Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/07[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 07:53 PM 7/7/98 -0700, you wrote: >how many photographers were at wimbledon ? how many truly great photographs >were taken ? i'll wager two or three....given the number of actual shots >taken my granny probably *could* do better !! :-) This attitude is part of the problem. No matter how boring the stuff you see in the magazines is, the truly great photographers can stand right next to someone else photographing the same thing, and make better pictures. And you can bet there were a bunch of great pictures taken at Wimbeldon. You just don't seem many of them. Society is so exposed to great photos they start thinking there are no great photos out there. Hogwash. There's lots of great photos, in spite of the magazines. We just don't see them. And your granny's stuff would look lots worse, and having an auto camera is of no help here. A properly exposed bad picture, a properly focused bad pictures is that. A bad picture. Amateur or pro makes no difference. Though pros have a lot more time to practice, so the proportion of good work is done by more pros, on average, than amateurs. But then average doesn't tell us much. It's the extremes that define the limits. - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.