# Photography - Equipment or Skill ?



## koolman (Oct 2, 2011)

We spend allot of time here comparing equipment and extensively analyzing the pros and cons of bodies, lenses, etc.

However - many people say, that the real ingredient for producing special pictures - is the skill of the photographer. Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.

How important is our equipment ? Would you agree that it more like 85% skill and 15% equipment ?


----------



## bycostello (Oct 2, 2011)

99% skill 1% camera


----------



## jvirta (Oct 2, 2011)

I think it depends on what it is what one want's to shoot. Some time it's 90% skill / 10% equipment, sometimes it's 10% skill / 90% equipment.

It is annoying, when I take a great photo at 16mm with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II and the only thing that ruins the photo is that the edges aren't sharp. In this case, the problem is with the equipment, not the skill as the equipment is the limiting factor. => I need a upgraded model where the problem is fixed.

Other times, the "great photo" is ruined because of the idiot behind the camera 

I personally have the problem of getting too excited to take a photo of something that would make a great photo just to forget to check and correct the settings on the camera and thus ruining the photo. This one is 100% skill, or actually lack of it 

It is so much easier to upgrade (or want to) the equipment than the skill...


----------



## akiskev (Oct 2, 2011)

Totally agree with jvirta!


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 2, 2011)

Just curious: how many birds-in-flight pictures did Ansel Adams take? Sports? Weddings? Family vacations? My completely amateur opinion is that it's a question of matching the equipment and photographer's skill to the subject at hand. Get the equipment you need for your subject, then learn to use it well.



koolman said:


> Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.


----------



## lol (Oct 2, 2011)

You can't get a photo without both the camera and someone (or something) to push the button. One or the other isn't going to get anywhere. Both are important. Sometimes the kit is the limiting factor. Sometimes the photographer is. Maybe more often the photographer than the kit, particularly for less demanding tasks, but not always.

There's two phrases that spring to mind:
1: "a bad workman blames his tools"
2: "use the right tool for the job".

I'm very much in the 2nd camp. If the kit is adequate for the job, any failings are then the photographers. But you need to have a good enough tool in the first place. Further note: "good enough" doesn't mean best. Too often people ask for the best, when they really only want "good enough".


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 2, 2011)

jvirta said:


> I think it depends on what it is what one want's to shoot. Some time it's 90% skill / 10% equipment, sometimes it's 10% skill / 90% equipment.
> 
> It is annoying, when I take a great photo at 16mm with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II and the only thing that ruins the photo is that the edges aren't sharp. In this case, the problem is with the equipment, not the skill as the equipment is the limiting factor. => I need a upgraded model where the problem is fixed.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree. I'd love to carry a tripod with me 100% of the time, but it just simply isn't feasible. So the IS/VR/OS really does help in certain situations. The ability to use a higher iso and a faster shutterspeed can also come in handy, but just like you... occasionally I will leave the AEB on and I wind up taking over/under exposed shots and it just annoys me that I couldn't remember to turn that function off. 

As for the skill involved... I have a kid so I wind up doing a substantial amount of portrait and action photography (if you want to call it that), and simply seeing the entire shot for what it is worth can be key. A 20 foot walk one direction or another can really change the background of the shot and turn a mediocre shot with power lines and water towers into a really nice shot with unobstructed mountains/plains/etc. really framing the shot nicely. 

So if I were to put a percentage on it... I would say it is 95% skill and 5% equipment... but once you begin to achieve the requisite skill level, that 5% can make a huge difference in the shot. And I'd like to think that most of us that are buying $1000 lenses have already acquired the 95% to make the investment to achieve the additional 5% worth it. 

Though not too long ago I saw someone using a 24-105mm f/4 L and their shots looked worse than a point and shoot. I don't know what they were going for... but I can tell you... it wasn't good.


----------



## elflord (Oct 2, 2011)

koolman said:


> We spend allot of time here comparing equipment and extensively analyzing the pros and cons of bodies, lenses, etc.
> 
> However - many people say, that the real ingredient for producing special pictures - is the skill of the photographer. Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.
> 
> How important is our equipment ? Would you agree that it more like 85% skill and 15% equipment ?



My take on it as an amateur photographer is that having usable equipment is essential -- for example you can't take pictures without a camera ! However, the main thing more expensive equipment buys you is convenience, not necessarily better quality. 

An example of needing usable equipment -- my move to SLRs was motivated by very unsuccessful attempts to take indoor portraits with a point and shoot. The camera had no manual focus and had a lot of trouble auto-focusing in that light. Under the same conditions, an inexpensive manual focus film SLR would have worked admirably. 

