Perry Loc: Washington Michigan

Agreed, very well said.

Perry Loc: Washington Michigan

I guess some used to say the same about automatic transmissions vs manual transmissions too.

I don't agree that you can stick a digital camera in anyone's hand and POOF! They're a photographer, anymore than you can stick some kid behind the wheel of a car equipped with an auto trans... There's still some learning that has to be done. We all have seen family albums where people have old polaroid pics that are washed out with too bright of an environment, or too dark, or someone's head is half chopped out of the pic, they aren't "photographers", or even amatures... They are typically people who haven't a clue about photography or getting a nice pic, they are simply "capturing a memory". You can even see plenty of those kinds of images on facebook too.

If I had the money and the time, I would go to a photography school, but I don't so I come here, and go out and do it and try to learn each time I go out. That is how photography began... The first guy to invent the camera and then use it, didn't start with the knowlege the average Kodak polaroid camera owner had. He just started taking shots and developing them, and learned what to do and what not to do.

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

Very well said, Edwin. I am 51 now, and I have only been playing with photography since 2000 for the simple fact that I wasn't interested in buying film to take mediocre pics. It was when digital cameras came out, I was curious, and got one, and then I was hooked. My wife who I met shortly afterwards, encouraged me to explore it further, but we never could afford to get me a primo camera. We got my Nikon point and shooter, and I have been bitten by the bug again. I hope to be able to afford a nice DSLR camera one day, and like you, I live for getting that "shot of a life time".[/quote]

Ya know, I think I had the shot of a life time, several times in my life......unfortuately, I was not into photography at the time.
Even if I was, I would have had to take the picture on auto, learning how to take a great shot requires a lot of knowledge. But knowing what a great shot is requires an artistic eye.
I been trying to get that great shot for the past 20 months, but alass, not that I want it, maybe know how to get it......it's just not there......C'est la vie.

IvanF Loc: New York City

I would like to add my $0.02 to this discussion.

When I started photography, back in the Jurassic era, circa 1959 people were still arguing whether photography was "art." Even as a young man I found this argument beside the point, a means of expression is not an "art," what a person of talent does with a means of expression, perhaps, is art. Putting paint on a surface is not art, nor is putting notes together art, nor is talking or kneading clay.

Anybody who has no vocal problems is blessed with the ability to talk. Now, how many of us are great story tellers? We have, arguably, a really high-tech apparatus at our disposal, the vocal chords and the marvelous muscles that move our tongues and lips, yet as I listen, on TV, radio, at work on the street most talk is not "art." Sheherezade used the same equipment to weave magic.

George Eastman creating the Brownie and "you push the button, we do the rest" did not destroy photography, it gave folks the pleasure of making their own souvenirs and his company Kodak, making film commercially, freed photographer from having to coat their emulsions in the field, a la Matthew Brady and Co., thus paving the way for Stieglitz, Steichen, Weston, Adams et al.

What I find so wonderful now that you may actually choose 19th century techniques (like platinum printing) as a means of your expression or the latest view camera with scanning digital back that can create billboard size images with color and resolution never before possible. Whether it's art or not shouldn't be our concern. Doing what we love to the best of our abilities (and pocketbook) is the real satisfaction. "Art" is in the eye of the beholder or, if you are lucky enough to be associated with an art gallery, in the eye of the curator.

End of rant :)

I wish you many hours of happy picture taking/making.

BrandyVSOP Loc: Oregon USA

"It ain't the arrow, it's the Injin - Lee Travino"

A photo friend just posted that comment, under our group where it says, "What kind of camera do you own?"
I like it a lot, and think how eloquently simple it is.

I started out in photography with film cameras just when they were getting "Through The Lens Metering" and bayonet mount lenses. They were not automatic, you had to decide what aperture and shutter speed to use with every shot. The "ASA" now "ISO" was not much of a matter of choice. There was no Auto focus. I'm so thankful I entered photography at that point. It gave me the understanding of those integral relationships.

The more lenses I got, the more decisions there were about which to use. I bought some Medium Format cameras Mamiya M645 & RB-67... ( someone's dream camera... It now sits idle in a case over by the door.)

At some point I quit taking pictures until I got my first Digital camera a Sony Mavica FD-73 in 1999. It used 3 1/2" floppy discs for its "Film". That camera awakened my creativity like never had before. Only one lens, with a 35mm equivalent of 40 to 400mm with a 10x optical zoom lens. I had so much fun with it, and my creativity with it was amazing.

