Take the following shot:
![Image](http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/8105/2018763430101587741S425x425Q85.jpg)
I like this picture, but I'm fully aware it represents both factors I do control and factors which are completely out of my hands. I picked the gear, I arranged the composition, and I caught the fish. However, I didn't choose the timing; I simply took the picture once I landed the trout. I also didn't choose my fly line and backing to match the spawning colors of the brook trout, although this intended bit of color coordination turned out to be kind of nice. And for possible submission to a fly fishing magazine, the choice of reel does provide another point of interest for that particular constituency of readers. And lastly, I didn't summon the overcast sky and slight wind which created that attractive sheen on the water's surface, and which made the fish's colors pop a bit more in contrast with the darker rocks.
A few more examples of the "cloud/wind effect":
![Image](http://inlinethumb38.webshots.com/20261/2006516070101587741S425x425Q85.jpg)
![Image](http://inlinethumb13.webshots.com/17612/2589556710101587741S425x425Q85.jpg)
Compare these with another fish picture taken under different lighting (no net because I didn't want to carry the extra weight):
![Image](http://inlinethumb49.webshots.com/24176/2660179850101587741S425x425Q85.jpg)
The fish itself is no less beautiful, and is in fact much more impressive using the criteria I establish as a fisherman: it's larger, it's a species that I value more, it was caught while using a method (sight-fishing) that I consider to be the most fun. However, in this picture, the direct sunlight washes out the golden trout's brightest colors, throws a big sun spot into the corner, and also makes the slightly muddy gravel background look even muddier. The first and last photos were taken with a Panasonic Lumix LX-3, a higher-end P&S with extensive manual controls, while the second and third photos were taken with an ordinary P&S (Canon SD1000) with limited manual controls. I would say that objectively, the last photo was taken by a more experienced photographer with better equipment and a more well-trained eye for what looks good in a fish picture than the second and third photos, and yet I'd also say that objectively, the second and third photos are more aesthetically pleasing than the last one.
I guess I'm just curious how much of what makes a good fish picture is due to the fish itself, how much is due to photographer preparation, skill level, and/or equipment, and how much is due simply to circumstance or luck.
Chime in if you have any thoughts about this!