These days, one can pick up a pro autofocus film body like the EOS 3 for the price of a mid range point and shoot. This camera has weather sealing, 45 autofocus points, 7fps with battery grip (4 without) and an eye tracking AF system, E-TTL flash, and spot metering. 

So having equipment is essential but once you have an appropriate setup, you won't get better returns in terms of quality for your dollar. However, you might get more in terms of convenience or quantity. For a pro, being able to crank out more of the same in less time (more quantity and more convenience) is good for business. Few amateurs suffer from not being able to take enough pictures ! The amateur doesn't have to photograph everything -- they always have the option of saying "the lighting is no good" and putting away the camera, but this approach won't work very well for you if you are the paid wedding photographer. So for the enthusiast, an expensive DSLR is really more about convenience than better results.


----------



## bycostello (Oct 2, 2011)

jvirta said:


> It is annoying, when I take a great photo at 16mm with EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II and the only thing that ruins the photo is that the edges aren't sharp. In this case, the problem is with the equipment, not the skill as the equipment is the limiting factor. => I need a upgraded model where the problem is fixed.



But that is the skill aspect, knowing your kit and taking a picture accordingly...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2011)

You need to define what a valuable image is. A technically supurb image, or a image with a valuable subject. 

Both of them are images to admire, but for different reasons. In the rare event they happen on the same image, it becomes a photography legend. Was that photo of the marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima technically supurb? The subject has certainly made it famous and a legend.

The technically perfect image might benefit from better equipment and a skilled camera operator, while the latter might come from a better photographer. (sometimes luck plays a part, but only a part)


----------



## Eagle Eye (Oct 2, 2011)

A great photograph is made by a person who is both skilled in the eye and skilled with their equipment. The quality of the equipment matters. If the eye visualizes a perfect image, but the skill with the equipment or the physical limitations of the equipment itself can't fulfill the need for that perfect image, that's a problem. Yes, you can take beautiful images with kit lenses, but the more sophisticated your equipment becomes, the greater range of images you'll be able to capture, and the more skilled your eye will become at recognizing great images before they become great photographs. Equipment simply expands the breadth of your photographic capability. That's why we choose what lenses we place in our bags before a shoot. Because if it was 99% skill, we'd just throw on a 18-55mm and go shoot. For a hike, we may choose slower zooms for their light weight and range of focal lengths. For a portrait session, we might take medium and telephoto primes with fast apertures. But not having a range of equipment is only limiting if one seeks to expand beyond the capability range of the equipment he or she has. Buy a macro lens and you'll find yourself taking photographs you never thought about before, images your eye had never conceived of. That said, never expand your equipment beyond your ability to be technically skilled with it. 

As light is captured by the triumvirate of film speed, aperture, and shutter speed; a good photographer is made by the triumvirate of visual acuity, technical skill, and equipment. The actual percentage breakdown is completely dependent upon the individual photographer and their needs.


----------



## photophreek (Oct 2, 2011)

When I photograph an image, I already see the image in my mind that I want to capture and how I want the image to look. I then select the lens that best captures that photograph. As a result, the camera used is not as important in creating the resulting photograph as the lens needed to take the picture. 

A very talented photogrpher told me many years ago not to buy a camera and then the lenses to go with the camera, but to purchase the camera based on the lens you will need to capture the images you want.


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 3, 2011)

I know a lot of very good technical photographers with amazing gear that have no creativity and can't take a shot to save themselves. I also know a lot of people that frame and take amazing shots with their iphones... and some of my favourites are shot now on my 60's film cameras. 

But I guess it comes down to how well you can capture the moment you are seeing. If you have bad equipment and cannot take the amazing shot you are seeing then what's the point of taking the photo.... it's not a good photo if you didn't capture it because your equipment wasn't up to scratch.

I think you have to have a happy medium. the better the equipment the more options you have with your photography, for example, better lowlight, better focus, good compression, dof, etc etc all can enable you to capture what you want to capture. I know a lot of my favourite shots would have been very difficult to get with my first camera, even with years of experience that i have now.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 3, 2011)

Motivation - 50%
Inspiration - 30%
Skill - 10%
Camera - 10%


----------



## pwp (Oct 3, 2011)

Time to wheel out that old chestnut....."Content is King..."

I have all the latest Canon stuff, in large part because it's fun, but I seriously doubt if my thriving business would be much different today if I was still using the 20D which my kids now occasionally use in preference to their iPhone cameras. 

Having all the latest gear does have validity though. In business, 100% reliability is a must. Exploring the remarkable potential of a 1D4 has produced images that may not have been possible just a few years ago. 

Then there is the murky, completely irrational area of client perception. When someone is paying you a lot of money, they don't want to see you pull out a camera that is five years older than the EOS they own...they expect the latest. 

