As long as we understand that the top photographers toss-outs are better than our best, that is true.
It really bothers me that folks think great photographs are a product of averages, of luck. A competent photographer does not produce many duds (as long as he is working at it, if he is old and lazy like me, he gets a lot of them, but not because he doesn't know better). I guess I do not care who feels insulted, but if every single photo (that you work at making) is not technically and esthetically salable you are not competent. Now that does not apply to experimental stuff, that is learning, and goes on forever, but your everyday photography better be pretty damn good if you think you are a photographer. I suggest folks get a Speed Graphic and a Polaroid back. If you think being able to shoot a lot for almost nothing improves your photography, you will be surprised at what knowing that every time you press the button it is going to cost you $2.50-$3.00 ($5.00 with flashbulbs) will do for it. -graywolf Tom C wrote: > I thought it contained some useful reminders. What he fails to mention > though, is that no matter how good or celebrated a photographer one is, the > majority of photographs are throwaway and never make the portfolio or get > exhibited to others. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
