Is Photography More Luck than Skill?

[DanOstergren]

It takes me 20 minutes to go thorugh 200-300 images. You do these things, like anything else, it’s a skill. You do it faster as you do it more. Now I Just delete all the images between keepers. Sometimes 30 in a single keystroke. But this isn’t new for me. Back with film, I’d shoot 10 rolls ( single shots) on a 10 day canoe trip and come back with 240 images maybe 20 or 30 of which would go into an album.

18 years into this gig, and I definitely can't go through 200-300 images in 20 minutes. Maybe 40-60 minutes, sometimes more. Perhaps one day I'll gain the skill to make it a faster process.

 

[greybeard]

It's all of the above, sometimes luck sometimes preparation and sometime perspiration and then like the very famous photographer from the 40s said, "It's a good year when you get maybe 4 good ones"

I often wonder what Ansel would think of digital photography.

 

[JoeW]

I'm weighing in a bit late on this. Here's what I'd say: if you're taking snapshots then a lot of luck is involved. If you're making pictures, then very little luck is involved.

There is always happenstance that intervenes. I'll plan a shoot, do a lot of prep, and always find some surprises. But the more prep you do, the more likely you are to take advantage of those surprises. Remember: luck = preparation + opportunity. No preparation and you're lamenting "Gee if only I'd brought a CPL/neutral density filter/longer lens" or you go "why didn't any of my photos turn out?"

 

[KJ_North]

18 years into this gig, and I definitely can't go through 200-300 images in 20 minutes. Maybe 40-60 minutes, sometimes more. Perhaps one day I'll gain the skill to make it a faster process.

I can imagine you taking much longer examining Portrait photos as it is much more detailed and there are specific things you are looking for.

 

[21limited]

I can imagine you taking much longer examining Portrait photos as it is much more detailed and there are specific things you are looking for.

Portrait photos are a whole different gig. In wildlife, I can’t control the light, or the pose. In portrait, you control both. In portrait, you do your work before you press the shutter release. Same with prouct photgraphy. In those two disciplines, if you don’t do your work setting up the shot, no number of bursts is going to get you what you want. But, even using singel shots, I’d still take a few at each set up, in case someone blinked or stuck out their tongue.

 

[webestang64]

I often wonder what Ansel would think of digital photography.

I'd say he would have embraced digital. In one of his books I read he was fascinated by the instant image Polaroid and became a consultant for the Polaroid company for several decades.

Read.... Ansel Adams and Polaroid, 1949-1984

 

[cgw]

I'd say he would have embraced digital. In one of his books I read he was fascinated by the instant image Polaroid and became a consultant for the Polaroid company for several decades.

Read.... Ansel Adams and Polaroid, 1949-1984

Adams worked with and made the best of his day's highest resolution materials and processes.
I'm seeing jaw-dropping AI-enhanced work now, the best of it subtle without ridiculously obvious
reality tweaks. Pure speculation but I'd like to think "Adams 2025" would still crush us with images full of impact and wonder.

 

[RScottie]

As someone that came from film photography, I will say that you develop a discipline because your roll of film is not endless.

Back in the day, you could not shoot hundreds of shots to only throw all but 1 or 2 of them away.

In other words, you made your shots count. You watched your subject and you predicted the shot, taking it at the precise moment.

Was there failures, oh yeah.

But, we did get lucky quite often.

I caught more than one football on the fingertips of a receiver. I caught track runners stretching the ribbon right as it broke, a picture that made the local sports page.

I did this many times using a single shot Pentax that did not have the ability for multi-shots. Wind it, shoot, wind it again.

I have only recently purchased a DSLR having been out of the photography hobby for many years.

I am not likely to change my methods simply because I have a large memory card.

It is interesting all the settings these digital camera's have. I am going to have a lot of fun figuring them out.

 

[petrochemist]

Portrait photos are a whole different gig. In wildlife, I can’t control the light, or the pose. In portrait, you control both. In portrait, you do your work before you press the shutter release. Same with prouct photgraphy. In those two disciplines, if you don’t do your work setting up the shot, no number of bursts is going to get you what you want. But, even using singel shots, I’d still take a few at each set up, in case someone blinked or stuck out their tongue.

