pro image appearance?

[andy_williams2]

<p>Most images we see on the net look normal but then you see stuff on photographers sites and whatnot that look so much better. I know there are standard and high quality lenses as well as crap vs high quality cameras/processors so whats the deal? Is there one answer or is it a combination of things?<br>

Thanks for the help.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Hello Andy, welcome to PNet. IMO it's most definitely a combination, and some of them quite small. It's not a pro thing

either, it's just practice and seasoning on the finer points. Angle of view, composition, eliminating junk or excess (that you

can control of course) in the image, selecting the best lighting, making the various elements in the frame work, fixing up

small things like lines being straight and not cutting off pieces of the composition or people in awkward places. And the

list goes on and on. As for equipment, any reasonable equipment can make great images. A tripod is always a good

starting point for improving pictures. Of course there are specialized applications where a more expensive design lens

might be needed, but they won't help missing on the other important factors of photography. Also processing and

computer work to make the finished product. The finer points again matter. OK happy trails.

[William Michael]

<p>A combination of things. Good gear is part of it. A lot also to do with: how much knowledge; experience and skill at the eight inches behind the camera - and that doesn't have to be professional experience, either.</p>

<p>Even seen a Bricklayer cut a brick to exact size, by eye and with just two swings of the trowel? - a skill not learnt overnight; nor from a website - but by practice and making mistakes.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Pretty much everything that looks "better" comes from the light and knowing either how to use what's there or how to make it. It sure isn't equipment.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>It sure isn't equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, except for the lighting equipment used in that "how to make it" part! Lights and light modifiers are indeed a big, big part of what makes some images jump out at you. But it's useless without a plan, a vision for the end results.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Andy, if, by some chance, you are looking mostly at images posted in the "No Words" and other forums, check out some of the more popular images in the Gallery section, ie, http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter .</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>It is a combination of things. Depending on what imagery you are being impressed by gear can play a huge part, or it can play practically no part. I realise this doesn't help much but without knowing what you are seeing it is impossible to be more specific.</p>

<p>For instance water droplets or ultra high speed photography can be captivating, but after the setup the actual imagery is entirely gear driven and automatic. Much of the Olympic imagery is stunning and whilst there are some specialist stylised oddities like plate camera images etc the vast majority of those images are a combination of both very good equipment and very skilled and experienced photographers. Then there is vision driven photographer who, so long as the camera has the ability to set the settings he wants can use pretty much anything, small and inconspicuous seem particularly popular with M4/3 and advanced P&S's being very popular, but phones can work too. Lastly there is the photographer who has no interest in gear, an iPhone or automatic P&S can work because their images and composition can overcome any gear "short fallings".</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Andy, it'd help if you could post a link to what <em>you</em> think constitutes "looking better".</p>

<p>In some genres, a lot of what passes as "pro" is just predictable overdone processing gimmicks like the Dave Hill look, HDR-as-an-effect, cross-processing, and whatnot - tons of them <a href="http://www.photoshoproadmap.com/Photoshop-blog/100-wonderful-photo-effects-photoshop-tutorials/">here</a>.</p>

<p> Frankly, all the gimmicky processing tricks in the world don't replace good photography, nor do they make banal photos good.</p>