Years ago when I was an assistant, we were setting up for a huge very big budget fashion job. It was the morning of day one of what was a six day shoot. The models were all ready, the client and the money men were there, all anxious and very jumpy. Henry (the photographer) asked me to get the camera out. As pre-planned I pulled out a plastic Mickey Mouse camera. It took 120 film, you held it by the ears and it had the lens in the nose. The models completely cracked up, the client and the money men totally freaked. Henry shot a roll of 120 with the Mickey Mouse amid all the fuss. In the background I quietly put the Hasselblad on the tripod ready for the "real" shoot. Then everyone laughed, the models were in a great space and the job was a total success. 

Yet those first eight frames on the Mickey Mouse with it's plastic lens, flare, aberrations and bad exposures definitely had the most magic about them from the whole six days.

Paul Wright


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 3, 2011)

Definitely a good point. Clients especially in my world of marketing and advertising know a lot about cameras. The hipster art directors have their XXXd's and XXd's , they research and have their own little photo blogs/tumblrs etc.... the industry is full of hobbyists, and turning up with gear that is out of date compared to their stuff (even if they have a crop), really can reflect negatively on you from a business image perspective.

As much as we all hate to admit it, it's part of some of our industries.

I don't think that's what the OP was referring to though....


----------



## Forceflow (Oct 3, 2011)

Seems this is the hot topic for the month. This is the third place I have come across that particular argument within a week or so. 

Basically the question is what you compare to what. Are we comparing the impact between a pinhole camera and a 1D? Or are we comparing the 60D to the 7D? Don't tell me the first doesn't make a huge difference, whereas the second one might be completely irrelevant.
But you also have to define the 'skill' part. Are we talking about the artist whose purpose it is to create interesting and pleasing photographs, or are we talking about a hired photographer whose job it is to produce *exactly what the client ordered*? A skilled artist with vision can take just about any camera there is and create wonderful pieces of art. But if you try to use that Mickey Mouse camera to shoot high speed sports action for a magazine you might be in for a rude awakening. 

Skill and equipment both play a role. How much? That depends on what you want to do, simple as that.



pwp said:


> Yet those first eight frames on the Mickey Mouse with it's plastic lens, flare, aberrations and bad exposures definitely had the most magic about them from the whole six days.
> 
> Paul Wright



But that is the perfect example of how important equipment is. (And I do not mean that I bet the client took the pictures from the Hasselblad) The Mickey Mouse camera was the important equipment here. Had he pulled out a P&S (technically just as ridiculous as the MM) it would most likely not have worked. At best the models would have been confused. But the fact that he used that visually ridiculous camera put everybody in a good mood. Setting the stage for a good shoot and also producing some unique and great photos with the MM. But then of course it takes skill to realize this, and to work with it. Having the right equipment does not always equal having the most expensive equipment!


----------



## mortadella (Oct 3, 2011)

Check out this discussion....

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1747.0.html


----------



## Picsfor (Oct 3, 2011)

Skill is the opening gambit with photography. Seeing the picture can be taught to a certain extent, but generally it is within the eye of the shutter operator.

Kit is what allows you the opportunity to get the picture you've seen, the new and more powerful kit tend to make the job of getting the more difficult shots a less difficult exercise.

I'm currently in Vegas where I've as yet to see anything more than a Nikon D90 or Canon 50D used by the pro togs.
Does that mean they're not up to the job? Judging by the business they are getting in - not all all.

However, using a D3s, D700, 5D2 or 1D4 would have helped them immensely in the low light shots such as the Casino shoots that really do want you to go beyond iso 3200 or use multiple lighting sources.

Skill first, supported by kit needed to achieve the shot (and a through knowledge of the kit being used) is my take.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 3, 2011)

koolman said:


> We spend allot of time here comparing equipment and extensively analyzing the pros and cons of bodies, lenses, etc.
> 
> However - many people say, that the real ingredient for producing special pictures - is the skill of the photographer. Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.
> 
> How important is our equipment ? Would you agree that it more like 85% skill and 15% equipment ?



It depends. 

And it's more a question of what things you can take amazing pics of. If you want to capture a scene with 14-15 stops of DR and motion going on you can be the greatest talent in the world and yet without the right equipment forget it. You can be a great sports photographer or a beginner and poor one and yet both with instantly get a lot more keepers using a 1D4 instead of a 20D or suddenly miss a lot more shots, maybe critical ones, if forced from a 1D4 to a 20D.

If you shoot sports on a dark college field at night and only have a 300 f/4 you will do a lot worse than if you have a 300 2.8.

Lesser equipment CAN radically lower take and sometimes to a degree where it matters even more than who is behind the camera.

