3 ms·
That's not surprising. I'd put my money on a good photographer with a crummy camera rather than a crummy photographer with a good camera any day of the week. Th
by neverartful 4y ago
That's not surprising. I'd put my money on a good photographer with a crummy camera rather than a crummy photographer with a good camera any day of the week. The biggest part of photography is being able to 'see' the photos before you even raise the camera.
- saiya-jin 4y agothey say it takes roughly 10k photos to get to the OK level in composition and this 'seeing' (and that obviously means 10k serious photo attempts not just 30 selfies per coffee mug in starbucks). Its not that much once you carry camera and ie go to nature over weekends and travel for holidays, or walk around a lot for street photography. I think it can be sped up a bit with editing photos in say Lightroom - ie once you keep cropping the photos in same way to get the best out of them, you grok what is required and do it already in camera, or electing the best composition out of few shots etc.
- kaba0 4y agoI guess it depends on the subject. E.g. no cameramen will take a good photo of flying birds with a shitty camera, but sure enough in good lighting conditions static scenes can be remarkably good even with worse hardware.