It's true that a photo (or any other work of art) has to be liked to be great. But that's an answer that doesn't tell us anything. It begs the next question, "What do I do to take a photo that people will like."

A better restatement of the issue is that a great photo will resonate with people on some deep level. And to resonate two things have to happen. The artist has to have found a subject that resonates with them on a human level and the technical elements have to be implemented well enough so that a thoughtful viewer will find that the shot triggers a response in their own psyche.

An Ansel Adams shot has a formal excellence that allows the viewer to enter into that experience. And the result is we feel that Half Dome has a primal beauty that stirs something deep. A shot of a Vietnamese general shooting a captured Viet Cong soldier doesn't have the same formal beauty -- it's raw and immediate. But the image is painful and shocking. And the shot makes a powerful statement about that war.

Obviously no photo works with everyone. A critic may be more open to formal photographic techniques, a regular person may care more about the choice of subject. But it would be a mistake to not give a crap about communicating with your work. There is nothing wrong with asking yourself why one of your shots grabbed an audience and one didn't. There's a value in trying to take shots that shave a technique that supports your vision. And the key point, we all need to find the shot that gets our juices going. If the shot doesn't work for you, chances are no one else will appreciate it.

I've had great luck with Canon refurbished. I've had several and they all looked new and worked great.

I use Aperture a lot. Like Lightroom, it's a great product for manipulating a lot of photos fast. You can make changes (contrast, sharpness, white balance, etc.) to one image and then apply that same correction to the other images in that shoot.

I also use Aperture for doing quick fixes. With the sliders you can adjust shadows, saturation, contrast or sharpness with a few mouse clicks. I go into Photoshop when I need to do complex stuff.

One of my favorite tools in Aperture is the quick brushes feature. That menu lets you "paint" in more contrast, saturation, sharpness, brightness, etc. on specific areas of a photo. Doing that in PS means working with masks -- and sometimes that's overkill.

Too often with questions of this kind, people slip right into cliche: "It's not the camera, it's the photographer" etc.

And obviously if you give a great camera system to someone who can't "see" photographically you will generally get crap results. But the more interesting question is what effect good equipment will have on someone who does have the chops.

There are tons of folks who've taken great shots with a point and shoot or an iPhone. But that's not the deeper issue. Because that iPhone will only be able to deliver for certain shot choices.

I remember when I went to Antelope Canyon a couple of years ago. Before I went, I got myself a better tripod and a good wide angle lens. And I ended up with a pile of shots I was proud of.

More than half the folks there that day had a little P&S. And I'm sure there were some great shots made with that equipment. But in that confined situation, an ultra-wide angle lens and tripod give you the [u]possibility[/] of shots that a P&S can't begin to match.

You still have to get your eye in gear to see the good shots. But when a canyon is only a couple of feet wide, having the wrong lens can be frustrating.

The difference between a crop and full frame camera may or may not be limiting for a photographer. But having the right lens for a job will often mean more shots that are keepers.