> > Chris implies that there are many people who
> deserve to be called
> > photographers who "only" take pictures. He's right,
> unfortunately. I
> > sympathize with your position that it would be more
> noble for people who
> > took pictures to also know something about the
> science and the craft, but
> in
> > photography it's the results that count--not the
> knowledge.
It's tough to get consistently good results without knowledge.
>A fair number of superb photographers don't really know
>beans about technique.
I will grant you that there are people of great artistic ability
that can use automated cameras that will handle most of the
technical portions of photography for them and turn out
wonderful pictures because they can see the pictures where we
might walk right on by. But for every one of those folks there
are hundreds who came by their ability through perseverance and
hard work, and they make wonderful pictures too. You know the
ones I'm talking about. They can take an uninteresting subject
and using skill and knowledge execute an image on film that
didn't exist except in their mind,
>And sometimes, very intelligent
>people who know a great deal about the craft aren't worth
>beans as shooters. Sad but true.
Because they lack a sense of art? Yep, I admit if you take a
perfectly exposed picture of a dull subject, it's probably going
to be a dull picture. However, there are plenty of
photographers that are not artists but working PJs. Their
knowledge and skill keeps food on the table. They may never see
their work hanging in a gallery. They may have to depend on
sheer quantity of pictures and hope the editor finds something
he likes, but they are still good photographers. They are
recorders of events.
> Which explains why a good "photographer" could blow
> many of us away with his
> Instamatic while we are using all the "whiz bang"
> features of the latest
> technobeast.
No, he couldn't. Not in all types of photography. You and I
could name lots of times when an Instamatic would not get the
picture. Now if you say that a good photographer could take
better pictures than we could while working within the
limitations of an Instamatic, and shooting what he wanted to
shoot with it (or a Brownie Hawkeye, for that matter) I'd have
to agree with you, but he would have to exercise an amount of
knowledge and experience to do that. He'd have to know its
limitations.
Len
---
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
