A Pentaxian that's quite different...

[shaloot]

<p>http://crosscut.com/2010/07/30/arts/19997/Homeless-artist-s-photographs-capture-quirky-beauty/</p>

<p>Interesting to read how he envisions his photos and what draws his eye. I like his attitude towards printing photos and why he takes more.<br>

Is there anybody who lives in the Seattle area on here? Have you come across him? I'm not sure what camera he is talking about, thought I'm guess it's probably an Optio:<br>

<em>'Recently I bought a Pentax, my favorite camera ever. It's real pocketable. He pulled it out of his jacket pocket, cased in a clean old sock, and showed it to me. "I carry it at all times. Nice and small. Dustproof. Waterproof under water or in the rain." '</em></p>

<p>His last line is tough. Hopefully times will improve for him.<em><br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

[stanrb]

<p>Thanks for bringing him to my attenton.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Great story. I wish I could buy a print of his from here - I would!<br>

Thanks for sharing!</p>

[anirbanbanerjee]

<p>His picture #2 is pretty good too. I'd buy a copy if i could.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Somanna, he has a W<em>x</em>0 of some sort. The W line are the only P&S from Pentax that are water proof.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>He probably prints his shots straight out of the camera too. I can't see it being convenient for him to do post processing. Unless he does basic kiosk stand touch ups?</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Pretty interesting article. Obviously sad to see anyone homeless but pretty cool nonetheless.</p>

<p>I'm certain it's a WXX, it's the only Pentax that is "waterproof" and also "fits in a pocket".</p>

<p>Probably the W10 or W20...those were the last cameras that were really good all around.</p>

<p>Of course between this guy and Kerrick James using W series, I've pretty much decided the W90 (IQ flaws and all) will be what I really need. Probably pick one up by September.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>So a full blown pro and a homeless photographer has convinced you... other pro reviewers be damned! Goes to show the people who actually use their equipment are the best 'reviewers'!</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>So here's a guy who is homeless, pulls his camera out of a sock, and takes pictures better than the majority you see on this site. He has no budget for cameras and lenses. Doesn't that sort of prove the old adage that the best picture is formed 6 inches behind the camera?</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>To be honest I like 3 out of 14 photos if I forget about the story.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>I don't see a problem with that Markus. I don't like all 14 of his photos either, but it's his effort and appreciation of taking photos that gets my attention.</p>

[bob-c]

<p>"and takes pictures better than the majority you see on this site."<br /> Sorry, Wayne, I cannot agree. Some of them are very good but let's not get carried away. But I do agree with your basic premise that it is the person behind the camera and not the equipment that really matters.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>I guess my point is that most people on this forum and the Canon and Nikon forums are pretty flush and are a lot more interested in the latest gear and spend a ton on it. This guy doesn't have that luxury. But he does have a love and passion for photography that is admirable. It makes me feel a little ashamed when I see what he is accomplishing on a shoestring and almost every question on these forums is debating which $400-$2000 lens to buy.</p>

[bob-c]

<p>Well, I don't know about the Canon and Nikon forums because I never visit them but it seems to me that most of the frequent contributors to this forum discuss lenses because they have a particular interest or purpose. Let's face it, although many of this man's images are quite nice, he is not attempting to shoot an indoor basketball or hockey game. He is not attempting to shoot a bird in flight 50 yards away. He knows his limits and he is working within them. That is fine. Many of us, however, are interested in shooting many different things and therefore need lenses to accomplish that. I saw some beautiful pictures recently from a woman who owed 50 cameras. All of them were home made pinhole cameras. Didn't cost a dime. She's very limited in what she can do but she is very happy and good at it. So, I guess what I am saying, is that not too many of us (as far as I know) on this forum have money to throw away so we think very carefully before we make a purchase. And there is almost always a purpose to the lens we are buying. <br>

Make no mistake, he is good. He does have an eye for a good image.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Under the category "Beating a Dead Horse" I offer the following as an up-to the minute example of what I was talking about two postings above. This is from the Canon EOS forum.<br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wz5T</p>

 

[bob-c]

<p>Wayne, we both agree. It is the eye behind the lens and not the equipment that really matters. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't that sort of prove the old adage that the best picture is formed 6 inches behind the camera?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, but I've been saying that for years. Remember when everyone was crying because there were only 1 or 2 lenses available in Pentax mount in every focal length, and sometimes they were out of stock...</p>

<p>Everyone has different wants, and different needs. For me it's compactness, for others it's all out speed. Regardless, we all have a budget.</p>

<p>Most discussions on lenses and bodies are pointless, but a few are actually people debating a major expense to them.</p>

<p>As far as needing them, well, if this guy wasn't homeless we wouldn't be looking at his images. A few are nice, most are nothing special. Producing high quality photo prints requires decent gear, when you really start picking at bigger prints, cheap lenses and poor technique shine through.</p>

<p>On the flip side, a lot of people have great gear and absolutely no talent.</p>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

<p>Ok, let's not overglorify the poor homeless person here. I was only impressed by 1 out of that set. Face it, a shot of a bench... isn't that amazing.</p>

<p>As for the Canon guy above what's so wrong with him wanting to purchase a lens in the portraiture range and asking for advice?</p>