What makes a good photographer?

[Dolby]

Is it the quality of the camera equipment he owns?
How good he is at playing with levels, colour etc in Photoshop?
Is it the 'luck' of having the correct subjects at the right time?

 

[dD3]

for me:
its the ability to see compositions.
to work with light.
and knowledge of the camera he/she owns.

 

[bwana]

The ability to visualise the photo you want to take and then the knowledge to do so. You can buy all the gear you want and learn the ins and outs of whatever software you choose to use but without an 'eye' for it you might be a proficient photographer but you won't be a great one.

The difference between a pro and an amateur is the ability to do the above on demand, time after time after time.

 

[BigAl-sa]

for me:
its the ability to see compositions.
to work with light.
and knowledge of the camera he/she owns.

plus knowledge of the capabilities of the lens on the camera.

 

[xrapidx]

good photo's

 

[stix]

In no particular order

- Technical competency
- Creative vision
- Use of light
- And the ability to ignore every given rule or rule of thumb and still get a great image

 

[Oposm]

a hot model

 

[murraybiscuit]

think about why you're taking the shot in the first place, what you want the viewer's response to be and how you want to achieve that.
that only becomes more intuitive with experience.
then you can start talking about technique and equipment.

 

[Dolby]

Thanks for the replies.

The reason the question came up is because I was going through a few photos yesterday and have 2 or 3 decent shots. But I was wondering, would the shot look even better on a - for example - 7D with less noise? How about a 1D? Are my photos limited due to technical limits of the camera?

Then another reason I found a photo I took 9 months ago (macro of a dragonfly). It was alright - but I decided to play around with levels, sharpness, noise reduction and cropping in PSE. Now even friends are noticing the photo - whereas as 9 months ago, no one noticed it

Just curious!

 

[SlinkyMike]

for me:
its the ability to see compositions.
to work with light.
and knowledge of the camera he/she owns.

I like this... it seems to be in order of importance too

The ability to visualise the photo you want to take and then the knowledge to do so. You can buy all the gear you want and learn the ins and outs of whatever software you choose to use but without an 'eye' for it you might be a proficient photographer but you won't be a great one.

The difference between a pro and an amateur is the ability to do the above on demand, time after time after time.

Spoken like a pro. Dude, if you can visualise an image then capture that image or even something closely resembling it with a camera then you are a genius in my eyes.

Every good shot I have taken has been complete fluke... to the point that I get a fright when chimping a preview after shooting it :erm:

 

[ponder]

for me:
its the ability to see compositions.
to work with light.
and knowledge of the camera he/she owns.

What he said.