On 4/7/2011 12:23 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Moose = If it is a photograph, it was taken with a camera, but that's not
>> the important thing about it.
> It's actually a pretty simple equation:
>
> Photographer + Technology = Photograph
I like that formulation.
> To achieve a certain level of photograph you either need a better
> photograph or better technology. A poor photographer with incredible
> technology will frequently achieve equivalent quality results to an
> incredible photographer with poor technology. But there is most
> definitely a sliding scale between the two and the level of photograph
> isn't static. An incredible photographer with incredible technology
> can result in an incredible photograph.
I agree with this only to the extent that the definition of 'quality' for your
position is limited to technical aspects.
> However,
>
> In the case of MJ's assumptions about BW+Street+Film=Leica, he's a bit
> off his rocker only because his experience has shown him that more
> often than not, to achieve a certain result (usually not seen in
> technical details, but in the timing of the photograph--capturing the
> moment, as well as other clues).
You didn't quite manage to finish that sentence, grammatically speaking, but
the meaning is clear. Sure, he's going
mostly on experience, but ended up looking a bit the fool through going beyond
that to assumptions and prejudice.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|