens around and you'll get macro lens already.

ROFL Pretty true...

wrong wrong wrong....

you can't get good bokeh with your handphone cam....

equipment and skill goes hand in hand....no matter what people talk
about skill.....all are really bullshit. If PnS can take good picture,
why journalist need to buy MKIII, D1, etc? so people who said only
skill matters is taking crap...

i think equipment only covers around 10-15% of the overall.
i've seen very good pictures taken with a sony t-30 if not mistaken of the model.
you can check it out at flikr.com

but not all picture can be nice. certain time need dSLR. like no flash and low light photography.
how to take with normal handphone cam or? even digicam also cannot lar (except F31fd) no making sense la.

---

Added on October 3, 2007, 2:05 pmhehe, non taken....i just joking onli mah...

---

Added on October 3, 2007, 2:07 pmNot agree.

Skill and equipment tied at number 1....
and luck is at far 3....


This post has been edited by gogo2: Oct 3 2007, 02:07 PM

IMO, actually normal digicam also can take fabulous night shots too.
like the t30, you set it to fireworks mode then the ev set to the max then you can take quite a nice night shot i think. you just have to tweak with the wb to achieve a better pic and of course use a tripod or put it on a bench or something.

here's a pic that i'd taken with a t30.

the oni thing i'm not satisfied is the wb in this pic la. cos that time dunno how to tweak it.

here's another one.

the wb also abit crap on this i think.

and yeah i do agree with you that current handphone cams cannot take night shots as decent as real digicams.
handphones are only meant to make and recieve calls, not to mention sms.
the only handphone cam that skim the surface of digicam quality pics is the SE k series with xenon flash lo i think but to a certain limit only (the night shots).

i'm just a noob in this and looking forward to learn more, please correct me if i'm wrong.

wow, nice pic. good color. luv ur pic. show more ya...

anyway, not all night shot can be taking. maybe the one u take can. but in other circumstances like long exposure
and stuff like that take care and happy shooting...

wanna show bad equipment, or bad skill? or both?

What is "ev" ?

Exposure Value

thanks. in those pic, i used long exposure to capture them. from the details of its file, it indicates 8s of exposure. and yeah, if wanna shoot bokehs or something like that sure cannot la. like i said, 10-15% of overall still depend on the equipment. even if you are using a Leica f/1.0 Noctilux but dunno how to use its potential also no use. right?

can you please elaborate more? i really want to improve my skill.

This post has been edited by anthrax33: Oct 3 2007, 03:41 PM

if something cannot be done at all with your Pns, means dSLR is really important. it should be 50% skill and 50% equipment.
without equipment, u can't even take those circumstances... else you won't considering k100d, d40, or 400d now won't you...

that was what i was trying to imply

thats not how it works... read my post here and you will know what i mean...
you wan to know why journalists hold 1dmark3? this is because of the quality of the pic... they need to print on magazines and so on...thats why quality is a very important aspect to them..imagine this.. if you use a handphone cam for photojournalism... try printing it out and you will see the huge difference between a dslr and a handphone cam...

skills play a MORE important role than equipment...listen to what a pro photographer has to say here.

for me skill takes 70% and equipment takes 30%.. but at some situation equipment also as important as skill..
example shooting sport...
i don`t think you wanna shoot with 18-55mm rather than 500mm right ?
coz the contestant/player might be as tiny as rice when printed out on magazine.... crop also can`t help much on this stage...

another one is wildilfe photography...
this one also need bazooka lens as you don`t want face to face with tiger or something similar right or bird at the sky? 18-55mm

thats not what I'm trying to imply. read post below. in summary, in some circumstances, you
can't just take the photo without dSLR no matter how skillful you are....then you'll cry, why don't I have a dSLR...

yup...both play their role in diff situations...

yes they work hand in hand, but skill is more important.

why journalist buy MkIII / D1 and all those? because they know that some conditions require such gear. simple as that.

it'll be ridiculous to throw a pro a K750i and expect him to snap great action, right?

but look at it this way.

instead of comparing
no exp + expensive equipment VS good exp + lesser equipment

let's look at it this way


no exp + expensive equipment vs good exp + expensive equipment

and

no exp + lesser equipment vs good exp + lesser equipment


probably the only time the newbie outdoes the veteran would be when LUCK kicks in.

so in the above examples, I believe it's clear that skill (knowledge + experience) is more important than equipment. Just that equipment brings your skills to higher level.

well, if your budget permits you to get a better cam, wont you get a better cam?
i'm also considering the panny lx-2, canon g9, and the nikon p5100.

well, i think if one really have the skills and know-how, he can shoot equally good pics with a k800 in certain situations compared with someone using a hasselblad. you can see here. if you wanna print poster sized pics then of course dslr is a clear winner. but if you just wanna print a 4" x 6", then the equipment would not be a very big factor already.

and yeah, i do agree with goldfries that equipment do bring your skills to a higher level.

