I am a photographer myself and to be honest ... some of the 'you pics' do not look too differently from some originals which photographers then edit in photshop/lightroom/whatever ... it is just not magic! ;) Besides that ... the lenses make the main difference to small digicams or smartphones ... especially with portraits, close ups and macros. Landscapes can be done with an iphone or samsung or whatever - they all deliver solid shots which then can be edited in ps/lr/whatever. ;) 'That guy talks a lot ...' some of you will say! You are right! I do not see myself as a pro or a great photographer or anything ... but I really do like some of my pics myself and if you are curious now ... here you go: www.facebook.com/ArtistAndreasDanzer ;)

This has a rather condescending tone to it. "Normal" people could have the same quality photos if they spent the hours in post-production that photogs do. It's not some unattainable gift from above.

This is kind of stupid. If the camera is different, obviously, the picture is not going to look as nice. The pictures by "ordinary" people seem to be shot on a phone or something. Not only that, the non "professional" photos also lack people, props, or any thing worthwhile to take a picture of. I would rather see the same exact setting (people included) with the same camera to compare the skills of professionals to "ordinary" people.

She's absolutely correct... but what she doesn't say is that while an artistic eye is a great thing to have, the skills necessary to produce photos of a professional quality can be learned via some basic "rules". Equipment makes a difference too but one can still take extremely good images with a cheaper camera if the user knows how to operate it correctly. Here's a taste of what I can do... I learned in a short period of time - mostly from a combination of watching online videos, reading books on photography and just getting out and experimenting: www.viewbug.com/member/mikedenyer Then there's a few more on my Facebook: www.facebook.com/Mig.Denyer

Photoshop does not make you a great photographer

I stand by my husband 100% that photography is an ART FORM... and a hard one, at that. I'm so proud of all the work he does in his field. We respect what each other do: I'll stick to pen & ink, he can have his amazing camera with five billion different lenses he knows what to use at the exact right moment (he is a landscape and wildlife photographer). x

I think the "You" pictures look more real!

not only a photographer but also lots of after editing which is really hard for a photographer not to do.

Don't think you can move to a higher end camera to improve your work when you don't know the difference between a 35mm and 50mm lens. A good photographer can do more with a budget camera than an amateur can with a pro model.

Do you guys really think the photos were taken by different persons? The wannabe-pro-artist made both versions. I understand the symbolic meaning but the way it's presented is fairly s****y. You CAN take way better pictures with a phone cam and absolutely no skill. I bet with one or two apps you can even get similar results without knowing anything about cameras and stuff. So take a step back and shut up.

It's not all in the photo itself as it's captured. The "you" photos are directly uploaded, a photographer would more than likely have edited, the hue, saturation, focus etc (which in itself is a skill)

I think that you should go on my page see my photographs! www.nohejj.blogspot.com or simply my instagram @kadzia7

Lots of hidden sourness to be found here... makes one wonder how many instagram accounts are held by the gripers... sorry folks but just as changing a tire and having an awesome tire jack doesn't make one a mechanic, taking a photo that all your 'friends' think is great doesn't make you a photographer. As for the ridiculous notion that SOOC shots are better because they're more 'real'... sigh... no, no they're not. If you are a documentarian or shoot wildlife for a mag then, yeah other than basic editing (yes, basic editing is still editing) the shots are left alone. However, those are not the only types of photography that exist. Too bad that the advent of iPhones et al have totally destroyed the notion of respect for others who have spent years studying, striving and working towards being a better photographer.

Should be titled "Ordinary People vs Tacky Stock Photographers"

Wow. Could you have used pictures any less alike in intent and character, not to mention equipment, time of day......

OMG.. hahahah this is very true.. very true

Aspiring artist here. You don't really need a high-end camera if you know how to do photo editing.. with photoshop, etc. Main difference lies in angle, and Photo Editors. I don't believe any of the pictures aren't heavily edited (blurred areas, colour vibrancy, lightning).

It very true us photographers see things diffrent then all the other people. It make us photographers more unique then the other people we use diffrent lens and turn a angle a lot diffrent then they do

Honestly: The article should be called: Professional Camera VS cheap digicam - only if you have a camera with a large sensor and a lens with f 2,8 or so you can take such images -

Here's my contribution! =) www.facebook.com/fjhphoto 14100541_1...1e5164.jpg

first 2 pics - summer vs autumn - or they colored the grass - of course it will look different. look like someone who took those shots got an old a*s 360p plastic nokia and made his best to do the worst "front light" photos possible.

It is true that if you polish up your image it looks like a cooler of more magical place. I myself do not manipulate much more than the colours a bit and the contrast. The composition is the most important thing that tells the story. Colours and the rest give the extra feeling and touch to it. I agree that without a good start you can still do extraodinary things nowadays, but if you put a dress on a cow it still remains a cow..... :p

1-57bd75588dbd7.jpg

That should probably be "How Different Same Location Looks", not "Differently." I think "Looks" is acting as a linking verb there. http://grammartips.homestead.com/badly.html