View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2008, 01:40 PM
HockeyFan's Avatar
HockeyFan HockeyFan is offline
Loves the moderation team!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 2,619
Default

The two go hand in hand, but I'll say that the end result has to be aestethically pleasing or technique doesn't matter. Likewise, you can hardly have a good photo if the techniques are poor. I would weigh it more on "does the shot look good".
Another way to compare it is when you're listening to music. I've had people through the years brag on their stereo systems when they barely had any real taste in music at all. they were more interested in getting recordings that were digitally recorded, rather than getting music that was written and performed by talented people. So they tended to favor technology, whereas I valued the music itself. In photography, I tend to value the shot more and the technique secondarily.
To me, the technique allows me to improve the shot, but if the shot sucks to begin with, then the technique really doesn't matter.

PS. You can cover a turd with gold, but it's still a turd. So start with something good and the technique will follow.
__________________
Canon EOS 40D, 400D (EF 75-300mm, EFS 18-55mm, Sigma 50-200mm, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L)

Earth Home Construction Project Site: Stockton Underground
Also: Photos @ Google
and Photos @ Flickr
Reply With Quote