Poll on what makes a good photog. Luck, Money or Skill

[arkturas]

I'm interested to know what some of you think about the following :

1.Lets, face it some of us can produce great images just by luck (being in the right place at the right time)

2.some of us can produce great images because we can afford to buy some outrageously priced gear, (all those 1D & high priced L owners out there)...

3.And then some photogs can produce great images because they understand the mechanics of photography and can apply the first two points to the best that the situation allows..

which category do you fall in ? 1; 2 or 3

[Broncobear]

Actually I think it's a mixture of all three..

Luck is basically when oppurtunity and preperation meet. I'm fairly new to the sceen here and have been in luck....everyday i walk the streets I see things that can be interesting to photograph. so luck happens when your prepared, but that goes with anything not just photography.

in terms of your question you need all three

[DMacIntyre]

I think all 3 play a role in the final outcome of pictures, but ultimately it's the skill of the photographer that produces great photos.

I've seen magic done with P&S 3 mega pixel cameras, and I've seen mediocre pictures from 1Ds.

[canoflan]

I will address each as follows:
1) If you believe in luck, then fine, sometimes it is luck. I think some of us keep our eyes peeled and the camera with me continually for taking advantage, else, there is not point to seeing it (if you wanted to photograph it).
2) Camera gear has very little to do with great photographs (quality may be a different question). Even cardboard cameras in the right circumstances are useful tools.
3) It is important that if you are going to buy the gear, understand how to use it to the best of your ability and capacity, however, cameras are like our mouths, they are tools, not the origination of anything.;)

[gjl711]

It clearly takes all three without a doubt. Oh you mean me, which do I fall into. well, I'll let you know once I get a great pic. ;)

[elTwitcho]

I think I'm number three. I sometimes think I have very little natural talent at this and persevere through sheer stupid stubborness alone ;)

[bbc14f]

I was always told the harder you work/train/practice at something the luckier you get!!! ;)

Sure anyone can pick up a camera and push the button and by chance capture something great. But thats probably going to happen one out of (insert insane number here). Practicing, knowing your equipment, researching your art, training your eye etc. will only increase the amount of times you capture something great. Some people are born with a great eye and feeling for that special moment, while others simply have to work harder at it.

[nicksan]

I fall into all and none!

Actually, it's kinda impossible to answer this question. I guess I need to ask myself WHY I take pics. Money? Joy? Both?

Definitey not money...I have a 9-5.

It definitely appeals to my Gadget freak side, that's for sure. I like tinkering around with this stuff, especially with the gear that I purchased. I also like seeing that my gear can take razor sharp pics. That satisfies a side of me as well. I know that I have the capability equipment-wise to take some kick-arse pictures!

Inevitably "better" gear costs money, but it DOES make it "possible" to take great pics. Not saying I WILL...but possible...because the rest is up to me.

...and that appeals to a certain side of me as well...

So I'd like to think that I fall into all categories at the same time none...because in the end if I look at a pic that I shot and if it satisfies me then that's all that matters to me!

[Jman13]

One can take a 'good' photograph with luck or knowledge of equipment.

To make a "great" photograph, it requires skill.

[liza]

Mostly skill with a little luck. Money helps but isn't truly required.

[mxwphoto]

Luck is being able to hit upon the opportunity and being presented with the subject in good light. Skill is being able to capture that moment. Luck without skill = bad pics. Skill without luck = no great pics. Skill is still the more important of the 2 though. As for money, it takes you places and gets you gear, so it helps a bit with both. :)

Since my skills are still work in development, I have to say I need to rely on luck a bit more than some.

[cjm]

It only takes TWO of them. And neither are money.

Luck: Being at the right place at the right time.
Skill: Seeing the image in your head before it becomes a photo.

What's a good camera? Or good gear. What is a good camera to you, is crap to someone else so it really doesn't matter. A user of a G7 might look at a powershot user like a 30D user might look at a G7 like a 1Ds MKII user looks at a 30D user like a Hasselblad user looks at a 1Ds MKII user. In the end, they are all holding essentially a box that collects light and does the very same thing as all those users cameras, takes pictures.

I I took this with a Powershot A85. http://christophermartin.smugmug.com/gallery/2154535/1/111751948/Small Obviously it really wasnt money that play appart and it hasn't for me since spending $7000 this year alone on gear. Luck and Skill have though and I feel I get better with each passing year.