This post has been edited by anthrax33: Oct 3 2007, 04:38 PM

This is not fair! How can you tweak it to your argument.
Everyone also know if you thrown in same equipment to pro and non-pro,
the pro will win.

But it'll be different if
no exp + expensive equipment VS good exp + lesser equipment

Let this happened:
no exp + expensive equipment VS good exp + lesser equipment
and put them to take waterfall picture with long exposure during
bright daylight.

the good exp + lesser equipment will raise white flag even before
taking the challenge

Define "Good Photography".

but i forgot which one i havevoted and i forgot i already voted or not yet

what mean by long exposure during bright daylight.?? wanna kill your photo and sensor also??

depends on situation... if bright daylight but under the shade of tree situation.. pro definately win the no experience...

at night totally no light at all situation and the pro have no flash unit which ain`t fair for the pro also as no light for him to capture...
if there is light that enable the photographer to look at the model clearly.. something like at disco... pro also win the no experience...

photography ain`t just high key.. there is low key also...

so skills very important lor.

he still doesnt get it... skills play a MORE important role than eq... EQ IS ALSO IMPORTANT BUT NOT AS MUCH AS SKILL

what long exposure during bright daylight have to do with kill photo and sensor?


anyway, who want to feed me a MKIII and i dun mind become a noob

Y those journalist buy a MIII?

1st because of the image quality.

2nd the solid build of the body compare to others, those high end r build with alloy!

3rd Canon did giv some special discount to those company

Good photography....

I think its all about getting the best out of your equipment with whatever skills you have. If you are a pro and have a P&S camera, your shots should be nice
but you will feel there are limitations to the ultimate shots you have in mind. Then that will be time to upgrade.

To those novice with DSLR, it means nothing if you shots turn out so so only , as you cannot maximize your camera's potential

So the end of the day, a pro will always have lovely shots but may be limited by their equipment. Novice, will have novice shots whatever the equipment.

cool down guys, it's all about sharing knowledge, no one is absolute right and no one is wrong here

put things in real life situation, just to further confuse u guys

1) pro + pns - to capture fast motion of an F1 car in a high speed corner... before the pns manage to focus, the F1 car is gone ?

2) pro + pns/DSLR kitlens - how to shoot the pretty gal staying in the other block (which is reachable only by a 600mm)... maximum zoom also u'll see her as small as an ant... don't tell me spiderman/superman help u ok...

3) pro + handphone camera - for event in low light. Ask everyone to freeze for 1 sec ? hehehe

where does the skill come in the situation above ?

oh oh
let me add

4) ask david doubilet to take photographs of underwater corals with K750i, and wrap it with a plastic bag, seeing that equipment is not important...

Or ask Frans Lanting to use a PnS

i think this is a very good question.
what is a good photo?

good photo for you? an average lynians?
or good photo for a professional?
even for professional, there are alot of different 'field' in photography...
good photo for an architecture photographer? a food photographer? or a usual snap shot lomo photographer?

the master had spoken

i would say the art of producing a good photo. Don't want to argue on what is a good photo. Not the scope of this discussion or it will never end. That is another story all together

Let it be digital in this case, film photography can be a totally different journey esp. developing photo Don't want to go there, will complicate things

Is it the skill ? the equipment ? the post processing ? luck ? or everything ?

The poll results seems to be Everything with priority on skill.

me thinks the better question to ask is "good photographer" rather than "good photography".

and btw - pairing (pro + pns) vs (n00b + exp equ DSLR) comparison is just inappropriate, all 4 items used are totally subjective, not counting even the situation.

as i mentioned earlier, compare based on same equipment. this is best to prove a point that skill is still the most important tool of the trade.

your comparison is ridiculous, in such situation you put pro or n00b , both also limited by equipment la.

but even if given PnS, guarantee you'll see the pro snapping nicer stuff than the n00b due to skill difference. the art of knowinig when to snap and what to snap.

again, points back to skill being the more important factor.

