incidencematrix

Flickr, even now.

Lighting, lighting, lighting. The same boring scene at noon can be fantastic at 5:00. Filters are also very useful: even with a phone, you can hold a filter (e.g. a circular polarizer) in front of your lens and sometimes get good results. The composition suggestions folks have given are also good, but you don't necessarily need a complex, multilayer scene to create a good image - however, even a complex scene may not help you if the lighting is too poor.

Jokes are best unexplained. But if you must: saying that one's images must be better because they were taken with better gear suggests a certain kind of gear-bro aesthetic that is well-known but not uniformly loved among photographers. And second, the bit about the body and the lens creates an unfortunate double entendre. The fact that both readings can be found in the same remark further amplifies the humor value. Thus, the comment.

TBH, the creepiest part is saying that of course they like your pictures because you have a mirrorless body and a nice lens....

"Gatekeeping" is a term that moochers employ to try to guilt others into letting them mooch. I am frankly surprised that anyone falls for it, but many kind-hearted folks seem vulnerable to this sort of bullying. Alas, bullies gonna bully, and moochers gonna mooch....

So many good comments here. One small thing to add is that the folks who reply may be giving you vague answers because the answers really are vague. Some of the things you want to achieve don't have a simple or direct formula, and those who succeed do so in part by being attentive to and seizing on idiosyncratic opportunities. There is no way they can tell you how to replicate that, because not even they could replicate it. Not to say that there are not broad strategies (lots of experienced folks here have described some of them), but there is no simple and precise trick that will get you what you want. Most fields involving creativity or entrepreneurship are like that. Think of it like this: what if you pmed folks and asked them to tell you "how to make great art." What if someone asked you that question? Probably, your answer would be vague. It would have to be, right? So it is with these kinds of career questions.

Can't be bothered to evaluate your own photos. Also can't be bothered to train s system to do it for you. Seems like you're in a bit of a sad place.

At this point, even a 10 year old entry level camera is vastly better than what most folks used to shoot with, and more than adequate for most purposes. New tech is nice, but if you feel that you can't be effective without it, you probably ought to go revisit your basic skills. Don't get me wrong, I like gear as much as the next person, but I observe that a non-vanishing number of folks think that it substitutes for effective art or technique; you get folks with $1k+ cameras dumping them because their photos aren't sharp. Those folks then run around telling newcomers that they need thousands of dollars in gear to even get started, which probably drives some folks away. Very annoying. Anyway, this is pretty ubiquitous, but you are probably more likely to hear it from a young person than someone who started on cheap film cameras and knows how far things have come.

Tell them that you will be happy to do it, but only shoot macro now. After a single round of dead skin photos, they won't ask again. (For bonus points, alter the white balance to generate a true cadaver-like quality. If they complain, give wildly enthusiastic speeches about how this is true art, and how you are going to enter their nausea inducing images in various national and international photography contests. Tell them that you hope they will model again next year, since you have committed to a new series on bodily fluids. Relentless and unreasoning positivity combined with toxic performance is a truly unbeatable recipe for aggravating your target while leaving them no avenue for complaint. It's awesome, provided that one is willing to appear somewhat unhinged.)

You can do it, but only if you are using a pinhole camera. It must be made using a Leica box, and the subject must include at least one can of cheese whiz - but it must be artfully composed. We look forward to your posts.

Great choice - cheap, but capable of great photography. The D5600 is also quite compact, and can probably be obtained cheaply. Lots of good DX F glass is out there, too. For someone just starting and who wants a light kit, the VR kit lens (I want to say 24-55mm?) might be a good way to go. Should be dirt cheap used, and the VR will help a lot for a new shooter on a body with no IBIS. Lots of room to expand from there.

I guess it's refreshing to have a workman-blames-tools post where they blame newer hardware instead of older hardware. Usually, I see some variant of "I'm not Ansel Adams because my camera is a year old and only cost $10k, tell me which new one to buy." This one has a more traditionalist aesthetic. (Obligatory fair shake comment: using an EVF effectively if you are used to SLRs does take a shift in thinking. I didn't realize how much I had internalized about the peculiarities of the SLR viewfinder until I started working with a mirrorless system and wasn't getting the results I expected. Not hard to adapt, though, once you realize the problem.)