Photography is not about the gear you have at all. It is about the time you have.

[grego]

The more skilled you are, the more likely you are to have good luck.
The more background you have in the subject, the more likely you are to have good luck.

Technical skill is vital, but then it of course requires some creative eye as well.

[Miyagi-san]

When my dad passed his Canon AE-1 and lenses/gear on to me (one of the best days of my life :D )...this is a direct quote from him, (it may be a quote he heard before....but this is what he wrote me...)

It's as much the man's eye as the camera's lens that makes a good picture.

And I would say that pretty much sums it up!

[Keith R]

As a bird photographer, I think option 4 is immensely important.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh yeah - you don't have an option 4!

;) ;) ;)

Composition makes or breaks an image more effectively than anything else you care to mention, regardless of luck, equipment or "mechanics".

I don't see composition as part of the mechanics - it's an aesthetic thing, utterly divorced from an understanding of shutter speed and exposure, the ability to hold a camera steady, or the ability to afford the current Gitzo tripod de jour and Wimberly head...

An image that has been composed well will get your attention more effectively than anything else, regardless of the technicalities.

[Glenn NK]

Keith R:

Bravo.

[halfmoonray]

In my opinion, it the first requirement is TIME.
Time to take pictures, time to travel, time to improve and learn.
You can have all the money but if you don't take the time out to take pictures forget it.

And the second element is MONEY. Money to travel, buy equipment and start/market a business.

[Glenn NK]

Hmmmm, can't argue with that either. Wish I had a lot more of both.

[sswanson]

Great discussion above. My opinion is similar to many posters - "luck" is often simply "skill, comittment and preparation" re-labeled by others. Of course, there is true luck, which can often be seen when a single good photo pops out of a portfolio of lousy shots. My general way of thinking of it is that anyone who is 'lucky' consistently obviously has a lot of skill (or at least knows to delete the bad ones)!

I know some photographers take a lot of images, then make them into something through cropping to get that all-important composition Keith pointed out. I've often noticed my best image from a shot was a small subset of the image and wished I'd seen it at the time so I'd have more pixels to work with.

[Hermeto]

To be honest, I don’t know the answer to this question.
All of them, none of them?
Only skills?
Talent?
Right place, right moment, pure luck?

I don’t have a clue..

[Titus213]

Consistent persistence.

[ghocking]

Composition makes or breaks an image more effectively than anything else you care to mention, regardless of luck, equipment or "mechanics".

I don't see composition as part of the mechanics - it's an aesthetic thing, utterly divorced from an understanding of shutter speed and exposure, the ability to hold a camera steady, or the ability to afford the current Gitzo tripod de jour and Wimberly head...

An image that has been composed well will get your attention more effectively than anything else, regardless of the technicalities.
This is the one for me, I would call it a good eye for a shot. See the shot you want, either with the lens you have attached, or the one you want after cropping and PP.

[prep]

All of the above, and none of them. The most important thing is `the eye'. Seeing and putting together THE image that captures it all.

And some of them you have to look at and admit that you could never do that shot because you see thing a whole different way.

[Lightstream]

I would say skill and gear are mere enablers. You need them, but you also need to get them settled and squared away so they do not trip you up. Having them in isolation will not get you any good photos. However, NOT having them *CAN* and very well may cost you the 'decisive moment'. So you must ensure your foundation is solid. After all, how many times have you walked by a magnificent scene say, a sunset, without your camera? Having a camera with you will not result in good pictures in and as of itself, but not having one will ensure you do not get the shot. Likewise if you are fumbling with the controls and trying to figure out what technical settings are needed while your once in a lifetime subject passes you by...

Then you must have the vision to 'see' your take on the subject. I have joked in the past that my "mind's eye" is the one manning the 10-1200mm f/1.8 image stabilized zoom, and it shoots video with automatic stitching, AWB, color correction and visualization. True that, the vision is expansive - but often translating that vision from vision to execution is limited by your equipment. However, NOT having a vision in the first place - forget about it ;)

Good gear is often the capstone that sits on top of all of this. You can do more with less, but good gear may make it easier, may make a few more things possible, and enhance the quality of something that is already good. I have shot scenes on a film P&S, returned ten years later, and the quality of a 5D with 12.7MP is undisputable. However again, the bedrock is still composed of the vision.

