I have been visiting galleries here in Nashville, looking at photographic exhibitions. I have been on line looking at photography websites of various "FAMOUS" photographers. I have been to book stores and libraries examining books on various techniques and "artists". I have visited YOUR websites and pictures in our own little gallery here at the forum. I have seen work here that I consider better than the big names. I have seen stuff here that is so-so and I have seen stuff by the big names "out there" that is also is less than what "I" consider of artistic merit that it is heaped upon it. I know that we have a lot of talented people here with a very "good eye" and technical expertise. There are some of us who lack the "technical expertise (myself being in this group) and couldn't explain the difference between an F-stop and a bowl of oatmeal but still manage to shoot a sometimes pleasing photograph. I realize that this is a rather abstract and subjective question, but what makes a good photographer good? why do some of them sell crap and some folks who shoot great pictures couldn't give their stuff away? is it marketing? luck? timing? the position of the sun and the moon? I don't mean to sound like I bitching or anything because I'm not. I'm just curious why some people can shoot a picture of a pile of sand and everybody thinks they are the next big thing and then the next person shoots a picture that evokes emotion and brings a person to tears but the sandpile gets the bigger response? I guess I'm just trying to figure out my own progress as a picture taker, because I don't have enough experience built up with this photography hobby to consider myself a "photographer", much less as an "artist". does this sound as goofy as I think it does?