Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Everythingisnt, May 19, 2008.
(ex: ) 0.0005% gear, 69.0005% skill, 30% hard work .
Post your breakdowns here..
99.5% the mind and eye of the photographer
Photography is absolutely not 50% gear. I agree with the above poster
More of it is eye than gear I'm not sure I agree with shecky however it's a lot less than 50%
(Excluding studio work)
3% right time, right place,
94% sheer effin' luck.
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.
I'd say gear can mean quite a lot -- certainly more than 1% if it helps you create what you want. But gear does matter less that 1% if you are not good.
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.
(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.
Well, if you don't have a camera you can't exactly take any pictures now can you...
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.
a visually captured State of Mind...
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
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.
Perhaps I should've paraphased Yogi Berra and said that photography is 90% skill, the other half is luck.
Good eye and dedication are the most important ingredients. But having good equipment is also important in some cases.
For instance, many photos seen at the Photo of the Day thread would have been impossible without a SLR camera.
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.
Qualitative not quantitative.
..solely dependant on light.
...often so damn pretentious...
... but I'm just jealous and clueless.
You really believe that skill, subject matter and equipment mean nothing?
my king sized bed
A quote I read recently:
...for people with obsessive compulsive disorders.
My photography teacher made a joke about photojournalism once:
90% showing up
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.