OMFG! They'll have no arguments left!

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:24:57 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Perhaps for some specific variation of "best" your last
statement is valid, but certainly not for every possible
variation. The best photographs of a baseball game
certainly are not going to come from a view camera. Ice
hockey and basketball are even less likely. The same is
true of many types of photography.

While it is true that a good photographer can get a good
photograph using just about any camera, it is *not* true
that just any photograph can be done well with just any
camera, no matter how good the photographer. If you
want landscapes, or candid people pictures, baseball, or
flowers, or rattle snakes... you'd better choose the
right camera.

With the right camera even a poor photographer can
accidentally get a great image now and then. With the
wrong camera, even a great photographer cannot get a
decent image of any given object.

Well stated; perhaps the best ever. Now I wish this would put an end to
the ridiculous assertions every few months, but I doubt it.

The flaw in that argument is that a master-chef can produce a master-chef's
meal on a heated rock any time he wants to, and s/he knows it. Your problem
is that you don't know this. Such are the minds of a relentless
snapshooters. There's no getting them beyond this level of inadequacy.

Get a Grip wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:24:57 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Perhaps for some specific variation of "best" your last
statement is valid, but certainly not for every possible
variation. The best photographs of a baseball game
certainly are not going to come from a view camera. Ice
hockey and basketball are even less likely. The same is
true of many types of photography.

While it is true that a good photographer can get a good
photograph using just about any camera, it is *not* true
that just any photograph can be done well with just any
camera, no matter how good the photographer. If you
want landscapes, or candid people pictures, baseball, or
flowers, or rattle snakes... you'd better choose the
right camera.

With the right camera even a poor photographer can
accidentally get a great image now and then. With the
wrong camera, even a great photographer cannot get a
decent image of any given object.

Well stated; perhaps the best ever. Now I wish this would put an end to
the ridiculous assertions every few months, but I doubt it.

The flaw in that argument is that a master-chef can produce a master-chef's
meal on a heated rock any time he wants to, and s/he knows it. Your problem
is that you don't know this. Such are the minds of a relentless
snapshooters. There's no getting them beyond this level of inadequacy.

You've never talked to a master chef in your life.

(Incidentally, I have.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snip

You've never talked to a master chef in your life.

(Incidentally, I have.)

Me too. A master chef that's in charge of a hotel or restaurant is very
dependent on equipment to turn out meals for hundreds or thousands of
patrons a day. Knowing which equipment to buy and how to use it is an
integral part of the job. The wrong equipment can cause the restaurant
to fail or can even cause patrons to become ill.

There are so many relevant analogies where equipment is a key factor in
the difference between success or failure it's hard to know where to
begin. Photography is no different. The best equipment won't teach
composition skills, and the worst equipment won't let those skills be
maximized.

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

"OMG" wrote in message
...
Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?
Name one award winning photograph that was taken without using a camera. I
think the camera does play a role, despite your insane ramblings.

You're missing the point. Great photographers will take great photos
almost regardless of the equipment they use. Poor photographers, on the
other hand, will still be poor regardless of their equipment.

The only difference the equipment makes is technical, not compositional.

Most of us would prefer compositional and technical perfection, but it
is surprising how poor the equipment can be in the hands of a great
photographer and still make stunning photographs. Nevertheless, for the
absolute best, you probably need a great photographer with a view camera.

"Absolute best"? For what?

The camera has to fit the mission. A view camera is not the best thing
to use in shooting wildlife or sports and a 35mm camera is not the best
for shooting high end portraits or landscapes.

Once the photographer knows what he needs for the mission, providing he
has the means he should get the best tools for the job.

As usual this discussion goes to "the worst photographers can't do much
with the best equipment." Well who cares? We're not interested in
being the worst. We are interested in getting the best results that we
can with our skills, art and equipment.

SMS wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snip

You've never talked to a master chef in your life.

(Incidentally, I have.)

Me too. A master chef that's in charge of a hotel or restaurant is very
dependent on equipment to turn out meals for hundreds or thousands of
patrons a day. Knowing which equipment to buy and how to use it is an
integral part of the job. The wrong equipment can cause the restaurant
to fail or can even cause patrons to become ill.

There are so many relevant analogies where equipment is a key factor in
the difference between success or failure it's hard to know where to
begin. Photography is no different. The best equipment won't teach
composition skills, and the worst equipment won't let those skills be
maximized.

However, there are plenty of TV shows that prove that master chefs can,
as a one-off and with plenty of desire, turn out great food
with lots of handicaps, even (literally) with one hand tied behind their
backs.

I suspect the same applies to photographers.

Doug McDonald

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
However, there are plenty of TV shows that prove that master chefs can,
as a one-off and with plenty of desire, turn out great food
with lots of handicaps, even (literally) with one hand tied behind their
backs.

I suspect the same applies to photographers.

Probably. Still the question remains: why would you want to if you have
a choice?

Using good tools (not necessarily the absolut top of the line most
expensive) makes _ANY_ task easier, more enjoyable, and because of that
the result probably better than using inferiour, bottom-of-line
crutches.
And this applies to cooking, photography, gardening, carpentry, driving,
or any task I can possibly think of.

jue

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:

However, there are plenty of TV shows that prove that master chefs can,
as a one-off and with plenty of desire, turn out great food

LOL, yeah and plenty of TV shows that prove that doctors can cure
incurable diseases.

"TV shows that prove..." That's a classic.

Jürgen Exner wrote:
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
However, there are plenty of TV shows that prove that master chefs can,
as a one-off and with plenty of desire, turn out great food
with lots of handicaps, even (literally) with one hand tied behind their
backs.

I suspect the same applies to photographers.

Probably. Still the question remains: why would you want to if you have
a choice?

The choice for them was: DO IT ... or lose the competition. After
all, it IS theater. The food is merely the "hook".

Doug McDonald