Steve W
Well-known member
“...........If we had very heavy cameras we simply didn't go so far or take so many pictures. Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras." - Ansel Adams
What Makes a Picture Great vs Average?
- Thread starter K9Kirk
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Griffym
Well-known member
Agreed. Gear makes a difference, not necessarily the difference but a difference.
The simplistic view that it is the artist or photographer‘s vision alone that count and that cameras are not important doesn’t hold water. The gear you use for that great shot has to be just good enough for the image the photographer is looking to capture.
Ansel Adams spent ages in the darkroom using his skill and knowledge of technology to perfect his image known as Moonrise Kingdom. It was Adam’s vision of what the image should be combined with his technical knowledge of what he needed to do with his camera and in the darkroom that made it possible for him to print the image he wanted. His vision and artistic skill was absolutely essential in making a great image, but so was his equipment.
Today most of the gear we have can do a good job technically and that alone can lead to dismiss the role of the photographic gear too easily. If you add AI things start to get tricky, I admit, but if an image is great chances are that the photographer has a high level of photographic intelligence and technical knowledge and has chosen exactly the right lens, aperture, and shooting mode as an essential part of their photographic work flow.
Ask any professional photographer if gear is important to them, they probably show that they have chosen gear that gives them the look they are seeking. Its not always the most up to date but it is always good quality, durable, and well cared for.
The dynamic tension between vision, photographic intelligence and the technical capacity of the equipment used is a healthy and important one. The desire to produce better images is the major part of what drives demand for improvements in the technology. That then leads to greater freedoms in creativity and pushing the limits of the technology which in turn generates feedback to the equipment manufacturers.
The simplistic view that it is the artist or photographer‘s vision alone that count and that cameras are not important doesn’t hold water. The gear you use for that great shot has to be just good enough for the image the photographer is looking to capture.
Ansel Adams spent ages in the darkroom using his skill and knowledge of technology to perfect his image known as Moonrise Kingdom. It was Adam’s vision of what the image should be combined with his technical knowledge of what he needed to do with his camera and in the darkroom that made it possible for him to print the image he wanted. His vision and artistic skill was absolutely essential in making a great image, but so was his equipment.
Today most of the gear we have can do a good job technically and that alone can lead to dismiss the role of the photographic gear too easily. If you add AI things start to get tricky, I admit, but if an image is great chances are that the photographer has a high level of photographic intelligence and technical knowledge and has chosen exactly the right lens, aperture, and shooting mode as an essential part of their photographic work flow.
Ask any professional photographer if gear is important to them, they probably show that they have chosen gear that gives them the look they are seeking. Its not always the most up to date but it is always good quality, durable, and well cared for.
The dynamic tension between vision, photographic intelligence and the technical capacity of the equipment used is a healthy and important one. The desire to produce better images is the major part of what drives demand for improvements in the technology. That then leads to greater freedoms in creativity and pushing the limits of the technology which in turn generates feedback to the equipment manufacturers.
Johan Schmidt
Well-known member
Basics like exposure and focus are a given. For me, an interesting subject in front of a clean non distracting background, direction and quality of light are the keys
As a young wantabe photojournalist I met a photographer from a major newspaper. As he handed me Tri-X and encouraged me to keep shooting I remember one thing he said. He said the difference between he and I is I shoot pictures, he shoots art. That was almost 50 years ago and I remember those words like yesterday.
Fact is anyone can take $20K worth of camera/lens can make nice pictures, especially if they shoot thousands of frames. But with any subject, wildlife, sports or just a feature photo of folks at the park there will be "that moment". An artist will be ready for that moment and will already have thought about all the other factors like composition, lighting etc that make a great photo.
Many people get lost in the tech and high frame rates, AF etc and don't think about the basics. Those that do make art.
Fact is anyone can take $20K worth of camera/lens can make nice pictures, especially if they shoot thousands of frames. But with any subject, wildlife, sports or just a feature photo of folks at the park there will be "that moment". An artist will be ready for that moment and will already have thought about all the other factors like composition, lighting etc that make a great photo.
Many people get lost in the tech and high frame rates, AF etc and don't think about the basics. Those that do make art.
If you give either of my Sons (say) a Z8, and Steve Perry a Polaroid, I know who will get the best pictures.
Jim DeLuco
Active member
Story
I think all the things listed here contribute to a photo being great- the light, story, interesting moment, composition, subject, clean background etc etc. The more boxes ticked the further up the ‘great’ scale a shot will go.
If you have an image that every person that first sees it says "WOW!", you know you have something. Then there are images of rare birds or animals that wildlife shooters know are very difficult to get. Precious to us but to most people "just a picture of bird - nothing special". Now - - - can I get any "WOWs" for my macro, astro, and landscape images?
I think so. I have seen many a macro and astro shot that has made me say "Wow". And astro shots are often featured on another photo forum where I post, so there is an audience out there.
