Michael Reichman reached the end of his rope and patience, and posted an article rebutting all the claims that The Camera Doesn't Matter.
(Me, I have a foot in each camp.)
Oooh, just made up a joke:
A few painters sit together drinking their espressos, absinthe, and paint thinner, when one of them finally flips his lid and exclaims: "Brushes! Pig hair! Camel hair! Oils! Acrylics! Water based! Canvas, fine, rough, medium! Why do we always talk about technique? Do you think photographers use all their time discussing cameras? No, they just get out there and take their pictures!
4 comments:
Thanks Eolake!
I liked the joke, too. (Probably more true than we realize.)
I might write a "rebuttal of the rebuttal" too, but I'm tired after finishing my ZI review. My view is that the camera is not the DETERMINANT. You can potentially take very good pictures with a "bad" camera and very bad pictures with a "good" camera. Moreover, which is which is partly predetermined by your definitions. When Michael R. says, "But I can't do a formal portrait, an architectural commission, a sports or wildlife shoot, or a table top still life or product shot without the right tools..." the fact is that he has a lot of results already in mind that he has pre-determined. That is, he knows what he means by "a sports or wildlife shoot." He is therefore not talking just about a tool but about the type of tool needed once you already have in mind the end result you desire.
I could go on...and maybe I will someday....
Cheers to you,
Mike J
Thanks.
I'm a painter too, and there are tons of books about technique and tools. I think any artist who has a flair for the technical will be interested in that as well. Just to serve his customer he has to, for example: which pigments are light-fast?
Feels to me like negating either side of the question would be foolish. It is true in any craft that good tools have great value to the craftsman, but it is he that does the work...
Succinct and well put.
Post a Comment