Darren, For Ultra-wide shots you might consider stiching several vertical shots together. (It's a trick I learned from Rob Studdert and the Ozzies...) Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:53 PM, CheekyGeek <[email protected]> wrote: > I liked the blog post. > The point was really one for self-examination, and in examining MYself > I must admit that if I had spent as much time taking photographs over > this past winter as I have acquiring equipment I would have a lot more > photographs (and a lot less equipment) to show for it. How's that for > being Captain Obvious? > > That being said, other than a decent focusing rack and a good > ballhead, I've just about reached the end of the list of things that I > think I need to shoot the sort of things I want to shoot. Meaning I'm > ready to take his advice, expecially with Spring here, and start > taking more photographs. > > The thing about equipment is: it doesn't matter how good a > photographer is, he/she isn't going to be able to take an ultrawide > shot without an ultrawide focal length lens (etc.). Like most truisms, > it is only part of the story. > > Darren Addy > Kearney, NE > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM, William Robb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Sessoms" >> Subject: Re: A Crazy Idea >> >> >> >>> 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? >> Please don't say yes, I will have to mock you if you do. >> 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. >> >> Carry this forward a bit, I use a K7. A friend of mine uses a D3. >> I can do things with his camera that are simply beyond what I can do with my >> Pentax. >> Does this make me a bad photographer? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the better >> equipment definitely does allow me to do things that are beyond my >> capabilities with my K7. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
