Better photographer vs. better images

[Roger Hicks]

Hmmm, well, um, I see it as proof that the well known thread about image vs. equipment has been around a lot longer than the internet and he being a poor working photographer made his point and kept his name in front of the public, which most pro's still try to do...

Regards, David

Dear David,

Sorry: what was the point in question? Might it have been that it was a stunt*? And is it not relevant that he did not subsequently switch to box cameras because they were all he needed?

*From the point of view of the present discussion, and indeed all discussions like it, unless one is determined to miss the point, which is that if you work within the limits of any camera you can produce good images. The problem arises when you need fancy stuff like a focusing lens, or telephotos, or variable shutter speeds.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

*From the point of view of the present discussion, and indeed all discussions like it, unless one is determined to miss the point, which is that if you work within the limits of any camera you can produce good images. The problem arises when you need fancy stuff like a focusing lens, or telephotos, or variable shutter speeds.

Yep, that's the point... but yet some will swear they NEED everything.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yep, that's the point... but yet some will swear they NEED everything.

Maybe they do. It's just a shame that then don't prove it more often. A picture of a coffee cup with wafer-thin depth of field, or yet another bloody mutt with only its eyes in focus, suggests that perhaps they don't really understand "need" (in order to get better pictures, that is).

Cheers,

R.