Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="crycocyon" data-source="post: 211405" data-attributes="member: 13076">One would have to purchase before he could practice. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I remember a saying from long ago. &quot;A complex photographer with simple equipment compares favorably to a simple photographer with complex equipment&quot;. I think one has to consider the technical versus aesthetic merits of a photograph. Things like resolution, contrast, color rendition, shadow detail, depth of field all come out of the tech specs of the equipment, namely optics and the sensor. To me those are irrelevant when it comes to considering aesthetics. Do they contribute to better photographs? Sure, but what matters so much more is what the photograph conveys artistically than what it is able to reproduce technically. Many forms of photography do not require technical excellence (journalism, candid, certain forms of art photography, etc.), but some on the other hand demand it (industrial, architectural, still life, etc.). Skill in photography is measured by how good your photos are. There was also another saying I remember:&quot;You are only as good as your last job&quot;. I'm not sure about that but I think that certainly we all strive to continually improve both technically and artistically in our pursuit of great photographs. Whether it is with an iPhone or a Hasselblad, the goal is the same.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="crycocyon, post: 211405, member: 13076"] One would have to purchase before he could practice. :) I remember a saying from long ago. "A complex photographer with simple equipment compares favorably to a simple photographer with complex equipment". I think one has to consider the technical versus aesthetic merits of a photograph. Things like resolution, contrast, color rendition, shadow detail, depth of field all come out of the tech specs of the equipment, namely optics and the sensor. To me those are irrelevant when it comes to considering aesthetics. Do they contribute to better photographs? Sure, but what matters so much more is what the photograph conveys artistically than what it is able to reproduce technically. Many forms of photography do not require technical excellence (journalism, candid, certain forms of art photography, etc.), but some on the other hand demand it (industrial, architectural, still life, etc.). Skill in photography is measured by how good your photos are. There was also another saying I remember: "You are only as good as your last job". I'm not sure about that but I think that certainly we all strive to continually improve both technically and artistically in our pursuit of great photographs. Whether it is with an iPhone or a Hasselblad, the goal is the same. [/QUOTE]

Verification