Re: [Leica] How much difference is there....really

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 01:17
Subject: Re: [Leica] How much difference is there....really


> Better pictures. I'm not saying their opinion doesn't
> count, but if the only option you give them is self-described
> boring pictures, then maybe you ought to take stock and
> see if your skills are up to making better pictures.

They seem boring to me (and to Real Photographers), but they fulfill their
purpose.  I'm not sure that artistic masterpieces would be well received, even
if I could produce them.  People come to the site from search engines when they
are looking for photographs of various things in Paris, and impressionistic
images of the city might not be to their liking.  There's no shortage of that on
the Web already, since every tourist wants to get a unique photograph of every
monument (typically with dismal results).

> Otherwise, why bother using great cameras and lenses?

'Cause I like great cameras and lenses!

And it does make a slight difference sometimes.  There are many links in the
chain from image to Web, and most people seem to screw up at least a few of
them, leading to really rotten results online.

> If all they want is mug shots. They don't know what they want
> until they see what's out there.

Well, I have an "Art Photo" section for those who want to see more subjective
stuff.  It contains a handful of photos that I like for one reason or another,
although most of them are happy accidents.

> If I'm not growing, I figure I might as well lay down and die.
> Such an attitude leads to better pictures.

I do try to take better pictures.  However, even if I succeed, they probably
won't be suitable for my Web site.

Also, some of the best pictures are those that include people, but photographing
people is problematic, unless one is invisible.  I have succeeded in taking a
few candid shots (the Leica works great for that) and some other less candid
shots of people, but none of them are worth showing to anyone at this point in
time.  Maybe someday.

> If you don't care about that, stop wasting your money on
> high quality cameras and lenses that will never live up
> to their potential anyway.

A lot of photographers spend a great deal of money on equipment precisely in
order to produce boring pictures.  A lot of wedding photography and product
photography comes to mind.  Both types of photos are really bland, typically,
but you still need the right equipment to produce clean, clear images.

> On the other hand if you use them because they feel good
> in your hand, or there's some special feeling you have from
> fondling them, then by all means, do it.

There's that, too, but it's minor.

> But twaddling on about how great and useful your pictures
> are, and at the same time talking about how boring they are
> is self-indulgent and wastes bandwidth.

I didn't say they were great, I just said that they were useful.  There's a
difference between what people expect when visiting my site, and what I like
myself.  It would be very self-indulgent for me to set up a gallery of photos I
thought were nice just because I thought they were nice.  Instead, I set up a
gallery of pictures that other people are looking for, even though I don't find
them exceptional myself.  This makes the site more of a useful resource for
others, instead of a personal monument to ego.

  -- Anthony