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 5:39 am

yup.

skill is priority.

same like F1 race (and almost every other thing else on earth) la. sure, equipment is important but the skill is MORE important.

the skill is the multiplier factor. of course, don't expect a pro to go into Sepang with PnS and snap F1 cars on the run la.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Oct 4 2007, 05:39 AM

coz he got only PnS. He can't tweak his Fnumber and ISO to be small enough
to have long exposure.

that's why EQuipment and skill is equally important.

and goldfries, here is a lame joke from me:
if you don't have camera, can you take photo? of course cannot right. so
equipment is very very important....... (just a lame joke ok)

but pns camera got time lag... and pro are not used to time lag when taking photos...

skill is important no doubt but equipment is equally important. just because we do not see the usefullness of using a mk3 camera doesnt mean it is unimportant...

anyway, this debate/arguement is kinda popular on forum around the world ya?
it's nice to see people's perception on this issue though.

yup....that's right. Its EQUALLY important (50/50). 50%. You can't take
good photography if any of those lacking. I actually like to take photo.
But after a while, my Minolta S304 cannot satisfy the performance I need.
And I don't want to splurge on dSLR which is RM4k for Canon 300d at that
time. So I abandon my hobby because I can't even take a photo with
dramatic effect using wide angle lense, or portrait using big Fnumber.
Then what's the point of continue taking photo which does not fit the
requirement. I can't even take good waterfall in long exposure. So its
pointless in photography if you cannot take all the photo you want.
You'll know my sadness if you're stuck in PnS camera....

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 9:30 amAnd one more thing. Suddenly if you got photography opportunity. Your startup of PnS takes forever and you lose the opportunity. Tell me that your 0s startup time of your dSLR is not important?

This post has been edited by gogo2: Oct 4 2007, 09:30 AM

shit..i can't take good photograph with my k750i

am i noob?

you're not. you just don't have the dSLR. Get a dSLR man.. (sigh, lame joke again....)

yup..my first minolta E223 PnS kinda sucks, but that is what i can afford during college time, like photography but eventually have to 'neglect' it cos all sorts of camera limitation (n my skills really sucks that time)

return back to photography this year with another PnS, so far so good, still improving my skill n try to max out my PnS before i m going into SLR (which is kinda a new league to me)

but all the basics still apply in photography, composition can really affect a lot.

ler, bashing PnS like no tomorrow.

let's see which one easier la, take out pns from my pocket and snap Amber Chia who happens to be walking by, or take out DSLR from bag - oops wrong lens mounted. aiyah......... perhaps you're the type that goes around with DSLR on the neck or carry all sorts of lens with you all the time.

PnS has its merits.

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 10:08 amlook, no one's saying equipment is not important (anyone of you say that?) - people are just saying that in terms of important, skills rank higher.

like what i mentioned earlier, skill is the multiplication factor. given same gear, the one with more skill does better.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Oct 4 2007, 10:08 AM

wait, PnS still lose to handphone if u wanna say that. no one lug around pns everyday. do u?

again, skill is advantage. of course the one will more advantage will be better. i dun deny that too.

but again, without gear, how to take good photography?

what i want to stress here is, if you lack of something and u can't perform, mean
that thing is equally important. skill cannot rank higher coz even with skill, u can't take
those photo man. No amount of skill can take certain photo at certain circumstances.

conclusion:
Skill rank the same as Equipment.....

you started it, isn't it? my point was that like it or not, PnS isn't a failure when comes to opportunity shot.



without gear how to take photograph?





define lack.

from what i see in your analogies so far, you're talking about pro with total absense or using really state-of-the-BOTTOM-art gear - which is pointless in the first place.

everyone knows you need to be equip to snap photos.

we should look at it this way

let's say pro with 40D + 70-300mm tele VS newbie with 1D Mk3 + 70-200 F2.8L IS USM snapping sports activity. i'm not surprised if the pro produces better shots as he knows WHAT are the shots to take. you gear super expensive like shit also pointless if you don't know what are the money making shots.

then ok. let's say you put pro with prosumer and newbie with D40 + kitlens, put both of them in the same garden and let them exercise their creativity - again, i'm not surprised the pro still produces better shots.