4 years ago. I bought another much more modern digital camera (P&S) with adjustable aperture and shutter speed. It was fun.

Now I have 2, 2007 model Canon 40D's and an ever expanding lens collection.

I take pictures for my enjoyment (like I always have), and keep trying to make myself happier with my images. But from my very first camera, to the one I might have 5 from now, they are the tools I use to capture the images with. The pictures are a product of my creativity, my artistic imagination (or lack there of), and the equipment I use. Some of my new expensive L lenses, give me images I could only dream about in the past.

But in the end...
"It ain't the arrow, it's the Injin - Lee Travino"

user2071 Loc: New England

Oh wow I had that Mavica too. Two of them, actually. They were totally cool at the time. Loved those floppy disks (remember when floppy disks were really floppy?).

Yes, it has been a journey and I'm glad it's not over. Never had a Mamiya, but I had a Rollei and a Bronica. Actually, I've had so many cameras I really don't remember all of them. I guess I'm not done yet.

BrandyVSOP Loc: Oregon USA

I actually had 2 Also! the FD-73 & then the 75
I believe I still have most every camera I've ever had except the Mamiya 645... That one, went away to settle a divorce... It was a VERY fun camera too!

I hope I keep having fun along this journey...

Randyb1969 Loc: Armpit of California

Wow. It took me quite a while to read through all 6 pages of this. I'm a slow reader. And you know what I found? This question was never designed for true debate because there really is none. There is only 1 right answer.

YES it has. Anyone that even tries to argue otherwise simply ends up showing how narrow minded and elitist they are. Ansel Adams would have taken great photos with a 5DmkII and he would have edited the shit out of them in Photoshop. "People who only shoot digital shoot 1000 frames to one good shot." Bull shit. "You need to pay your dues to be a great photographer." Bull shit. All you need is a camera and a love for the art. How is that not better?

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Oh wow I had that Mavica too. Two of them, actually. They were totally cool at the time. Loved those floppy disks (remember when floppy disks were really floppy?).

Yes, it has been a journey and I'm glad it's not over. Never had a Mamiya, but I had a Rollei and a Bronica. Actually, I've had so many cameras I really don't remember all of them. I guess I'm not done yet.[/quote]

I guess a lot of us have had the Mavica, I gave it to someone and never got it back. Also had a Rollei. Great Camera.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Randy,
I was referring to those who consider themselves pros because they have pro (Sic) quality cameras, 5DmkII or any of the Canon 1Ds models or Nikon D3s. It all still boils down to the individual, I shoot Fashion, am I Dan Leca, no, or Randy, no, but I do get a lot of work and make a good living.
I have seen the work of many of the so called pros, and know many that are not pros who put them to shame. It is the person, not the equipment that makes photography an art, the equipment just makes it easier.

Randyb1969 Loc: Armpit of California

I agree, but that has nothing to do with technology. That's about money. I suppose I should not have used the 5D in my statement. If Ansel Adams were 14 today and someone gave him a kodak P&S digicam, he'd still be Ansel Adams. But if he were born to a poor family and the only way for him to be great was to have a medium format camera and his own darkroom, guess what? He'd be working at Wendys and the world would miss out. That's why technology is good. It's the only thing that even begins to equalize masses with the wealthy.

user2071 Loc: New England

That's a really good point and I never thought of it. But you're right.

gizzy.whicker Loc: Cumberland Co., Illinois

Let's face it... we boys will be boys. One factor that separates the men from the boys is the cost of their toys, cameras included. I'm still very childish in that regard.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

[quote=Randyb1969][quote=George H]

Randy,
I was referring to those who consider themselves pros because they have pro (Sic) quality cameras, 5DmkII or any of the Canon 1Ds models or Nikon D3s. It all still boils down to the individual, I shoot Fashion, am I Dan Leca, no, or Randy, no, but I do get a lot of work and make a good living.
I have seen the work of many of the so called pros, and know many that are not pros who put them to shame. It is the person, not the equipment that makes photography an art, the equipment just makes it easier.[/quote

Randy,
Never thought of it that way but agree, even so those with desire will find the way.

I agree, but that has nothing to do with technology. That's about money. I suppose I should not have used the 5D in my statement. If Ansel Adams were 14 today and someone gave him a kodak P&S digicam, he'd still be Ansel Adams. But if he were born to a poor family and the only way for him to be great was to have a medium format camera and his own darkroom, guess what? He'd be working at Wendys and the world would miss out. That's why technology is good. It's the only thing that even begins to equalize masses with the wealthy.[/quote]