> > With the greatest of respect, John, > > (That's code for "I disagree very strongly with your statement" <vbg> - as > if you didn't already know)
That's OK - it could have been "With all due respect". In the same language, that's code for "I disagree with you, and I think you're an idiot for even putting such a ridiculous position forward" :-) > Your camera user categories are so generalized, and overlap so much, that > they are absolutely meaningless. > > An "art" photographer doesn't or can't want a technically perfect > photograph, or desire to get "the best possible capture of a particular > scene or moment"? It's more a question of which is more important at the time. We've seen several good "art" shots discussed here (the work of HCB being one example) that were often lacking technically. But that doesn't matter, because the strength of the image doesn't depend on getting all the technical detals perfect. Other photographers (Ansel Adams, say) rarely let anyone see an image that was anything other than technically perfect. > Is a snapshooter unable to want either art or technical perfection? > > It seems to me that you belittle both "artists" and "snapshooters". That's not my intention. (and "snapshooter" isn't my label, by the way). Much of what I do would probably fall more into the snapshooter category, although I also play in the technical camp. I don't say much about the artistic side of images because I don't consider that an area where I am particularly well qualified. But, again, neither of us is the typical mass-market SLR customer. We've both had images printed larger than 6x4, and had them displayed to more than our immediate circle of friends and family.