just 4 a comparison...
i dun think that putting Raikkonen/Alonso into Toro Rosso car will win any race...
however putting any of the F1 racers into Ferrari/McLaren car will win races if not all.

skills can be learned... without good camera 4ever cant take nice photo.
hence, equipment > skill

1 photographer + 2 different cameras = 1 good & 1 bad photo
1 camera + 2 different photographers = 1 good & 1 bad photo
...so no point to compare like these... (1 factor changing while other factors static..of cos the better one will produce better)

what if u put a pro with an olympus underwater camera and a noob but with PADI license with D2xs + lens + pro housing and go take photos of corals and fishes in the sea of the depth of 50m?

see... you can put both of this guys in a situation where it win you your arguement... and i can do it as well...
it is a never ending war...

pro can create good images with what they can get hold of but can they produce images that is up to their own standard? that's the question. i am sure give a k800i phone to a pro and he can still produce decent photographs... but give him his full range of gear and take the same thing... i am sure the quality of the photos are totally different...

give a noob a k800i and a mk3 and chances are, both photos taken from both camera are equally in quality. no offence to noobs though.

give a sport photographer a pns camera and since he cant photograph what he used to, he went to photograph some slightly over-weight chicks... and put it up here on lowyat and i can say that 90% of the forummers here drool saliva and leak cum like there is no tomorrow... but ask the pro himself, is it what he wanted? is it something that he is proud of?

there is a time where the photographer's skill will outlive the equipment he has and he felt that his equipment is limiting his skill... so, depending on different people... sometimes equipment is equally important.

i havent talk about astronaut yet. a sony ericcson k800i on moon?

if you go like that then i might as well also say EQUIPMENT CAN BE BOUGHT.

your 2 different camera - how far apart is that? are we talking low-range DSLR vs high-range DSLR or cam phone vs whatever else that's better than it?


anyway, just the other day I was covering an event and I met a pro photographer who shared many things with me (not local)

me - 350D + Tamron 70-300mm
him - 1dmk2 + Canon F2.8L IS USM 70-200mm

as i continue to talk about gears, at one point he was saying that we can exchange gears and see who produces better shots - clearly he was telling me skill is more important.

and as we talk, i realize how many thing he knows that i don't.

yes, that happened to me for 6 years...next year I'm going to get Canon 40d. Wait for me guys...

Yup, its neverending war because skill complement equipment and vice versa.
Both are 50/50. That's why its never going to end for debating this. And that's
why I won't say equipment > skill. I would say half half....

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 11:17 amcannot if u dun have money.
but skill is different. u dun need to pay money. u just need ur friend to teach u.
or shoot more often with ur cheapo digicam.

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 11:18 amu too tell us skill is more important. doesn't mean that we have to listen to him.

This post has been edited by gogo2: Oct 4 2007, 11:18 AM

your example is exactly like those who give F1 + Pro with PnS situation where gear is actually REQUIRED.

if you take note, the situation i gave has no specific requirement it's a GARDEN. do what you want.

better off pairing pro and noob with the same diving license and gear.



which supports the importance of skill over equipment. (from my POV, it looks that way. sorry if anyone else doesn't)



again. who da heck go snap sports with PnS? alright, who started the pro with pns thing?



IMO the fact that the skill will outlive the equipment shows how important it is.

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 11:22 amthat's because i see the light mah.

but nevertheless, i was arguing for fun. miss debating.

seriously la guys. skill more important or equipment equally important as skill - does it matter? both also important la, 'nuff said.

EDITED : we should pick an argument with people who think equipment is MORE important.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Oct 4 2007, 11:23 AM

did you ask him why he uses the 1dmk2 then? why not 350D? maybe it was given to him by his company... but if he bought the set himself... ask him that question.

gosh..after so long arguement, why there is no comparison of having 2 pro, 1 use prosumer and 1 use god like camera, and see the output

btw - > photoshop > skill and equipment

This post has been edited by harrychoo: Oct 4 2007, 11:39 AM

yeah, me too. I actually not really serious in debating with u guys... kekeke... just for the sake of debating...

so in conclusion from the bolded one, both are EQUALLY important. nuff said...

i agree with you...

that's y equipment is important.

btw...this kind of debate is good & healthy...
it show that we all appreciate what we have.
to all scientists, engineers & pros who created all the cameras, skills, photoshop 4 us

Since you all are talking about skill vs equipment. Let me give some analogy and you do the thinking.