But if you just tell someone to go get amazing pics, not of a very specific type, sure the person with the eye and/or drive to get to the right place with the right light or sit there for three weeks for the perfect wildlife shot might get a lot better take with a 10D than someone with poor talent and/or lack of time/drive with a 5D2/D3s/D3/D700/1D4 kit.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 3, 2011)

bycostello said:


> 99% skill 1% camera



If you are told to just go out and bring back some amazing shots, then maybe.

If you are told to come back with specific sorts of sorts it may be that equipment is suddenly incredibly critical.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 3, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > 99% skill 1% camera
> ...



+1

There is no one criteria that makes a great shot. Many of them are skill based, a few equipment based. If you use the adage, a camera wont go and shoot itself then it is 100% skill 0% equipment.

But I think the OP had some reasonable assumptions... being a rookie myself, I'd say, 80% skill, 20% equipment.


----------



## Cornershot (Oct 3, 2011)

There is a world full of skillful photographers. They know how to use the gear and shoot competently. But most will never be great or even good photographers. Skill is something you can learn. Really good photography comes from talent and that can't be learned. Just like you can't learn to be a great painter. Good gear is a distant third.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 4, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> Really good photography comes from talent and that can't be learned. Just like you can't learn to be a great painter.



Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.


Would you care to provide some proof of this? Show me some well-designed scientific studies to show that people cannot "learn" or "develop" ability as artists.
Define "talent." If you consider it innate, please explain how degrees of talent can be distinguished in newborns or toddlers, and how early identification of talent can be correlated to great work later in life.
How would you classify someone who started painting only late in life (as my great-grandmother did in her 70's)? Would you say that was latent talent or developed skill? How could you tell the difference? Or would you simply manipulate your definitions to suit?

While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever ******* to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 4, 2011)

[quote author=Grand Moff Tarkin]
This bickering is pointless!
[/quote]

Every photographer has a different level of expertise and will therefore have different requirements from their equipment. For a "true artist," the camera is probably no more than a canvas and the lens, their brush and paint.

Trying to explain the relationship via percentages is like ... trying to explain _why the sky is blue_.

[quote author=The 6 O'Clock News]
This just in! Scientists discover _why the sky is blue_. Film at 11.
[/quote]

[email protected]!

Fine, here's a percentage. It's 100% Art.


----------



## Cornershot (Oct 11, 2011)

It's not arrogance or nonsense and it's not something you can spell out in a formula. Just apply this same idea to any art form and art history. Are you saying that anybody can pick up a camera and learn to be Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier Bresson? That anybody can eventually become Beethoven or Bach? That anybody can learn to become Albert Einstein? That is the golden touch. Call it a random mutation or a gift from the gods. Whether undiscovered or developed late in life, some have it and some don't but, of course and obviously, there's also a spectrum of artists and ability in-between. 





Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.


Would you care to provide some proof of this? Show me some well-designed scientific studies to show that people cannot "learn" or "develop" ability as artists.
Define "talent." If you consider it innate, please explain how degrees of talent can be distinguished in newborns or toddlers, and how early identification of talent can be correlated to great work later in life.
How would you classify someone who started painting only late in life (as my great-grandmother did in her 70's)? Would you say that was latent talent or developed skill? How could you tell the difference? Or would you simply manipulate your definitions to suit?

While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever ******* to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.
[/quote]


----------



## archangelrichard (Oct 12, 2011)

sort of a 50 - 50

If you don't have the equipment you won't get the picture

If you don't have the skills you won't get the picture

if you don't have the artistry you won't know what the picture IS if it bit you on the asphalt

If you don't have the motivation you won't go looking for any pictures

I would say the skills and the equipment go hand in hand; the equipment is a tool and the skills are in using that tool


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 12, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> It's not arrogance or nonsense and it's not something you can spell out in a formula. Just apply this same idea to any art form and art history. Are you saying that anybody can pick up a camera and learn to be Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier Bresson? That anybody can eventually become Beethoven or Bach? That anybody can learn to become Albert Einstein? That is the golden touch. Call it a random mutation or a gift from the gods. Whether undiscovered or developed late in life, some have it and some don't but, of course and obviously, there's also a spectrum of artists and ability in-between.
> 
> [quote author=Orangutan]
> Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.
> ...


[/quote]

Being great at something doesn't require being a _prodigy_, it simply takes more time and effort. No, not everyone can be a Beethoven composing symphonies at the age of 5, but if you have the desire and passion for something, you can learn how to be great. As for Ansel Adams, it was his passion for nature that led him to _learn_ photography. It's not as if he was "great" overnight, but don't take _my_ word for it:
*
"My photographs have now reached a stage when they are worthy of the world's critical examination. I have suddenly come upon a new style which I believe will place my work equal to anything of its kind."* -- Ansel Adams, 1927 (6 years after his first photographs were published).


