Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > Just because a picture is in focus and properly exposed (which is all these > cameras can do) does not mean the image is "high quality." I think that > kind of sentiment can actually help perpetuate the idea that photographers > are just button-pushers. "Hey, if I had his camera, I could take pictures > just like him, why pay him $1,000 to do it? Eric, Actually yes, by "high quality" I did mean 'in focus and properly exposed'. Which is, I agree, an extremely narrow definition of quality. But one that works - due to the viewer's lack of photographic culture - for a lot of daily photography (local newspaper people pics for example). Talent for subject selection, composition, tweaking of light, best focus depth, whatever, is a different matter. Most people, buyers included, do not really care about that... The high end glossy fashion shots, sports, close-ups of lion eating zebra, etc, require a hardware and logistics investment that usually put them out of reach of the layman. A protected pro zone. > Because very, very few people can actually produce "high quality" work. > Pro, let alone amateur. I guess we'll disagree here: I have no reason to believe there is a 'per se' hierarchy supposing more quality on the pro side. More reliability, yes, more adaptability, a better sense of opportunity, more efficiency. But not necessarily more quality. > And there are plenty of photographers out there making six figures. To me, > anyway, that's dang good money. Though I know of only one photojournalist > who makes six figures - James Natchwey, the greatest war photographer ever. Plenty ? Not on this side of the Atlantic anyway. A few, probably yes, in France, Italy or Germany. But not plenty. True, the PJ is certainly even less of a walking jackpot. Especially if he/she spends that little income on Leica equipment ;-/ Alan