Scenario 1:
Skilled engineer with limited equipment but enough to get the job done and newbie engineer with all the equipment he wants. The job, conduct a verification of the conductance of a mysterious substance. Who will be able to get the job done with the best efficiency?

Scenario 2:
Skilled racing driver driving a 180hp Golf GTi and a newbie driver driving a 430hp Ferrari. Both go head-to-head on a race course. Think of the Stig and you will know what I mean.

Go bang your brains and think which one is more important.

Artistic skills (creativity, good vision) should always come first, followed closely by the equipments.

It's just like a writer mah. His creativity and skills in writing should come before the equipment. The novel can be hand written, a type-writer, computer...
But with better equipment, the writer can write faster, and better, with less hassle. With a computer, he can edit easily compared to a typewriter, therefore less interruption in his work --- which is writing.
All of us have computers, but does it make us good writers? Just makes us write faster & easier only mah.

Same thing with photography lah. You need to have good skills first. Then comes the equipments. Only when your skill becomes very good that the equipments will become the limiting factor.
If you are no good at taking anticipating sports climax moments, no point having a bazooka of a camera. But if you're good, then you would still be able to anticipate the actions with point and shoot. You'd still get good photos, but now the equipment becomes the limiting factor.
Same thing in other photography sectors like portrait and landscape and what not...

So, a good photog can produce good pictures with lousy cameras. But he can produce better/great pictures with better equipments.
A not-so-good photographer will produce mediocre pictures with a lousy camera. But he'll still produce mediocre pictures with a canggih manggih camera.
Equipments are still important, it's just not that important.

Who Will Win???

could u pls b more precise on what is ur opinion...
u just throw out 2 questions

4 ur questions -> people support skill sure say they win... same as 4 equipment

this is bcos u r talking bout novel... novel is abstract n is come out from the author... type-writer/computer cannot b in 2 determine the outcome.

and photo image is captured by camera...that's where it can determine the outcome.

Yes, one is low end camera high end image, one is high end camera low end image

To me, good photography comes from good skill and good gears couple will timely photo opportunities. Let me give some examples base on the most popular topic to date: Portrait Photography. For discussion's sake, let me break into 2 categories:

1. Candid portraiture
2. Static portraiture

1. Candids are impromptu situations where they call for immediate reaction from the photographer. When a model got into a pose or move that you like, quickly instruct her to freeze and do it again so you can take a picture. If it's done in public then anticipate a move and get ready for a clear shot. Getting a good shot and being timely takes experience and good gear. Can your camera move as fast as you? Can you switch on, focus and shoot on time? No way if you're using a camera phone or a compact digicam, no matter how experienced you are. Having LUCK is about being at the right time at the right place and having the right subject to do the right thing and you happen to get that shot. I won't rely too much on luck to get a good shot.

2. Static portraiture calls for serious concentration and attention to details from the photographer. Given an opportunity to stop and think about camera settings and study the model, newbies are still making mistakes over and over again eventhough they shot dozens of models, I am baffled. If they're using model photo sessions as practicing grounds, why can't they improve over time? Simple ... SHOOTING GIRLS is what they wanted, not improving photography. Before you even THINK of answering me on that, remember that you already shot dozens of girls in so many shooting conditions: indoor in events, outdoor under the sun, in shade, daytime, nighttime, bright lights, low lights, etc. and I am not surprised some of you shot the same girl over and over again! Improved? No? It's time to think again.

It's not only about the camera, not only about the lenses, not only about the 4GB card you bought that you wanna keep weeks after weeks of image without even transfering out, not only about the software you used to post process, not only about the model whether she's fat, thin, slim or sexy ... it's about the ATTITUDE, it's about the MINDSET.

Are you learning to shoot girls or learning photography? If you wanna shoot girls to impress your viewers, then you're halfway there, but if you're shooting girls just for passing time and feel that you're always behind other photographers in terms of image quality, then you're going nowhere. There's no shortcut or the end to learning photography, photography is a lifetime art, you may take it as a hobby but a hobbyist is always a hobbyist. Skill? Experience? Gear? Dun worry so much about them if you're a hobbyist ... you start somewhere, you'll END somewhere. Just shoot and enjoy while your pan is still hot.