----------



## torger (Oct 12, 2011)

Noone likes to say it, but photography is actually rather easy way to make art when you compare to other art forms like painting and music. Even the moderately gifted amateur can make great pictures, not just as often as the very talented person. It also depends on style, some styles are simpler to shoot and require less creative artistic talent than others. But that's what is great about photography, almost anyone can do it.

When it comes to equipment it depends on the type of photography how important it is. It is much easier to shoot good wildlife pictures with if you have those super-expensive tele lenses and responsive auto-focus. Making fantastic large prints is easier when you have a high resolution system. But camera won't take the pictures for you.

Photography is today technically simpler than it was in the film era. Both when taking the picture and when doing post-processing.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 12, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever ******* to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.



Agree 100%. I take a lot of interest in sports, sports psychology and junior sports development. In a lot of ways, sports ability is seen to be similar to artistic ability. Many people think that you've either got it or you don't. While some people do have a natural edge (and admittedly, you need a bit of this to make it to No. 1), the ones who make it to the top are invariably the ones who dedicate the time and effort, show up to training, enjoy what they are doing and have the desire to succeed.

Don't be fooled by the world's best who make things look easy. Was Tiger Wood's success due to natural ability, or because heâ€™s up at 6.00am, takes a four-kilometre run followed by gym stretches, then half-an-hour for breakfast, two hours on the driving range, nine holes of golf, lunch, two more hours on the range, another nine holes, some pitching, dinner and bed? Despite all of his natural ability, look at how a few disruptions has impacted on him at the elite level. Natural ability, while important, isn't as crucial as most people think. But it gives everyone a good excuse for not being pro golfers, footballers, soccer players, worlds best photographer etc...

One of the contributors above asked the question about scientific studies and whether people can learn or develop ability as artists. Another interesting exercise would be to round up the world's leading photographers and ask how much time they dedicate and the lengths they go to capture THE shot. Pressing the shutter button is probably the easiest part of the process. The hard part is the 3am wake up to get into position before dawn, the weeks on end in hides, the treks into remote locations, the trips to dangerous places (such as warzones), getting up close with deadly wildlife etc etc is 95% of the effort. The reality is, virtually anyone could do this if they wanted to. The person who you think has "artistic ability" in most cases is simple the one who just gets out there and does it. Most of us don't want to to go outside our comfort zone (eg I hate early mornings and would rather be snug in bed than outside pushing the limits of photography), which is why most of us linger in the realms of mediocrity.


----------



## Cornershot (Oct 12, 2011)

Probably most people in the world can't be taught to throw a 100 mile an hour fastball or even 80. And there are plenty of minor league ball players that have dedicated their hearts and souls into getting into the majors but never do. And there are plenty that can't even make it into the farm system. It's nice to think that sheer will gives everybody the same chance. But the truth is that there's a lot of physiological variation between people. You wouldn't say that everybody in the major league is number one but they all have the ability to outperform most of the world in that sport.


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 12, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> Probably most people in the world can't be taught to throw a 100 mile an hour fastball or even 80. And there are plenty of minor league ball players that have dedicated their hearts and souls into getting into the majors but never do. And there are plenty that can't even make it into the farm system. It's nice to think that sheer will gives everybody the same chance. But the truth is that there's a lot of physiological variation between people. You wouldn't say that everybody in the major league is number one but they all have the ability to outperform most of the world in that sport.



Body and mind. Apples and oranges. Sorry, but you really can't compare the two. You can't _learn_ to be 6' tall -- believe me, I've tried!  In any case, physical ability doesn't necessarily translate into _success_, so the point is moot.

As Hillsilly correctly pointed out, not everyone has the will power/drive/desire to get up early in the AM and do what it takes to become the best. That is what separates the best from everyone else.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 12, 2011)

koolman said:


> We spend allot of time here comparing equipment and extensively analyzing the pros and cons of bodies, lenses, etc.
> 
> However - many people say, that the real ingredient for producing special pictures - is the skill of the photographer. Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.
> 
> How important is our equipment ? Would you agree that it more like 85% skill and 15% equipment ?




I think that really depends, as many have pointed out already. The technical aspects of photography are not really "hard" compared to other skills and art forms. Good equipment makes it both, easier and more flexible. Non of this has to do with composition, "having an eye" and the creative thought process. Yet good tools are always a plus. Using a screw driver to stir paint can not exactly be attributed to being creative if you know what I mean.

