On 28/1/03 8:31 am, Red James wrote:
>
>> Well... here we have it from the horse's mouth, amateur/journalist toys
>> are just that, and I am glad that there are picture buyers out there who
>> appreciate quality.
>
>
> Yes, forgive me, I was talking about 20mpx cameras for less than ten grand -
> quite a lot to invest if you are not a big-shot advertising photographer ;-)
Sorry, tried to resist but can't ;-) I think either the horse is talking out
of its backside and not its mouth or they mean that you submit photos only
of dead leaves and cars taken in sterile studios.
If your photography relies on the decisive moment, you have to use "amateur"
cameras. Artists spend years taking information away to distil and convey
their vision (Van Gogh, Picasso to name but two) and here people are
equating pixels with "quality." Sorry, but I just can't buy it.
HCB took quality photographs but they are not perfectly exposed or contain
as many pixels as, say, an Adam Ansel mountainscape. Which picture library
wouldn't like to own the rights to all of HCB's work? If you equate
information with quality, then HCB was one hell of an amateur. And if that's
the case, then I'd rather be thought of as an amateur than a pro shooting
quality with 10K plus gear.
I also suspect there are plenty of advertising photographers shooting with
an 11mpx camera worth less than 6k. Time for the horse to be put to pasture,
methinks or, at least, it's blinkers taken off :-)
Just my tupence worth.
--/ Shangara Singh :: Photographer
Adobe Certified Expert ~ Photoshop 7.0
PortfoliosOnCD for Photographers
Exam Aids for Photoshop ~ Illustrator ~ Dreamweaver
http://www.shangarasingh.com
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
