I strongly disagree on your approach / definition of good photography. If your statement would hold true, there wouldn't exist such a thing as a good slide (in general slide films can not be manipulated and there is no "darkroom opportunity"). Yet, for decades most color pictures by photo journalists, beauty and studio photographers were shot on slide material.
Thus I claim: A good picture is composed the moment when it is taken. Never afterwards.
Photoshop work can make a good picture look even better or a decent picture look nicer. But no good pictures are produced with Photoshop. Never. Making a bad photo look good on photoshop is possible. Producing cool looking stuff, too. But this has nothing to do with photography. That's a different ballgame!
Yet, most of what you say about cameras holds true. All you need to take good pictures is a solid (in every sense of the word) camera that reliably does what you want. They should have an excellent sensor. The lenses are more important than the body. What they won't let through can't be captured on a picture.
But yes, megapixels matter. Having (only) 10mpx limits your capability to blow up your picture. DIN A2 @ 150 px/inch is equal to 8,7mpx (if my math is right). Fair enough, if you have a 10 mpx camera and if you won't crop you picture. But if you want a fine art print (300 px/inch) of that size you need 34,8 mpx ... So it does matter, depending on want you want to do.
Enough now. Buy a good, reliable camera. No need for all the fancy stuff. It only keeps you from taking good pictures. On that, we both agree. I think.
... the (technical) quality of the different pictures is visible! It just doesn't matter too much, when publishing them on the internet with a size of around 500 px.
Second comment: YES, of course it matters, for billboards above sunset boulvard. It doesn't for what most people want to use their pictures for. We're not talking about pro, we're talking about people who like to take pictures.
First comment: I didn't state that photoshop is more important than the picture. I stated that photoshop is more important than the camera! That's a huge difference.
"The difference between all those ugly shots and that one really pretty one is a person that, besides knowing how to take a good photo, knows how to develop that good photo so it reflects their style and aesthetics, in digital even more than in analogue."
Of course you have to get the composition, the frame, the settings right to take a good photo (but that's possible with almost every camera I ever held in my hands). But then to get a great photo that's comparable to masters in analogue (who all used filters, color correction, different exposures in the lab, even for dia film! Also, dia film has a certain "look already". That's why people used it, mostly. It serves as something like a filter itself...), you need to know photoshop to be capable of doing the corrections needed.
I know superb and famous photographers who have not produced very valuable work with a digital camera. Because they think photoshop is digital manipulation instead of a substitute for the darkroom. Digital cameras, no matter how expensive, no matter what brand, usually produce photos too bright, with strange colors and a too "crisp" focus. This needs to be corrected! And it's just as important as anything else.
I never recommended to play around with artsy filters that take away the photos actual look. And I would never.
I used a 10MP camera for a long time until 12 months ago. All my prints can be produced as fine art prints in a reasonable size. But the people this post was for are most likely not to make huge fine art prints out of their photos.
"you need to know the basics of light and contrast, exposure and color."
that's what i said. not that a good photo is produced in photoshop. only good pictures can be made even better, either in the darkroom or in photoshop (or any other image editing software).
Objection
Thus I claim: A good picture is composed the moment when it is taken. Never afterwards.
Photoshop work can make a good picture look even better or a decent picture look nicer. But no good pictures are produced with Photoshop. Never. Making a bad photo look good on photoshop is possible. Producing cool looking stuff, too. But this has nothing to do with photography. That's a different ballgame!
Yet, most of what you say about cameras holds true. All you need to take good pictures is a solid (in every sense of the word) camera that reliably does what you want. They should have an excellent sensor. The lenses are more important than the body. What they won't let through can't be captured on a picture.
But yes, megapixels matter. Having (only) 10mpx limits your capability to blow up your picture. DIN A2 @ 150 px/inch is equal to 8,7mpx (if my math is right). Fair enough, if you have a 10 mpx camera and if you won't crop you picture. But if you want a fine art print (300 px/inch) of that size you need 34,8 mpx ... So it does matter, depending on want you want to do.
Enough now. Buy a good, reliable camera. No need for all the fancy stuff. It only keeps you from taking good pictures. On that, we both agree. I think.
And yes ...
Technical Quality
First comment: I didn't state that photoshop is more important than the picture. I stated that photoshop is more important than the camera! That's a huge difference.
"The difference between all those ugly shots and that one really pretty one is a person that, besides knowing how to take a good photo, knows how to develop that good photo so it reflects their style and aesthetics, in digital even more than in analogue."
Of course you have to get the composition, the frame, the settings right to take a good photo (but that's possible with almost every camera I ever held in my hands). But then to get a great photo that's comparable to masters in analogue (who all used filters, color correction, different exposures in the lab, even for dia film! Also, dia film has a certain "look already". That's why people used it, mostly. It serves as something like a filter itself...), you need to know photoshop to be capable of doing the corrections needed.
I know superb and famous photographers who have not produced very valuable work with a digital camera. Because they think photoshop is digital manipulation instead of a substitute for the darkroom. Digital cameras, no matter how expensive, no matter what brand, usually produce photos too bright, with strange colors and a too "crisp" focus. This needs to be corrected! And it's just as important as anything else.
I never recommended to play around with artsy filters that take away the photos actual look. And I would never.
I used a 10MP camera for a long time until 12 months ago. All my prints can be produced as fine art prints in a reasonable size. But the people this post was for are most likely not to make huge fine art prints out of their photos.
Thanks for your comment :)
Carolin
that's what i said. not that a good photo is produced in photoshop. only good pictures can be made even better, either in the darkroom or in photoshop (or any other image editing software).