>Great photos are 95% technique and 5% equipment. >Unfortunately one can not go out and buy technique; one has to study, and >practice, and put in lots of effort to acquire it. So it will never be as fashionable as >buying a new camera, or lens, or filter, or whatever.
>So, in some ways a poor but serious photographer is better off than a rich one. >She learns to work around the equipments limitations, and even to use those >limitations as a pictorial element in her work. Good points. I'll tell my friend he should stop buying stuff so he can focus on figuring out how to use what he does have :o) right now I've realized I love to crop pictures on the computer - so I'm trying to take pictures that don't need to be cropped. One step at a time! rg2 On 9/10/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great photos are 95% technique and 5% equipment. > > Unfortunately one can not go out and buy technique; one has to study, and > practice, and put in lots of effort to acquire it. So it will never be as > fashionable as buying a new camera, or lens, or filter, or whatever. > > So, in some ways a poor but serious photographer is better off than a rich > one. She learns to work around the equipments limitations, and even to use > those limitations as a pictorial element in her work. > > > > Rebekah wrote: > > > > > I heard a story once, that was > > probably an urban legend, about some guy who shot a fashion shoot wtih > > disposable cameras and turned out great pictures. I don't know if > > it's true, but I think it could be, because knowing your equipment and > > its capabilities is probably the most important thing (after owning a > > Pentax, anyways) ;) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
