Can anyone with a good camera take good pictures?

TheHoff wrote in post #5208801
I've got a photo of my cat that is so in-focus it is gonna blow your mind.

Well at least its not a DUCK

No complaints here.

Was suffering from lens envy and feeling very frustrated,at a professional shoot for my band,until the photographer sat with me over coffee,and explained how the art resides with the shooter,the camera is important,but does not create the art.we do !
Our drummer,taken with borrowed Olympus X400,1/30,f3.1,ISO100.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5212464
To the O.P.

Just buy one of these and you'll NEVER take a bad picture again...

http://www.hasselbladu​sa.com/promotions/h3d-ii.aspx



How long is this thread going to last.

You have to be able to SEE to take a good photograph....
The camera is just a way to capture that vision. IT JUST A TOOL.

And along similar lines, just because you have a good computer, and you can copy & paste, doesn't mean you can do it well!!!

"No node found (http://www.hasselbladu​sa.com …e=/promotions/h​3d-ii.aspx, '/domainprefixes-are-used-so-i-do-not-work')"

This thread reminds me of the time when my sister in law was checking my son's ears to see if he had an ear infection... she's a pediatrician. I said (quite innocently), "you know.. parents should be able to buy otoscopes so we don't have to drag kids to the doctor's office just to make sure they don't have an ear infection..." She was clearly annoyed and launched into a speech about how long it had taken her in medical school to learn how to use an otoscope and how it's not as easy as it seems and yadda yadda...

I just see her stick a flashlight in my kid's ear and she has her answer in 10 seconds. I gave no thought to the hundreds of kids she had to examine before she was confident enough to diagnose an infection by sight in the short time one can get a toddler to sit still. The years she spend studying the anatomy of the ear and what the different scenarios mean and how to treat them.

In the same way, when I take a pictures she doesn't see that I assessed the light, figured out that it was too harsh coming from over there, so I turned around, chose the correct aperture, got down on my knees, pre-focused, waited for the right moment, clicked, then checked the histogram, then processed the image for white balance, levels, sharpness, etc. She just sees me point a camera and press a button.

There is a sense of pride in every profession. And most of the time, no one understands the full scope of the other person's skills. It's not a photography thing. It's a life thing.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5208766
I like the Piano comparison, that's even better than Pots and pans!

To use another musical analogy that I've actually already used in another thread today, I'm a bassist and earn part of my living playing. My main instrument is a beautiful and moderately expensive G&L L2500. In the hands of someone with good technique and feel it's an amazing instrument. The tone is beautifully warm and balanced and the range of sounds available is pretty much unlimited. Put that wonderful instrument in the hands of someone who's maybe been playing for a few years but, to put it bluntly, has very little natural musical ability and it will sound terrible. All the great qualities that instrument has are completely wasted and meaningless. Conversely, give an experienced player a crappy second hand £80 Squire P. Bass and that player will somehow make it sound great.

Give a talented and expressive photographer a camera phone and he'll create compelling images. Give someone lacking those qualities a 1D of some kind and an 'L' series lens and their images will be a fraction as inspirational.

People make great music/great photographs. Not equipment!

Paul