pros vs amateurs - the intangible difference?

[andyc123]

Something that has bothered me for a while this one. I have had some good success with wildlife photography, particularly birds. I have a favourite of a woodpecker which I have a really good print off. I have also had the opportunity to look at a lot of images sent to me by wildlife photographers at the top of their game.

So, if I take my favourite which looks great printed and view it on identical screens side by side with seemingly any of their shots it just isnt as good. It is sharp but the colours are not as good and it seems there is just some mystery magic missing from it - what is it???

Is it that they generally only shoot in better light, have much better technique, use software or camera settings to get more vivid colours or make other adjustments.... to me the jury is out and I just keep practising but everytime this happens I feel I am missing something vital!

I tried to upload the image I am talking about but it didnt seem to work properly. Will try again and update this post when I manage to.

[NickCantle]

Have you got an f/2.8 lens longer than 300mm?

I know exactly what you mean Andy! There's just something about it. I quite like the mystery surrounding it though, it's quite special I guess

Nick

[andyc123]

Sadly I haven't - I opted to buy a car instead! lol

Thing is though I am just not sure that is it - then again if I was sure there wouldn't be a post here now would there? lol

[NickCantle]

I've only recently noticed why f/2.8 lenses are so expensive. It's because the images that come out, particularly with the help of a good operator, are so sharp and the Depth of Field has that professional look about it

Another thing is, I realised that the difference between f/5.6 @ 200mm and f/2.8 @ 200mm is HUGE. I guess that's why they're serious money

[Tormentil]

I would hazard a guess thats its not so much your camera/lens or technique, but more to do with the output from your printer, in that does n't the match quality of professional printing.

[Words]

Well I'd hazard a guess that the pro uses better equipment, is better at processing the images (subtle differences in some cases can make all the difference), and the killer... is a better photographer. Seriously, people who earn their living at photography are simply going to have to be at the top of their game to survive. And they're going to spend more time getting the shots so yes , things like better light will come into it. Case in point... there are many fabulous shots of red squirrels on WAB, but I don't think any come up to this one by Kev Lewis.

[NickCantle]

Shining example Words. I agree with you. If it's your profession, you spend your days taking photographs thus increasing the chance of getting that magic shot

Nick

PS- Pauline's Red Squirrel is on Par with that one I think

[Words]

I just took a look. Yes Pauline's shots are pretty amazing, especially the 'standing' one

[NickCantle]

Definitely. I think that was the one I was on about. The one with about 2,546,232,000 comments

[RichBrew]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

I've only recently noticed why f/2.8 lenses are so expensive. It's because the images that come out, particularly with the help of a good operator, are so sharp and the Depth of Field has that professional look about it

Professional lenses, particularly the fast aperture super-telephotos (300mm and above), are built to a specification, not a price. This is why the perform as they do: the cost is a secondary consideration.

On the pro v amateur subject, I've seen professional work that can be outstripped by a good amateur. "Professional photographer" merely means someone who earns their living from photography. There are good and bad examples in either camp.

RichBrew