Whats more important

[jdepould]

If a shot has a lot of punch people will be less likely to notice technical deficiencies. I'd put composition at the top of the heap there. Learning it is free (usually), but arguably the hardest part. Composition is also important in post-processing, which is easy to forget.

[neilwood]

If i had a must get shot i would far rather trust a good photographer with a cheap P&S to get it than a novice with a high end camera and all the post processing software in existance.

You are unlikely to notice that the image isnt very sharp, or theres a bit of noise etc compared to what bad composition can do!

[Saralonde]

Looks like composition is the winner here. And I agree totally!

[Clockdoc I]

I tought their would be more of a slit between composition and post processing. Because I find that since I bought my first digital camera (about a month ago) I have been taken more pictures on a broader scale and cropping them later for composition. So I guess this is something I should stop and go back to composing the original shot ???

[guy-montag]

Originally Posted by Clockdoc I

I was wondering what dps members tought about this question. Do you feel that it is more important to know how to compose a shot, have a better quality camera or better processing software. I know all are needed but do you feel one is more important.

Their importance is pretty much in the order you have them.

Composition is first, and if you don't have a feel for this / understand it, the best of everything else isn't going to help your photos any.

Good hardware is second, and it lets you go further before hitting the limits of what your hardware can do (shutter speed, autofocus speed, low light photography, etc).

And photoshop is a close but solid third. If you have a digital camera, it's essentially the difference between letting the lab develop your photos and doing it yourself.

[GEli]

Send a pro out to an empty warehouse with a disposable camera and they will come back with a whole roll of amazing shots. Send out someone who's never taken a frame before in their life with a D3 to a studio housing a professional model and you will get almost nothing useable. Experience and knowledge is absolutely everything.

A chisel and hammer does not a sculptor make.

Originally Posted by Clockdoc I

I tought their would be more of a slit between composition and post processing. Because I find that since I bought my first digital camera (about a month ago) I have been taken more pictures on a broader scale and cropping them later for composition. So I guess this is something I should stop and go back to composing the original shot ???

You still end up relying on knowing the fundamentals of composition and how to set up a good shot - you're just not experienced enough yet to be able to do it on the fly, and are using technology as crutches to let you still eventually obtain useable shots after the fact. You at least have to know what you need to include in the frame to make it useable later. A new photographer will end up throwing out a lot more shots outright because they are completely un-fixable. This is of course fine and a great learning tool - you'd do the same thing with film, but it would cost a lot more. One day, though, you'll find yourself not having to edit as much and having a lot more useable stuff come straight out of the camera.

[JFSanders]

Composition is the foundation. And the most time consuming skill to learn and use.

I look at it like this. Without composition you would be trying to read a book written by a monkey with a typewriter and a few keys missing.

On the other hand Composition isn't a hard and fast rule like it is in print or verbal communication. I think visual communication is emotion biased and print is imagination biased and verbal is the combination of the two.