End of times!

What I want out of photography doesn’t happen because I’ve got good glass (a term I abhor), can point my camera at a bird or a mountain or someone’s head or down a long city street, hold my camera still and come up with a proper exposure, though I suspect a lot of people who think of themselves as good photographers do no more than perform those mundane tasks. My idea of good photography emanates from another place and owes its deeper beauty to imagination, timing, skill, thought, sensitivity, visual awareness and acuteness, the freedom of the shooter’s expressiveness, and the ability to draw out the interest of the scene or subject the camera’s pointing at. Gorgeous birds, mountains, or faces don’t make gorgeous photos either. It’s just as easy, probably easier, to make a bad photo of a beautiful landscape as a good one. And it’s just as easy to make a bad photo with expensive gear as a good one. That’s proven over and over again as we flip through the Internet.

I do agree here.

But if a photographer understands the nature of light, sees composition, interacts with people, has creativity and eye, vision, reads proper books, and takes photos better than OK, then he needs a perffect tool. There is a problem: even a sophisticated, experienced amateur don't really need a 50 - 80 MP camera (cause he does not earn money in advertising photography) but he needs a good tool for his tasks as well as a runner needs good trainers, or a guitarist needs a good guitar.

BTW, did you like Mr. Smith's story about Leica above? What do you think of it?

Are you still a moderator? I should think your unethical behavior toward members would disqualify you from that position. But, alas, this is PN.

Can you point out Sandy unethical behavior? I can't see what he said in your quote.

Can you point out Sandy unethical behavior?

Knowing Sandy as I do I question first those who accuse.

Knowing Sandy as I do I question first those who accuse.

And so I did. The accuser didn't response to my inquiry.

Hmmm, looks like the rock thrower has found one to hide behind, which is itself not exactly ethical.

The Shadow did response to me.

Can still get Leicas...well, not the M7...and the Nikon F6

Nikon is great,i like it .

I find this sad but more and more true of the majority PN sensibility. One reason I'm glad to be in the minority.

 

Even Ansel Adams, a technical perfectionist with a handsome camera, recognized the vacuousness of giving too much credit to cameras for taking pictures.

 

 

Edward Steichen, who used a cheap Kodak borrowed from a tourist in Greece to take his famous picture of Isadora Duncan at the Parthenon, might quarrel with you. As would Ryan McGinley, Lucas Samaris, Andy Warhol, and Robert Mapplethorpe, all of whom used Polaroids because they were experimenters and trailblazers more than they were gear snobs, if they were that at all.

 

Steinway pianos sound great and have much richer tones and a more reactive touch than many other brands. But they don't make beautiful music. Great pianists do. I've heard at least one world-famous pianist play Mozart on an out-of-tune New Orleans style upright piano at a house party. Now THAT was beautiful music!

I once witnessed a professional guitar player pick up a child's cheaply made guitar and play a lovely classical piece on it. I found it amazing that the guitar could sound so good, and as a young apprentice carpenter, took that as a sign that a master could, and well should, be perfectly able to ply their craft to his/her own high standard no matter the quality of tool. When I later heard the saying, "a poor craftsman blames the tool", the whole thing was brought home.

So, I do agree that a high end tool does not a master make.

...When I later heard the saying, "a poor craftsman blames the tool", the whole thing was brought home.

So, I do agree that a high end tool does not a master make.

Hmm... in Vincent's case, it

sure doesn't hurt...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif