Re: Message VS Medium--It Ain't the Camera

["David W. Almy" <dalmy@mindspring.com>]

All,

A hundred years ago, back in 1976, I wrote a letter to the photo editor
at National Geographic asking what kind of photography training his
photogs had. He wrote back that none of them had a degree in
photography, but were architects, artists, doctors, yada, yada, yada.
With my infinite wisdom, I decided to get a leg up on the staff at
National Geo by getting a photography degree, which I did (B.S., RIT,
82). Three months into school, I was told that National Geographic
photogs shot to the National Geographic style ONLY and thus abandoned my
hopes to do it my way, now that I was duly qualified with a degree, for
Gilbert & Co. Subsequently learned more in the field than at school
(shocking, eh?), but I do not regret attending RIT. FWIW, later went
back to school to learn how to write, after writing for several years,
and got an MS in journalism (M.S., Columbia, 86). Today, 94 cents and my
degrees gets me a 16 oz. coffee at 7-11 on the way to work every
morning. 

Old news: The greatest variable in this whole picture-making process is
the photographer. Fred Ward with a Brownie Box probably could take
better pictures than I could with an R8, although I would give him a run
for his money. My point: great people produce great photographs. The
technical stuff can be learned, in school or in life, and the equipment
can be bought, but the eye develops elsewhere, deeper, and more
arduously taught. 

Relax, everyone. There is no sacred path to becoming an exceptional
photographer. And that's fine. There's room for many views, at many
levels. Kodak's still making lots of film, and they'll make more.

Oddly enough, today I hire photographers occasionally. And my office, at
18th & M Streets in downtown Washington, DC, is a mere two blocks from
National Geographic's headquarters. I walk by every now and again, and
look inside, and wonder. Funny how things turn out.

Cheers,

David W. Almy
Annapolis, Maryland