Gearheads Unite

Jesus, I read about half of both articles and that was all I could possible stand. I want that five minutes of my life back.

 

What is even the slightest bit interesting about either of these brain farts?

Dan is right. Burnett is exactly the guy I thought about when I read that crap.

Ah, all good fun.

 

Me, I think do whatever you want. Yes, great photographers will take better pictures than me more often than not (ok, pretty much always). Heck, a lot of mediocre photographers will take better shots than me. I know my place in the world. But I sure do appreciate every edge that I can get.

 

I just really enjoyed his tossing out there that yes, sometimes equipment does matter and smacking around the folks who always say that it doesn't. KR just seemed to be the trigger but the thing was aimed at a lot of people.

 

I look at it much like Bernard does. I am a pretty good mountain biker. I have raced some multi day races, 24 hour races, etc. I am middle of the pack in a pretty tough crowd. I could probably still beat most of the people I beat if you put me on a huffy. And the people beating me could do the same to me on a huffy. But when its close, the guy with the better bike will probably have an edge and take me or vice versa. But none of us would bother, it wouldn't be as much fun. A good bike is a pleasure to ride and use and in fact does help. Cameras are much the same way for people.

 

Ah well, enjoy the weekend and get out and shoot, ride or both!

Mark Ci ... you are scaring me now. everything I find you saying, I ask myself, didn't I write that? yeah ... but I think I can read what Rockwell meant to say. quit the obsession .. and invest more of your brain and soul, than your credit-card. Reichmann had to respond didn't he? after all, with a 100Mb back (soon), he'll really be able to finely hone his 'crop' tool.

 

daniel

[[You sure can't make a living or hobby out of a camera that breaks in the middle of your artistic interpretation of your subject matter.]]

 

How is this different than any other camera?

This is so funny. The luminous landscape guy says it is a "recent" article. I'm pretty sure Ken's article or a version of it has been on his site for years. I like some of what Ken says but the end result of the LL article and this thread is to increase hits to Ken's website which generates money for him.

If I publish a story or a magazine article or some such that someone likes, or doesn't like, I am never asked what I used to write it. Keyboard and computer? Typewriter? Crayon scribbles on a paper bag? No one cares. Nor should they. It doesn't matter. It's the finished product that must stand on its own.

 

But if I come up with an image of any sort, even a so-so snapshot, someone, or several someones, will want to know what lens? What body? What film stretcher or what lens sharpener or what add-on doodad was used?

 

Imaging of any sort is, to a great degree, equipment dependent. A craftsman reaches for quality tools whenever possible. But in the end, it is the image that matters. Or should.

 

Those who see the tools as a means to create the image are photographers.

 

Those who see the tools as an end in themselves are collectors.

 

As long as you're having fun...

What overkill.

 

The Boy Scouts used to have something like this sort of discussion. I believe it was called a "circle" something.

 

;)

The truth is that equipment matters to a point. It clearly matters whether you have a pinhole camera or a DSLR.

 

However it really doesn't much matter which pinhole camera you have if you want a pinhole camera or even which DSLR you have if you want a DSLR. Technically it matters a bit if you want to do something special, but the image is 90% the photographer and 10% the gear.

 

Oh no....I feel and article coming on for my own website...must resist the urge...

Do it Bob, do it!

I visited LL today and chuckled at the debate. Then I found the links to the two new D300 reviews which I read with great solemnity. We are what we are.

Just think what Edward Weston and Ansel Adams could have done if they had the latest,

greatest digital gear. Heck even if Weston had a 2008 lightbulb over his contact printer what

an artist he might have become.<P>From a 16th century rhyme, "Of what use are lens and

light to those who lack in mind and sight?"

<i>"The Camera Doesn't Matter","The Camera Does Matter" </i><br><br>

 

Shoot! In truth, those deliberations are all about what we all love indulging in - 'Camera Chatter!'

Lex,

I've read the accounts of the set-up of Hendrix's guitars both ways, never got close enough to tell, but heard that he didn't reverse the strings from a good guitarist. Who knows what he was on when he came to that conclusion, though.

Check the gazillion photos of Hendrix online and in books, or watch the movies "Monterrey Pop," "Woodstock," "Rainbow Bridge" or "Jimi Hendrix." You can see the strings on his electric guitars - mostly Strats, occasionally a Flying V - were normally oriented. Not sure about the 12-string acoustic but I suspect it was set up the same way.

 

For awhile at least one guitar company made a Hendrix style Strat for righties. It was a lefty guitar, flipped over, with the nut and strings reversed for conventional playing style. It didn't catch on. Probably for the same reason Jeff Healey's lap style didn't catch on - true innovators don't always know why they do what they do, they just do what works for them.

 

Robert Fripp once promised his secret new guitar tuning would revolutionize guitar playing. Dunno whatever happened to that. I suspect that it worked fine for him because of his unique talent, not because of the tuning itself.

 

Pretty much like photography and all art.

Yeah, Rockwell sure does own a ton of expensive equipment himself. I get the feeling he's trying to "pull the ladder up" after himself.