>>3001223>Expensive gear does in fact make good photosTechnically good, yes. And I would say there is a *minimum* threshold for camera sensor/film quality that's technically acceptable. It's usually met by higher end compacts and entry level ILC's with crop sensors. Cell phones, while great for sharing, are not acceptable as serious cameras for printing, IMO. Same goes for action cam screen grabs.
>Of course you need the slightest bit of knowledge about light and some composition basicsIf you want to take perfectly passable calendar shots, sure. You can absolutely take cookie cutter photos that look good and would probably even sell well.
>but after that its pretty much buy expensive gear and rack up shot after shot of good photos.For the sake of argument let's suppose you're right, photography is not that difficult at al. It's not that difficult to take a photo which doesn't suck ass (yet somehow I know people who can't even do this much, but anyways). This means that the challenges are whatever you put on yourself. Challenge yourself to find only the best light and composition and don't settle on photos that are "almost there" but don't quite reach your high standards. Give yourself assignments or projects, to think out of the box in general. Take advantage of the fact that unlike painting or drawing, you can create more images in less time. Extort the medium this way by making cohesive bodies of work rather than just trying to get one or two "great shots" every once in a while. etc. etc.
>I think its probably because they are losing work due to photography being an extremely low skill thing that anyone can do with Nobody who's good at doing portraits, weddings etc. whatever is "losing work" to amateurs. For all I hear that photography is incredibly easy, I see a lot of people continue to suck ass at it.