And for some things there are certain minimum criteria. I personally always liked playing with depth of field so fast and or long lenses and big sensors/film are a plus. In the film days this was relatively affordable. With digital today it's on average more expensive. My first digital camera, a point & shoot just couldn't do much of what I wanted it to do. So that was a clear technical component that was not sufficient. But for most of the other aspects it wouldn't really matter if I was using my 5DII, a Leica M9 or an entry-level Rebel kit and whatever is messed up or flat out boring is due to my own limitations and not the cameras'. In fact, I believe that some equipment challenges can help improve skills.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 14, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> Probably most people in the world can't be taught to throw a 100 mile an hour fastball or even 80. And there are plenty of minor league ball players that have dedicated their hearts and souls into getting into the majors but never do. And there are plenty that can't even make it into the farm system. It's nice to think that sheer will gives everybody the same chance. But the truth is that there's a lot of physiological variation between people. You wouldn't say that everybody in the major league is number one but they all have the ability to outperform most of the world in that sport.



You are right in several aspects. Physiological differences play a part in sport. But there are all sorts of sports. Some favour strength, others agility, precision, accuracy and endurance. Some people are better suited to football. Others might do better at lawn bowls. And at the top end of any sport, it is the very minor differences that separate the best from the rest. Just because you want to play a particular sport, it doesn't mean that you're ideally suited for it. But photography has so many aspects, portraits, wildlife, landscapes, macro for example, and most of the top photographers tend to find a niche. 

I agree that wanting something to happen and working towards that goal isn't necessarily going to make it happen. Plus, the world is a hard place. Despite putting their heart and soul into something, people often still fail. But does that mean that people shouldn't try? 

My belief is that if you spent 5 years full time at photography (both practicing and also studying art) you would develop artistic compositional knowledge. You would be virtually as good as almost any other photographer. The thing that would stop you being seen as a great photographer probably wouldn't be your ability or style. It would more likely be your self promotion, marketing, and contacts. Its a crowded world out there and its hard to get noticed. Your financial ability is also a major limiting factor. Getting a job in a related field that gives you the freedom to pursue your goals is difficult. 

To use your baseball analogy. If you're playing minor league baseball, doesn't that still make you one of the best few thousand in the world? Wouldn't you be almost as good as the major league players? Despite being a hard place, the world is also full of opportunity. As a photographer, you can choose your own path. You're not reliant on a talent scout, coach or somebody else giving you a chance. And there's no rankings in photography. You can just get out there and do it.


----------



## DBCdp (Oct 14, 2011)

Trying to look at something like art by percentages is where the key mistake is made. All things are a matter of perspective, especially art! Talent? Well that's a given. As is equipment. There are people that simply cannot take a good picture. There are those that it would seem cannot take a bad one! The argument though about talent is better left to a subject of physical skills, like track as an example. Either you CAN run the 400m in 47 seconds or you can't. If you can get close to that you might be trained to capture that goal. If you run a 65 second 400m then it's highly doubtful you'll ever win any medals in that event.

A professional, in almost any sense of the word, is a trained amateur. Ever think of that? Everybody that is famous started somewhere, and many of those starts were not at all impressive. So the will to use the talent you have to grow to the level you wish is a key, equipment is a tool to get you there. And many times it's in the breaks one gets. The right person cared enough to give a chance and it was an opportunity seized that led to fame and fortune.

Thankfully we have Canon to help us along our way!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 16, 2011)

bycostello said:


> 99% skill 1% camera


Here's a brownie box camera, go make macro shots 8)

Truth is that the camera does most of the hard work these days. Of course, going beyond the same possibilities everybody else sees and doing something truly wonderful requires something more than knowing what the camera is capable of - perhaps. Maybe it's mostly knowing the camera's limits. Whatever the case, you can't take the camera out of photography.


----------



## spaceheat (Oct 16, 2011)

100% equipment. As long as anyone has the latest camera with the highest MP count and a fisheye lens, s/he will be regarded as a photographic genius... and they will become very rich like Gary Fong... and live on some yacht down in Hawaii.

Sincerely,
Canon / Nikon Joint Marketing Department


----------



## Caps18 (Oct 18, 2011)

I have taken some great pictures with different cameras. I am more consistent with the 5DM2.

I can give my camera to my Dad to take a picture, and if you don't know what you are doing, the camera won't help you frame the shot or get the timing right.


----------



## Cregg Annarino (Oct 18, 2011)

Unfortunately photography is one profession that anyone can just buy a camera and become a photographer. Does it mean they are good at it..no.....You can't buy a stethoscope or scalpel and just become a doctor, or buy new golf clubs and become tiger woods immediately or buy a fast car and become a Nascar driver....these things take time to learn and actually perfect the skills needed to perform.

