At 05:04 AM 6/4/2004 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she >got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures.
Unless you saw her photos, you don't know what she got. And what's dull to you can be a treasured memory to someone else. Or maybe she did get 99 dull shots and one truly inspired shot. You just don't know and it's not fair to assume you do.
If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality camera.
If someone spends $8000 (or $800, or $80) on photo equipment and they are satisfied by the outcome, good for them. Let them spend their money on what they want.
I've seen similar attitudes in the cycling community. Someone sees Lance Armstrong win the Tour on a $8000 carbon fiber Trek, so they go out and buy the $8000 Trek for themselves, the full zoot and everything. They can't hold a 20mph pace downhill with a tailwind, but they are having fun imagining they are Lance winning the Tour. Why resent their enjoyment? Of course buying the bike or the camera won't make them a pro, we know it and they know it.
Or you see a slow runner wearing top of the line racing flats at the local fun run. "Why bother?" you say. Saving 5sec a mile won't matter to this back-of-the-packer, they still won't win the race. But maybe those seconds saved matter to the runner. They know they won't win the race, but they can still try to do the best they can. A PR (personal record) is still a PR.
I've seen people resent those with better equipment than themselves, saying you can't be a pro just by buying pro-equipment. And others who disdain those with lesser equipment, saying if you don't have the absolute top of the line, "you're just a wannabe and don't have money riding on it." or "you're not a player."
Forget the gear snobbery. Just go take some photos.
Cheers, -- Mike
