I think it's the photographer who takes good pictures not the camera. Skills, knowing your camera.

Eric

For me, it's 90% camera and 10% me!!

Yes, the photographer should get about 90% of the credit, but you do need a decent camera. I like the analogy I read that no one gives the credit for a great meal to the cookware, but the chef. Same thing w/photography, imo.
JoanMN

I think it is a little bit of both. A great camera can make a decent photog look pretty good. And a great photog can make a decent camera look pretty good.

So, its kind of a sliding scale. Bad photog and camera, really bad. Great photog and camera , really great. Most - somewhere in between.

I have noticed my new camera just doesn't have the detail with macros, on any of the auto settings anyway, that my old camera did. Shots that my old camera made me look good with, just aren't happening. I think its just a matter of the quality of the lens/optics. So, a little of both. Photog has to "see" a possibly good pic, but the camera and the photog have to be able to "get it" too.

Also, bear in mind that photographic ability comes in many forms. I've known photographers who could instantly recognize photo ops, and others who were good at creating them with props, etc. Then there are the technically proficient, such as those who have a true understanding of lighting.

I've often said my own talent as a photographer is knowing where to stand. I can't imagine doing it without a decent camera, though. My dad gave me my first one at age ten, so fortunately for me I've never had to try.

Susan

Mostly the person behind the camera....lots of trial and error. As was mentioned above, lighting is a big concern. I also have to take the background into consideration. I often take pics from three different views, then upload them to computer, then edit and save the best views.

Julie

I think the person holding camera...you use the camera to get what you see...cameras eye can see things different so in that aspect you do need to know how to use it to get what you want, although a good camera can capture it better than others..and there are lots of nice ones out there...imho

juanita

A photograph is a piece of art..it should draw on the viewer's emotions...if you don't have an "eye" then the best optics in the world aren't going to give you anything but a collection of memories.

Thanks all for your thoughts. I agree with you all. I take decent photos, and I took decent photos with my simple point and shoot, and I still take decent photos with my much nicer camera (not fabulous, but decent, and I'm still learning to use it).

I have a group of friends who all went out and bought the exact same camera as me, determined that the camera would solve all their photography issues... so far it's not working and they are frustrated.

I tried explaining that perhaps the "eye" has something to do with it, even just a little bit, but alas, they are convinced it is the camera that matters the most. LOL

It's been good to hear your perspectives on the matter. Thanks.

If the composition isn't there, no camera will make up for it. First you need the 'eye'. You can develop it through trial and error or through instruction, but the camera won't do it for you.

However, once you know how to take a good picture, a good camera opens up more possibilities for creativity and control.

Still, I agree that it's 90% the photographer. Maybe 95%.

If you want to help your friends become better photographers, give them assignments! My DH and I use very different cameras and we've had fun challenging each other with subject matter or with a particular technique. Who can take the best picture of the dogs, what happens if we shoot everything on the tungsten setting today, intesting subjects for a still life, coolest portrait, weirdest light - and my favorite so far: who can make a neighbor look most like a rock star! We're both still struggling with the last one but it's been pretty funny!

I evidently can't hold the camera still enough to get a good picture...would image stabilization solve this issue?

Dee, either that, a higher shutter speed, or a tripod.

I went from taking fuzzy photos, half head shots, good feet shots, and generally bad photos 90% of the time, to good photos 90% of the time. It cost me a $30 tripod. Of course this is for still photos of plants and mostly outdoors photos. But atleast I learned most of my problems was from shaking. Even my artsy daughter complemented me. I have no artist ability, none! So this is a really good compliment from her. Try the tripod, it really helped me.

Blessings to all, Mona