I also realized that I would have shot the scene the SAME way through my P&S (35mm wide angle) if I only had a 35mm wide angle lens with me that day. The vision is the same, except that now I had a 17mm ultrawide on full frame, a tripod, and the patience to wait till the light was just right.

They are all interlinked and you must have all of them.

[Salleke]

It clearly takes all three without a doubt. Oh you mean me, which do I fall into. well, I'll let you know once I get a great pic. ;)


I'm with you all the way...

Merry Christmas and a productive new (foto)year to all of us...

[grego]

Stealing a good photographer's photos and putting them out as yours!! ;)

[bidimagic]

For me, in order of importance:
1) Creativity/technical skills - ... and composition rules knowledge
2) A bit of luck - but you should have in your mind what you want to do!!!
3) Money - but this don't let you make better pictures, it makes your pictures look better. I think it's better a good photo with low IQ than a bad photo with high IQ :)

Generally my thought is that images should give emotions to people who don't know about where/how they were maden.

About me, I don't think I'm a good photographer, but I'm trying harder :) to make my best!!!

[tomhide]

Interesting discussion and some great answers.

I've heard of this saying "I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) I think this applies in life and also to photography as well.

To some extent camera maybe just like a painting brush or a pencil. In the hand of person with no knoweldge its worth nothing but to those who knows how to use it, its a wonderful tool. No person can just pick up these tools for the first time and be a master at it IMO.

I sure am a noob at the moment but I hope to become a decent photograher by hardwork and lots of practice :)

[grego]

Okay, finally back to being serious.

one of the best ways is to look at what you like. Save it(cut it out if its in a magazine, poster, etc.) or if its on the web(save to a folder). Ask yourself why do they like it and think what type of lens(telephoto, wide angle), what position were they in(standing, crouching, laying down, etc.). And try to immitate it. Then put your own touch on it. One of the best ways you can learn. It can give you ideas and you can improvise off of them.

That will strengthen your eye. The more you expose yourself to what you like, the more you will "see."

That is all..

Oooh and, this is digital, so be unconvential. You can shoot and screw up all you want. SO take chances!!

[capture]

The right place and the right time. Money can't buy that.

[GilesGuthrie]

I think it's:
70% skill
20% luck
10% gear

But I feel that any picture is 50% composition, 40% lighting, 10% camera setup, so you can extrapolate that into the terms of the poll if you wish.

[Lightstream]

Oooh and, this is digital, so be unconvential. You can shoot and screw up all you want. SO take chances!!


At least till you get criticized for 'shooting too much' because certain people feel that you should shoot 'like the film days', even if they may not say it outright..

[grphx]

All it is, is light, geez how complicated can it be!? Heheh, anyways, I think it's understanding the photography aspects that make good pictures. I can take a whole lot better picture of my friend when I can setup everything, and they actually want to have their picture taken, and I think I take better pictures than those paparazzi with their expensive cameras and celebrities as subjects.

[Scottes]

1. I *get* myself to the right place at the right time, when I can. Planning is important.
2. I have decent equipment.
3. I have some skill.

But I have to go with:
4. Excellent Photoshop Skills. :-)

[grego]

At least till you get criticized for 'shooting too much' because certain people feel that you should shoot 'like the film days', even if they may not say it outright..

Even in film days you'd screw up. It's just, it would cost you more money. I did enough of that, especially with photo paper.

[tsaraleksi]

I think that skill and equipment can get you up to the point of consistently producing high quality images-- ie the difference between someone who ocassionally gets a good shot and someone who shoot for a living. Luck comes into play in that intagible space between very good and spectacular: you just can't always go out and shoot a Pulitzer prize winning shot, or whatever, because you need the situation, location, etc to present itself. That's luck, and it's that element that seperates photography from less grounded artistic mediums, I think. If you're making a painting, and what a spectacular sky, then by golly, just paint it in. If you're taking pictures, that doesn't work quite so well.

[pradeep1]

Skill > Money > Luck

[quickpic]

In my opinion and experience, the percentages are closer to 80% skill, 10% luck, 10% money. Skill (experience) tells me where to stand to get the light the way I want it, which lens to use to get the background correct or what speed and F-stop to shoot for the only lens in my bag. Anyone can buy expensive equipment and anyone can shoot a ton of pics hoping for one good one but the skilled will always shine.

[joegolf68]

Luck is when opportunity meets preparation!