Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photography is...
- Thread starter Everythingisnt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
(ex: ) 50% gear, 20% skill, 30% hard work.
Post your breakdowns here..
Photography is absolutely not 50% gear. I agree with the above poster
(Excluding studio work)
1% gear,
2% photographer,
3% right time, right place,
94% sheer effin' luck.
1% gear,
2% photographer,
3% right time, right place,
94% sheer effin' luck.
Photography is absolutely not 50% gear. I agree with the above poster
I didn't start this thread to start an argument.. jeez... Can't you see the part where I say "EXAMPLE"?
Well, I do motorsports so I agree with it being more luck than anything. For a race event (where I get 2000-4000 shots) I would say less than 5% of my pictures are salvageable and I really like less than 1-2% of them. Having good gear is nice, but it means nothing if you don't have the artistry, luck, and technique.
It depends so much on the type of photography that you can't really quantify it in general...
Nature photography, street photography and sports photography have a fairly good-sized luck component, and a large experience/skill component too. Portrait photography has a lot less luck, and a lot more skill and lighting equipment. Wedding photography is a lot skill and a little luck (or absence of bad luck perhaps.) Product photography is almost pure skill, with some equipment...
Skill substitutes for equipment in many cases, equipment substitutes for skill in fewer cases, but probably more strongly in the cases where it does.
I've always said you can tell a good photographer by the pictures they *don't* take.
I think it may be more indicative of the LF or MF stuff where you have to slow down and pay attention, but I find that if I'm in serious mode, I take a lot fewer shots because I know when I've got it- where I'll go to spray and pray in situations where I'm further from my comfort zone.
My number of salable images tend to be about the same either way, but the percentages change a lot.
Nature photography, street photography and sports photography have a fairly good-sized luck component, and a large experience/skill component too. Portrait photography has a lot less luck, and a lot more skill and lighting equipment. Wedding photography is a lot skill and a little luck (or absence of bad luck perhaps.) Product photography is almost pure skill, with some equipment...
Skill substitutes for equipment in many cases, equipment substitutes for skill in fewer cases, but probably more strongly in the cases where it does.
(This isn't meant to be personal, it just reminds me of something...)
I've always said you can tell a good photographer by the pictures they *don't* take.
I think it may be more indicative of the LF or MF stuff where you have to slow down and pay attention, but I find that if I'm in serious mode, I take a lot fewer shots because I know when I've got it- where I'll go to spray and pray in situations where I'm further from my comfort zone.
My number of salable images tend to be about the same either way, but the percentages change a lot.
It's the indian, not the arrow
That being said, the photographer makes his or her "luck". Putting one in situations with good light and such is the name of the game.
That being said, the photographer makes his or her "luck". Putting one in situations with good light and such is the name of the game.
Photography is.......
A terribly expensive and time consuming addiction!
Seriously though, it's about 40% skill (knowledge), 40% a good eye for composition, with about 8% luck and the other 2% can be argued over
SLC
A terribly expensive and time consuming addiction!
Seriously though, it's about 40% skill (knowledge), 40% a good eye for composition, with about 8% luck and the other 2% can be argued over
SLC
It's not a static proportion. The better the photographer, the more gear makes a difference.
The inverse also holds true - the less proficient the photographer, the less gear makes a difference.
In all cases, hard work (and time) make a huge difference.
The inverse also holds true - the less proficient the photographer, the less gear makes a difference.
In all cases, hard work (and time) make a huge difference.
Perhaps I should've paraphased Yogi Berra and said that photography is 90% skill, the other half is luck.
For motorsports, 1000 pictures a day really isn't that much if you are shooting the entire day. With a car moving at 140MPH or more, you have to pan it for 10 shots or so. That adds up quickly. I don't see the pros taking less than I do.
I don't see how it matters that I take more shots. It's the result that counts.
http://racetripper.com/petit07/
http://racetripper.com/sebring08/
My photography teacher made a joke about photojournalism once:
90% showing up
8% f:8
2% skill and everything else
Of course it wasn't meant to be disparaging to photojournalism. It was just to show how important unexpected shots tend to be to any given photojournalist's body of work.
90% showing up
8% f:8
2% skill and everything else
Of course it wasn't meant to be disparaging to photojournalism. It was just to show how important unexpected shots tend to be to any given photojournalist's body of work.