Isn't it the case that the best craftsman achieve the best that there tools can deliver? Isn't also the case that less good craftsman can also do something better with better equipment? I think having the 'latest' definitely gives an edge and giving a good photographer the most superb equipment one could expect to see comparable results Edwin -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Mason Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:32 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: Ok so everyone seems to want lively debate (not flame wars) Mark, I wish photographers starting out would only be allowed to have one camera with a fixed focal length lens for the first five years. Then they would be told to go out and see the world. No zooms. No ultra wide angles. No super telephotos. No 50 frame-per-second bodies. The only permitted accessories would be a tripod and cable/remote release. If more photographers did this and spent their time looking and seeing rather than fiddling with equipment and pining over what they don't have, they would become better photographers. I agree that a good photographer can make a good picture with almost any properly functioning piece of equipment. That's because the most important elements of a photograph aren't reliant on the gear one uses--composition, content and the quality of the light. Gimmickry rarely adds anything, but, rather, detracts from the skills of a good image maker. A few years back I did a slide show for a local camera club. I projected three 80-picture trays which represented 5 or 6 years of my work as a photojournalist. The only questions I received at the end of the show were along the lines of "what kind of equipment do you use?" I promised myself never again would I waste my time doing that. Cheers, Rich On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Mark Blackwell wrote: > Ok I will throw out some stink bait. I am often amazed at how many > people think that they MUST have the latest and greatest new > equipment. They have great stuff but no idea of what to do with > it. Others take junk and excel which begs the question, "Just how > much of a part of the total success is the tool, and how much of it > is the person running the tool?" > > I use some old stuff. I have an old Voigtlander that was bought in > the 50s that I still use. I have an old 4x5 view camera that is > probably about that old. Both still work well, with some limitations. > > Lenses are another long term investment. Do you upgrade every time > a new lens appears? Who buys used lenses?? How used??? grin Zoom > or primes??? Oh the choices. > > Digital with its short life expectancy is a much tougher choice. > It's not a mature industry, at least not yet but it seems to be > getting closer. Not that long ago for what you would spend for a > 5D you could get the D30 that was a 3.3 MP and the state of the > art. Each new model does bring improvements, but when is the > improvement enough to justify the new investment? It's not like > the old one quits working. All tough decisions. > > Its all part of the overall product. IF money is no object, you > always get new stuff. Still that rarely is the case. So it brings > us back to how much of a great photo is tool, and how much is > between the ears of the person running it? > > > > > > >
