Hi kranF, Since there are still a few people using older gear on a regular basis, we could amend the statement to say that "most" great photos have been made with equipment older and less advanced than your camera, but that's really splitting hairs (something that so many of us are quite good at, so we may as well split 'em). Of course, we all know the point that Brooks was making ;-))
Brooks' point about criticism is correct as far as it goes. But I'd disagree and say that offering alternative ways of making a photo is just as valid - move here or there, etc. But such comments have to be put into context, to which the author, perhaps, was alluding. Regardless, good criticism is important to a photographer, and while a photographer can be a harsh a nd strong critic of his or her own work, outside comments can be quite helpful. David Hurn, whose comments form the basis of the small book "On Being a Photographer" published by Lenswork, notes that such criticism is important (at least in his case and amongst his circle of photographer friends). Thinking and learning to see in two dimensions, while being something I've been aware of for years, really struck a chord, as I can't recall anyone ever actually stating the concept before. It's as second nature to some as seeing a scene in B&W, or framed in the shape of their favorite format. That you are not making a picture of something, but that you are MAKING SOMETHING, should be etched into the mind of every photographer, along with the concept of not merely showing what the subject is, but going further and showing what it is not, what it means, why it exists, how it exists, and so on. eShl > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault > I particularly liked the the thought that every great photograph was > made on equipment that's older and "less advanced" than "your camera". > Of course, since I still shoot most of my photos on older manual > focus mechanical cameras, maybe that one doesn't apply so much to all > of us... <vbg>