A camera is a camera, most people that start new photography businesses don't even know how to use their own camera. Lots shoot and let the camera make all the decisions. 

There is a difference between just taking photos of people or things that happen to be in front of you and trying to genuinely create something amazing through direction, use of light, angles etc. Photography is all about the light, for landscapes it's being there at sunrise or sunset. For people it's posing skills, making them feel comfortable and being able to see the good light and using it to your advantage to make them look their best, plus picking the right lens to compliment your subject whatever or whomever it may be. For weddings it's the same except you usually have a time restriction during your days.

If you can't see the light or create it, know how to compose, know how and take the time to learn and actually be able to use the camera to it's fullest, or know how to interact with and direct your clients and know how to use light on your subjects creatively to make a killer photo then a new 7000 dollar camera isn't going to really help you.


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 18, 2011)

Cregg Annarino said:


> Unfortunately photography is one profession that anyone can just buy a camera and become a photographer. Does it mean they are good at it..no.....You can't buy a stethoscope or scalpel and just become a doctor, or buy new golf clubs and become tiger woods immediately or buy a fast car and become a Nascar driver....these things take time to learn and actually perfect the skills needed to perform.
> 
> A camera is a camera, most people that start new photography businesses don't even know how to use their own camera. Lots shoot and let the camera make all the decisions.
> 
> ...



Well stated!

BTW, I think your quote should be:

"You can't buy a stethoscope, scalpel or _golf clubs_ and just become a doctor..." ;D


----------



## Rocky (Oct 18, 2011)

In my humble opinion, It will take ALL three: Talent, hardwork (skill) and equipment. There are a lot of good photographer. But not that many great photographer. I know I may start another contraversial discussion here. Give a medium range camera to the average people and teach them how to take picture. He or she can become a good photographer, if he or she will work hard enough. That is what I mean by hardwork and skill. However, in order to become a great photographer. He will need talent. I known some posters here do not believe in talent is being burn with. I am a firm believer that talent is being born with. Our brain is just like any other part of the body. Every body have different physical appearence, height, eye color, hair color etc. Our brain is also different. So people will be born with different talent.
As for Equipment, It also play a very important role. Most of the time, it will determine if it is a good picture or a great picture. Also it need the right equipment to do the right job. 
Ansel Adam will be a good example. No body will argue that he is not talented and not hard working. He use huge view camera. He needs the detail, almost zero gain for the picture. His equipment can never be used by any sport photographer. No matter how talented the sport photographer is.
So great photography is talent, skill and equipment, not necessarily in the exact order. They are just like the three legs of a three legged stool. Some poster may say that if you have talent, you will have skill. That is for another discussion.
However, to be a good photographer, you still need skill and equipment


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 19, 2011)

Rocky said:


> I known some posters here do not believe in talent is being burn with.




You may be talking about me; if so you're partially correct. I think this discussion is fairly important because these ideas affect the way we move through life, and how we treat others, as well as how we treat ourselves. I absolutely agree that we're born with differences. Some you mentioned above, others I'll note here: 

Some males are born with a genetic condition that gives them a diminished ability to distinguish between green and red
There is speculation (so far, I believe, not accepted by the scientific community) that some females are born with an enhanced ability to discern color.
Some are born with hearing deficiencies, or even completely deaf; others have conditions that give them superior hearing (e.g. Williams syndrome)
Some are born with genetic defects that prevent them from developing full cognitive abilities, e.g. Down's Syndrome or autism. (Yes, I know autism isn't purely genetic, but there's a strong correlation)

But the notion of "talent" does not refer to a mere enhancement of one, or even a small number, of normal abilities, it is much more complex than that. For most people, "artistic talent" refers to some predisposition towards creating works that are perceived, by a subjective audience, as having certain very desirable qualities. Let me motivate my argument with a few examples:


