I think some people on this list may need a little more fibre/fiber in their diets. :)
Darren Addy Kearney, NE On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that was completely botched up ... try again. The send button is too > close to the Edit-Undo button ... > > From: "William Robb" >> >> From: "John Sessoms" >>> >>> > And that's been my point all along. The photographer is more important >>> > > than the equipment. Equipment is important, but not as important as the >>> > > > >>> > photographer. Equipment is only as good as the photographer who uses it. >>> > >>> > A poor photographer is still a poor photographer no matter how much he >>> > > spends on gear. Expensive equipment merely gives the poor photographer >>> > > the >>> > > means to create high resolution lousy images. >> >> Or, to be more accurate, better technical quality images that are wanting >> in terms of composition. >> >> Really John, do you think that an Adams could have churned out his >> esthetically stunning landscapes from the American southwest with a pocket >> 110 camera? > > No, what I think is that you are being deliberately obtuse; missing the > point on purpose. > > Given the limits of a pocket 110 camera, I think Ansel Adams would capture > better images than you or Ken Rockwell. > > OTOH, given access to Ansel Adams equipment and darkroom, I see no evidence > you or Ken Rockwell could produce the same quality of esthetically stunning > landscapes Adams produced. > > >> Please don't say yes, I will have to mock you if you do. > > Might as well. You already make a mockery of yourself. > >> I don't think it would have mattered how good a darkroom technician he >> was, there would still have been a little something missing. >> This is an extreme example, but sometimes one needs to use absurd examples >> to make succint points. >> >> You (and a few others it seems) are pretending that it is an either/ or >> issue; that a photographer is either an expert or a hack. There are a lot of >> photographers who are good enough to benefit from better equipement that fit >> into neither of the categories that you presuppose, and whose pictures do >> improve with better equipment, be it something with more resolution, or >> better noise control, or faster and more responsive performance. >> Look at Dave Savage's night photography and how much better it got when he >> went to the D700 as an example. >> > > And you are pretending that the photographer's skill has nothing to do with > it. > > You are not only WRONG, but you are deliberately mis-characterizing what I > have written. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Gone digital? I'm always looking for old Pentax film cameras and lenses to fit Pentax, (either K-mount or M42 screwmount). Also have a weakness for twin lens cameras. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
