This subject took a hard left after I posted my reply to the initial question. I stand by my statement that subject matter is more important that technical concerns, but in no way do i want that to mean all photos must tell a story. This guy looks goofy or that girl is hot or here's some pretty colors for an abstract is enough for me.

Like many parts of the art world world, each medium has parts of strictly art and others of simply craft, and in photography the two seem sometimes to be at war. There are artists that are weak in the craft area (Cartier-Bresson's greatest shots often had slight blur) and others that were strong in the craft (Thomas Kinkaide, need I say more?) A balance never hurts, but I have found that those who loudly proclaim the necessity of following the rules are really only ones who wish to impose their own values on all of us.

For me the answer to your question is no, they are not. I suspect to you the opposite is true.

By whose standards? There are no immutable laws of those things in photography, or any other art.

My suggestion is to go to a museum and examine how things are matted and framed. Generally, a single layer of matte, in white of cream, and a black or brown wood frame. There are also standards for how things are matted, no spray glue, hot press material and such. The standard for museums is for all to be reversable.

I have know many Leica owners, and when they were pointing out the advantages, they most often seemed deluded.

I''m more impressed with someone that can take an average camera and make great images. That's an artist.

Secondly, the nice thing about our wonderful language is its richness. We have ample words to describe the desirable and equally effective words to describe the coarse. "She has nice tits" is a coarse way to describe one aspect of a totally lovely body. It's a shame to offend a beautiful image with a coarse comment.[/quote]
Coarseness is in the eye of the beholder. The only ones to see that are ones that are constantly looking for it.

Misinterpretation. Sorry.

But what is there intrinsically about a Leica that demands the latest, greatest f1.4 lens other than bragging rights?

My first camera, a Pentax Spotmatic, had an f1.4 lens, the "kit lens' which is a new way of saying standard lens. I believe it was a good as anything from Leica.

So you're saying Leica makes crap lenses?

It's interesting that the quality of a body is as essential to some as the quality of a lens. A well designed body has only a very little bit to do with the imaqe, does it hold the film flat, does the shutter work reliably, or is the sensor not stifled by a thick anti aliasing filter and is the in camera processing competent? The lens, on the other hand, does but one thing, well or not so, make pretty pictures. If it doesn't get that done all is lost, and the name on the front has nothing to do with the result. Many of the lenses I had for a leica were exceeded in good results by lenses for my Olympus OM and Contax G2.

When I was shooting for a living, no one paid me more or even noticed what was shot using the Leica.

Reason could be oddly simple. When I owned an M9 one of the lenses I had was a Summarit, either the 28 or the 90. most of the Summarits are f2.5 lenses. I suspect these were introduced to offer the option of a "budget" lens, if budget and Leica can be used in the same sentence. Mine was a fine lens, but not special enough to keep the camera.

Unfortunately, a budget lens offsets a leica's power to make one's privates look larger. So I suspect they didn't sell well over competing f2 and 1.4 lenses.

Michaels is my go-to but I always wait for the 70% off sale. Still gets expensive.[/quote]

in a lot of locations, Michaels and Hobby Lobby are the most expensive option. They must mark up their regular proce so they can have sales.

If you are having it done locally, find a dependable local frame shop. Tell them you want it simple, not many layers of colored matte.

Frameworksmoulding.com. Sell all sorts, wood and metal, will matte and frame if desired.

You are quick to post a comment that provides no useful suggestions, and yet you aren't bright enough to tell a dog from a cat.

Those of us that have any experience in the arts are easily confounded by people who think their opinion of a work of art is the only valid one, or that anyone else cares what their opinion is.

And too many here throw the term porn around with abandon. That is a judgement that has been a moving target for all time. We should all recognise that this is 020, not 1920.

Timmers is an artist. Get used to it.

OOh my, yes she does. That's my third ex wife.

I'm surprised that one control freak comes here and starts a big fight over language. The kind of guy that does that would usually be the kind that would see that woman on a beach and call the cops, yet this parade of exhibitionists doesn't bother him a bit..