--Ken
O
Well-known member
My feelings.......
What makes a photo is YOU your eye, your mind, your interpretation, your skill sets.
The special moment captured, the message, connection, evoking of emotion for the viewer, captured with some sound technical elements, wrapped in a wow factor. DONE.
The camera is just a tool for anyone to use. The tools really only use the fundamentals of time light and speed a formula that hasn't changed since the beginning of time. Yes there are some new technology bells and whistles with new benefits added but essentially all built on or around TLS.
Agree with the Gamer syndrome, so true, its the same with being an audio file, the need for the latest and greatest was amazingly addictive, and yes with cameras its happening more with photography especially with the transition from stills to video phase we are traveling on.
I did a photography competition judging recently, the category of sports action, the key word being action, nearly 80% of highly awarded images were from older DSLR cameras and glass, around 20% was from mirror less high end gear.
Yet the end results technically were not that much different.
IE: mirrorless in broad terms basically made it a little easier for novice or less skilled people to achieve results, that's not a bad thing, yet with older gear and users who had good skill sets to rely on are generally less dependant on the gear.
We should never be intimidated or ever feel left behind..............
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Many of the comments in this thread regarding gear focus on the camera, but I'm curious what the percentage of awards were for images taken with high end lenses vs. cheaper lenses? Maybe an experienced photographer can take a great photo with most any camera, but if light is a driving factor, then bigger, faster lenses probably make a bigger difference, right?
Griffym
Well-known member
Lots of things count in the photographic process. The camera has an impact especially if it’s a specialised field where frame rate and resolution matter. I like lenses with good optical balance. By that I mean bokeh, but also absence of aberrations.
I print my own images, so for me lots of other things count too. I don’t like images which push the processing too far towards extreme HDR, but that’s a personal choice about authenticity vs fantasy.
In my exploration of photography therefore the choice of printing paper, texture, finish, size and even mounting style also count.
I do think you are however right about lenses having a very significant impact on how well an image works. It doesn’t have to be a fast Prime or tack sharp edge to edge but it does need to work for the photographer in particular moment. There are however most definitely times when a fast prime is a huge advantage. There are times when an ultra wide super sharp lens in skilled hands is suddenly worth the extra cost.
I don’t particularly mind at all if some people collect lenses as status symbols either. My own exotic prime lens for birding is second hand and about 12 years old, and still going strong. It doesn’t matter to me if people think I bought it to impress them. I didn’t, I bought it to get images at more comfortable distances. Birds are much less likely to fly off if you don’t get too close. In the end the lens justifies itself by making photography fun.I will never know if bigger and faster make a difference to awards. That’s a different world.
I have been wondering about getting an ultra-wide zoom 14-24 F2.8S or 14-30 F4S. I am not sure it actually matters which one I get. All that counts is how well I use it. I keep bumping up against situations where i need a much wider lens to capture the interesting lines and angles I keep noticing.
I would actually prefer it if nobody noticed which lens I have. When people see the prints however, nobody ever asks about the camera, the lens etc. and that’s a good thing. My decision about the extra cost of the 14-24 F2.8S is something I am considering. It will only be worth it if it produces exceptional images. The thing is that I won’t really know if it is worth it until I have owned it (or perhaps the F4) for about a year.
I print my own images, so for me lots of other things count too. I don’t like images which push the processing too far towards extreme HDR, but that’s a personal choice about authenticity vs fantasy.
In my exploration of photography therefore the choice of printing paper, texture, finish, size and even mounting style also count.
I do think you are however right about lenses having a very significant impact on how well an image works. It doesn’t have to be a fast Prime or tack sharp edge to edge but it does need to work for the photographer in particular moment. There are however most definitely times when a fast prime is a huge advantage. There are times when an ultra wide super sharp lens in skilled hands is suddenly worth the extra cost.
I don’t particularly mind at all if some people collect lenses as status symbols either. My own exotic prime lens for birding is second hand and about 12 years old, and still going strong. It doesn’t matter to me if people think I bought it to impress them. I didn’t, I bought it to get images at more comfortable distances. Birds are much less likely to fly off if you don’t get too close. In the end the lens justifies itself by making photography fun.I will never know if bigger and faster make a difference to awards. That’s a different world.
I have been wondering about getting an ultra-wide zoom 14-24 F2.8S or 14-30 F4S. I am not sure it actually matters which one I get. All that counts is how well I use it. I keep bumping up against situations where i need a much wider lens to capture the interesting lines and angles I keep noticing.
I would actually prefer it if nobody noticed which lens I have. When people see the prints however, nobody ever asks about the camera, the lens etc. and that’s a good thing. My decision about the extra cost of the 14-24 F2.8S is something I am considering. It will only be worth it if it produces exceptional images. The thing is that I won’t really know if it is worth it until I have owned it (or perhaps the F4) for about a year.
Last edited:
- Status