While you have a degree of control on pose in portraiture it's not complete control, so some luck may still be wanted. In still life you typically have complete control of subject & lighting, so except for equipment failure (bad luck?) skill is enough.
Most of my shooting involves quite a bit of luck, some fast moving/changing subjects, others that push the capabilities of my hardware, but I like to think there's still plenty of skill involved
I still take shots that I know won't work - playing with a 1000mm lens on the Pentax Q last week very much turned into this when I found I didn't have a readily available tripod mount available for the lens (at least I could use the tripod with my A7ii ). I guess I'll have to try the combinations another time when I'm more prepared!

 

[smoke665]

As someone that came from film photography, I will say that you develop a discipline because your roll of film is not endless.

Back in the day, you could not shoot hundreds of shots to only throw all but 1 or 2 of them away.

In other words, you made your shots count. You watched your subject and you predicted the shot, taking it at the precise moment.

Old habits die hard! My film background made me a more disciplined shooter, you learned to observe, and the ability to predict becomes second nature. When I went to digital there was a certain freedom in random wild shooting, but as the newness wore off I found myself drifting back to a more disciplined manner.

18 years into this gig, and I definitely can't go through 200-300 images in 20 minutes. M

TPF member's skill set range from newbies, amateur, and professional so the workflow will obviously vary. There's also a big difference in the review process required based on the end use of the image.

 

[21limited]

Old habits die hard! My film background made me a more disciplined shooter, you learned to observe, and the ability to predict becomes second nature. When I went to digital there was a certain freedom in random wild shooting, but as the newness wore off I found myself drifting back to a more disciplined manner.

More disciplined than who?

Old habits die hard. Some people never learn to take advantage of the capabilities of digital shooting, and still shoot like they are shooting film. Once I saw the advantage of digital, I never looked back. In this case, it’s likely there was a lack of disciplne brought on by digital, but then a return to older film habits. Some of us never lost any discipline going to digital. Some of us extended our discipline to apply to digital. Let’s not assume, any shooting style lacks discipline based on whether or not to make full use of the capabilities of the camera. That can be seen both ways.

I fail to see how seeing a good pose and running off 10 shots demonstrates a lack of discipline. There is no reward for being frugal with your images, only for getting the best possible shot.

 

[smoke665]

Some of us never lost any discipline going to digital. Some of us extended our discipline to apply to digital.

I guess "some of us" don't reside in your chimera world. I'm surprised you even associate with us poor imperfect souls!

 

[JoeW]

More disciplined than who?

Old habits die hard. Some people never learn to take advantage of the capabilities of digital shooting, and still shoot like they are shooting film. Once I saw the advantage of digital, I never looked back. In this case, it’s likely there was a lack of disciplne brought on by digital, but then a return to older film habits. Some of us never lost any discipline going to digital. Some of us extended our discipline to apply to digital. Let’s not assume, any shooting style lacks discipline based on whether or not to make full use of the capabilities of the camera. That can be seen both ways.

I fail to see how seeing a good pose and running off 10 shots demonstrates a lack of discipline. There is no reward for being frugal with your images, only for getting the best possible shot.

I think you're being too harsh here. Are there disciplined digital shooters and sloppy film shooters? Of course. But when you are limited by the number of rolls of film you have, it changes the way you shoot. And when you are going digital and you can shoot until your battery is dead, that alters how you shoot--it would be naive to argue otherwise.

 

[21limited]

Well, I enjoyed my time, but I have nothing to add I haven’t already said, so carry on.

 

[SunriseAvenue]

I believe that depends on the type of photography. You probably don't need a ton of luck to capture a good looking portrait, especially when you can use a smooth face photo editor or an AI to fix the blemishes, but you need to have skills for photographing people and working with people in general. For wildlife there is certainly some amount of luck needed, but many aspects of it are also about the skill. I've just seen an article on Nikon comedy wildlife awards works and these shots are absolutely taken with huge amounts of both luck and skill The Funniest Photos So Far in the 2025 Nikon Comedy Wildlife Awards
The "Go Away" shot is absolutely my favorite