What do you guys think is more important, finding the perfect photo opportunity, or is all that irrelevent to someone who has mastered all the functions of their camera? Can a good scene replace bad skill and vice versa? Just curious on your opinions.
I think it's kind of an "apples vs. oranges" question. On the one tentacle, a skilled photographer is not limited to "finding" a good scene. I think part of being a good photographer is being able to see how to make even mundane subjects visually interesting. On top of which, one has the option of creating or modifying a scene to suit the image. On the other tentacle, a kid with an instimatic can capture striking candid shots, or a beatiful sunset, or many other scenes just by snapping away. If you can see it, you've got half a chance of capturing it if you only try, even if your skill is minimal. Skill gives you a huge degree of added versitilty & capabitity, but that's building upward and outward from "found" subjects. Beautiful scenes as a starting point aren't dependant on skill (aside from the ability to recodnise them on sight, but even that can be statisticaly eliminated if you burn enough film; as in the "lomography" ideal).
Anyone can buy the best and newest equipment...most people could then learn the ins and outs of their gear...mastering all the functions...and still take terrible, boring photos. On the other hand, a master photographer could probably make stunning photos with a disposable camera from Wal-mart. A good scene doesn't take a lot of skill to photograph...but a good photographer should be able to make the best out of any scene they choose to focus on. A good photographer does not have to know all the functions and workings of their camera...but it doesn't hurt.
I think it is a percentage thing. The more skilled the photographer, the better the chance is that he or she will get a great photo. Ideally, you would have a great scene or scenery, but with experiance comes the eye for picking out the element in a mundane scene to create that photo. And yes, you can tell a good photographer no matter what equipment is being used.
I actually was recently thinking about this same thing, and this is what I came up with. I went on a trip with some people recently and we all had the same opprotunities to take the same pictures, yet when the prints came back, most of mine turned out better than theres. None of these people had ever taken photography, or anything like that, and most were using a point and shoot type camera verses my Canon SLR...not being arrogant or anything, but my photos were considerably better. Afterward we were taking photos and many people began to follow me and try to mimic the shots, but they never came back the same! It's all in the eye in my mind. Someone can take a pic of the same scene and it be completely different. A nice scene can make a great shot, but a good photographer can make a great shot look like a nice scene!
Heh well put ero, thanks for all the input guys. I guess this means what I was worrying about: Learning a lot about cameras instead of putting it off and hoping to find a good shot :-\. Thanks for all your opinions; this forum has one of the best communities I've ever seen.
