boy. you know how to get a point across. thats the best way i have ever heard it said.
*Maybe* most of us believe it, but we see an awful lot of snobbery and one-upmanship for me to truly believe that we truly believe it. You've got people who imply that you're not a 'real' photographer unless you use X, or that 'real' photographers know how to Y, or that in my day, when we *really* had to be photographers, we learned to Z. Bull puckie thrice over. It is just as possible to be a technically proficient hack as it is to be a full-auto hack. The former just takes longer to learn than the latter. Kenny G is technically brilliant on the saxophone. Van Morrison is an inspired primitive on the saxophone. Which of the two makes better music? Of course, you can be technically proficient AND make good music (or pictures), but the latter does not naturally follow from the former. The only thing 'real' photographers do is make good pictures. We've seen as crappy shots from people who control every step of the process as we have from people who use their cameras exclusively in full auto mode. The only difference is the tricks you have to use to make the camera put what you want on the film. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S, and other ramblings with a rant at the very e > I think most of us on this list believe it is the > photographer what makes the real difference. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