Consider some of the "talented" 20th century abstract painters: how would their works have been perceived in, say, pre-Renaissance Europe? They would have been considered childish scratchings, and the "artists" would have been advised (or compelled) to take up another line of work. 
How about the singing of Robert Plant? Is that talent or noise?
How about the many artists who were not beloved until after their death? Their contemporaries judged them to be without (much) talent.
Now how about yourself, Rocky: I gather from your writing that you're not a native speaker of English. (Let me digress briefly to say that I wish I could write in any foreign language as well as you write in English.) Do you write English imperfectly because you don't have talent for it? How about me? I don't speak, for example, Mandarin. I could probably learn some, but would never be fluent enough to pass the "telephone test." Do I not have a talent for it? If you had been born in an English-speaking country, you would be fluent, and I would be fluent in Mandarin if I had been born into that language.
That's enough preamble, now on to my argument: as a practical matter, "talent" is merely a skill that you learned without knowing it. Could there be some genetic predisposition? Quite likely, but we have no way to know. Because the final product is such a blend of innate ability, early learning, developed skill, life experience, opportunity, and even interest, there is simply no way to extract that element called "innate talent," and hold it up to the light for all to admire. In a sense, "talent" is only recognizable in hindsight. If we see someone who creates a piece we like, we can say he is "talented." If we see a child who shows promise early in life, but never advances beyond a certain stage, we can say "he wasted his talent." The problem is we really don't know either of those for certain. Furthermore, if we see a middle-aged woman who has struggled and given great effort to create art, but never succeeded, we may say she lacks talent. But what, then, if suddenly she starts to create high-quality work? This does happen, though not frequently because many would eventually give up on something they find too challenging. Would we then say that she always had the "latent talent" (I just love that anagram) but needed the opportunity to express it? What if she had died or given up before she developed those skills? She would have been judged to be without innate talent.

To repeat and summarize: as a practical matter, the judgment of talent can only be done in retrospect, as in "he has not yet shown talent for photography." You can't really say "he will never..." because there are some people who do show ability later in life. Furthermore, if you now ascribe to those late-bloomers the quality of "latent talent" then you find yourself in a logical fallacy. (This particular fallacy is known as the "no true Scotsman fallacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman)

Why is this important, and why have I wasted half an hour writing about it? Because art is about enjoying and appreciating life, in its many different aspects. It simply does not matter if a certain person doesn't create admirable or compelling photographic images, it's only important that he/she enjoy the process of trying. Personally, I believe most people are born with "artistic talent," but circumstances take each in a different direction. As regards photography I'll repeat a quote someone else posted recently: 

"A camera is a tool to teach you how to see without a camera." Dorothea Lange

Really, that's what matters.


----------



## scarbo (Oct 21, 2011)

Good post Orangutan. You're right, this is an important topic and I think you make some very good points.

Quite a lot of research has been done on the subject of innate talent, with interesting results. I happen to think photography is one of the more accessible artistic disciplines out there where most individuals would be able to develop a high level of skill given time and effort.

Even in significantly more challenging areas some of the research out there argues that it takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice to become world class in a discipline and much less to become highly skilled. Of course, it has to be the right kind of practice, but the argument is practice is a more significant contributory factor to the level at which one excels in a skill than this idea of talent.

http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 21, 2011)

Thanks for the comments, and also for the link. I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting. Unfortunately, I think this thread is dead -- would be nice to have some folks tell stories about how they became interested in photography, and how they developed their photographer's eye.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Oct 21, 2011)

I think a true test would be for everyone to buy an old manual pentax or olympus film slr with a 50mm lens and some b&w film and then see who gets the best photos.


----------



## MazV-L (Oct 22, 2011)

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but I think personality/ people skills and confidence are just as or more important than skills/ talent and equipment. If you're very likeable and you really believe you are a good photographer then you will be successful. Unfortunately I think this is something that is difficult to learn if you don't have that kind of personality.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 23, 2011)

MazV-L said:


> I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but I think personality/ people skills and confidence are just as or more important than skills/ talent and equipment. If you're very likeable and you really believe you are a good photographer then you will be successful. Unfortunately I think this is something that is difficult to learn if you don't have that kind of personality.



+1


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 23, 2011)

MazV-L said:


> I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but I think personality/ people skills and confidence are just as or more important than skills/ talent and equipment. If you're very likeable and you really believe you are a good photographer then you will be successful. Unfortunately I think this is something that is difficult to learn if you don't have that kind of personality.



People skills probably do help, especially if you're photographing people... 

As for believing you are a good artist (photographer, painter, musician, etc.), from what I've read, the best ones usually don't think they're very good. _That's_ what drives them to become better, or cut their ear off! (Okay, extreme example!) OTOH, those who _already_ believe they are good, might not try as hard. Why should they? In their minds, they're already good!


----------



## macfly (Nov 11, 2011)

Wow, what an interesting thread, and so many different perspectives. I have to say I pretty much agree with everyone, which may sound odd, but I really found that everyones opinions are valid on this, even though they are completely different.

The most important thing about the gear you use to take pictures is that it is what you like to use. Regadless of whether its an iPhone of a plate camera, it is your enjoyment of using it that will make the pictures great.

The best thing I was ever told about cameras I think still holds true, the best camera is the one you'll use the most. These days if I'm not at work it's my iPhone. I though I'd add some color to the thread, since we're talking about pictures, this snap was with my iPhone of the evening hike with the pups a couple of weeks back.


----------