This post has been edited by ac98: Oct 4 2007, 02:16 PM

I will say non of the above, I take photo based on my mood, hahaha when I got mood, eventually everything will look good, but when I got no mood, I won't even borther to take out my camera.

Well said, but creativity, good vision, composition, and other artistic skills is a different category of "skills". Being an artistic person doesn't allow him/her to handle the equipments better.

Another category of skills is the technical understanding of the camera, lighting, and etc. That is the requirements to handling your camera to max effectiveness. Having said that, you can have a very artistic person who doesn't know how to handle the camera, or a person who knows how to handle the camera very well but isn't as artistic...both are skills. If you have both, great, if you have only either of them, that's is fine too because people will improved through experience.

As far as I am concerned, understanding the technicalities about photographic equipments is the first step to "knowing how to" create good pictures with your tools. Ever come across someone who tells you...damn...I have this concept and vision...but why can't i get the picture right...it is always under/over exposed.

Next thing is obviously practicing and being artistic....seeing things and thinking outside the box. It is better to know how to create something even though you dont know what to create, than knowing what to create but you dont know how to do it. The latter can be VERY frustrating. But knowing how to use the camera can sometimes get you good pictures through LUCK despite the fact that you maybe not a very artistic person

Of course...like you said, tools are just tools...it is the means to an end...having better means makes getting to the end easier, and vice versa. The quality of your creation will always be limited by the equipments you have...so whenever you can afford something good...go for it! But of course...be rational and moderate...don't buy a pro camera when you barely know anything about cameras....I said this once some time ago...you don't wanna put a n00b in a ferrari.

Luck is fully uncontrollable...I won't even bother talking about it.

Anyway, you summed up everything nicely, I just wanted to add on a little.

---

Added on October 4, 2007, 2:16 pmExtremely true. Candid calls for reliable and good equipments, and a good deal of anticipation and experience. You need to know when certain things will happen and be prepared for it. Same thing with FPS games, especially quake, you need to know where you subject will land, and aim/fire your rocket before the subject reaches that place.

You also need to make sure your equipment is fast enough and reliable enough i.e. you don't want the lens to hunt like crap.

Candid is easiest with small aperture and MF, get everything into focus....candid with shallow dof is the hardest to capture.

BTW, I never bother to mention about LUCK because it is an uncontrollable variable like I said earlier. It applies to every situation.

This post has been edited by AlamakLor: Oct 4 2007, 02:19 PM

in short, "Principle without practice is useless, practice without principle is dangerous"

Hey Guys...
You all got use any Photo software to fix or edit your Photo??
I'm using the free ACD Photo Editor 3.1...
But its didn't work much with the blur photo...
Ask for A useful Photo Edit Software or a PRO SOFTWARE...
My Opinion,to capture a good photo you need to know what you want to capture...
Skill is very important...
A high quality photo(High resolution....) not equal to a good photo
You can have a high quality(with not blur,nice white balance)photo with your good camera
but you can't get a good photo that can tell everything without skill
I agree that a good skill need to have a performance camera too
but you have a good camera not means that you can have a good photo
even a phone camera can have good photo than a real camera if you got a nice skill.

gogo2,

AFAIK the word EQUAL and EQUALLY hold different meaning

EQUAL means same, while EQUALLY means +/- there.

so in your case, you're saying SKILL and EQUIPMENT hold EQUAL importance.

to say SKILL and EQUIPMENT being EQUALLY important means both of them have close and similar importance, which one being more important, which I think is the better way to put it.

ahhh. you worded it nicely.

you added it nicely too.

why would i ask him such stupid question? perhaps you would. LOL.

the way you ask me that is as if i'm saying equipment is NOT IMPORTANT. i donno what you guys are thinking sometimes. i never once said equipment not important. I'm just saying skill holds higher importance.

anyway the fella could make a decent 4 - 5 digit a month with photography (in SGD), i'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

lastly, think about it - what makes a professional photographer worth more than an amatuer or newbie? when you pay a photographer, what do you pay for - the gear? or the person? THAT will tell you which one is more important. equipment is just a tool, photographer is the artist.

that's my stance. both skill and equipment are EQUALLY important (yes i'm using gogo2's word now, based on the definition i mentioned earlier in this post, anywhere from 55%-45% to 50%-50%) just that SKILL is given the higher importance.