I have an iteresting isertion here. My wife does not contribute to PDML. When she has a technical question, she asks me, and I supply for the most part, a PDML-approved answer. She's good. She doesn't sweat the details. She does, however, work hard at composition and decisive moment. She doesn't want me to replace her Sigma 28-80mm lens because she gets what she wants out of it.
She does, however, look at PUG and loves Giafranco as much as I do. She's, err...... SANE........ Lon Keith Whaley wrote: > > If you family doctor was on vacation, and treated a skinned knee, > would you say it was treated by a amateur? > Once a doctor, always a doctor. > The same analogy applies. If you're good enough to be ABLE to make > money with your photography, and if other photographers consider you a > professional, you're locked into the title. > What you describe is a pro taking personal photographs on his time off. > Facts are, they're just as likely to be a tad better than yours and > mine, simply because of his untold hours of practice making GOOD photographs. > > The Kodak snap & shoot he uses is what it is. If he only and forever > used that camera to make his or her outstanding photographs, for him > that would be his 'pro camera.' > If a predominance of paid photographers used that kind, size and shape > of Kodak box camera, yes, I suppose you'd have to call it a pro > camera, woudn't you? > > Caveat: as with any other camera, it's only a designation. With me, > perhaps with most of us, it would STILL be no better than any other > camera in our hands. With the professional photographer, it's HOW he > uses it, and the proof of the images he captures, that makes him a pro. > > Some photography magazine did an article or essay one time, enlisting > several well-known photographers to do just that ~ take a simple box > camera of some time, and make photographs with it. Do as well as they > could, and let's see the results. > > I know you posted your questions in a tone of amusement, but in fact, > whatever the pro uses becomes his pro camera, doesn't it. > > My 2� > > keith whaley > > frank theriault wrote: > > > > Ah, but what if the pro is taking family snapshots on his day off? Is he still a > > pro? And would the camera he uses be a pro camera? What if he uses the same > > camera to take those snapshots as he does whilst working? Would it only be a pro > > camera while "on the job", but an amateur camera on Sunday at the zoo? > > > > OTOH, what if he takes family snapshots, but years later, sells one of those > > shots? Would the camera be an amateur camera, but ~suddenly~ turn into a pro > > camera? > > > > What if he ~was~ an amateur when he took the snapshot, but years later, turned > > into a pro, then sold the photo? What's the body then? > > > > That should be enough to chew on for now... > > > > <vbg> > > > > -frank (in a devilish mood tonight) > > > > Peter Alling wrote: > > > > > That's easy, professional cameras are the ones professionals use, amateurs > > > use amateur > > > cameras. > > > > > > At 05:24 PM 12/10/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > > >I've got one! I'm still not too clear on the difference between professional > > > >and amateur cameras ... (running and ducking) > > > > > > > > -- > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears > > it is true." -J. Robert > > Oppenheimer
