> > As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl > photographer) has always been in the "let the camera do the technical > stuff" camp.
Currently he uses F100s - before that he was using the N90s. I don't kn ow what he was using at the time of the "Afghan Girl" shot - that was taken 20 years ago, which is somewhat before the N90 was released :-) Herb Keppler mentions this in his Photo Industry Reporter column today <http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/03-08/features/the_way_it_is.html> But Steve McCurry isn't yet prepared to go digital - in fact he's still shooting Kodachrome for most of his stuff (although I've seen reports that include Provia and E100s among his regular emulsions). > I'm more intrigued by the "technology inhibits greatness" argument that > someone implied. Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage > of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there > are more photographers total. I'd question that assumption. I'd be more inclined to assume that the number of great photographers today is pretty much the same as it was 20, 40 or even 60 years ago. It's the same in any field; there's a number of top-level practitioners who can excel in the field. They'll stand out from the rest, whether they are outnumbered a millionfold or only a hundredfold. > Given that web publishing is cheap and > easy, we should be able to see lots of great photography. The argument, > apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that > intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness. I'd see a couple of flaws in that argument. For one, just because a cursory web search doesn't turn up immediate examples doesn't mean that there aren't any great images out there. For another thing, it often takes time before great practitioners of any art are recognised as such.
