So, to me (this is key here, I don't believe in absolute truth, just want to get people talking and have an inteligent debate) there is a difference in the skills that are required to take great photos depending on the subject. This is not my native language, so I am not really sure how to precisely explain this so, bare with me for a second. To me, the "easiest" type of photography is landscape and cityscape. Macro comes in second. Sports and wildlife is third, portraiture fourth, and the ultimate type of photography is photojournalism. Let me explain myself: First of all, this does not reffer to me, or any of us "normal photographers" but to the great photographs and the skills I feel like the photographer needed in order to take them. Also, this is not a judgement on the quality of the photos or on their artistic value, but on the skills of the photographers that take them. Now, Why did I put them in this order: Landscape and cityscape (most of what I do) is "easy" simply because the subject is still, unchanging, and offers lots of lines that can help for composition. Other than seeing the shot and proper use of the equipment(which are common to any picture), the photographer should get credit for waiting for the right light (Ansel Adams type stuff). For macro shots, the ideas are key in order to take a great photo. For those shots, the photographers need to have a vision that the common eye cannot see, but unlike landscapes, the photographer often needs to setup a lighting and you often don't get the easy compostion provided by a landscape (Edward Weston). For sports and widelife, great photographers should have a very good understanding of their subjects and the ability to adjust to often unpredictable situations (strangely the pictures of this category are not often considered on the same level as the others and no great name comes to my mind). Portraiture is so difficult, because you are dealing with people that usually have great expectations. For this type of photography, the personnality of the photographer is just as important as his/her skills. To me, the pressure associated with this type of photos is so much higher that it makes it a very difficult art (Richard Avedon). And finally, photojournalism, because it is a combination of all the rest (Cartier Bresson, and in General Magnun). This being said, it is strange to think that, as far as I am concerned, the greatest pictures ever taken were landscapes, more precisely, Edward Burtynsky's work. Now, what I am curious about, is whether I feel this way because of my personal sensibility (what I do is easy, what other people do is hard) or if, for exemple, some of you portrait people, feel like portraiture is harder than macro or landscape... Sorry for the long post, I will be looking forward to your input.