We could say that, but that would be shooting fish in a barrel... frank theriault wrote: > On 9/17/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Gee, I have to mostly agree with the other guy on this one. You of course >> have >> to have a camera to take photos, but which one makes little difference >> whether >> they are great photos or not. Crappy photos can be shot with almost any >> camera, >> and great photos can be shot with almost any camera. The difference is the >> nut >> behind the camera, to paraphrase another saying. >> > > Of course that's what he ~meant~. You and I both know what he > ~meant~. But that's not what he ~said~. > > He said that my camera "has NOTHING to do with making great photos." > My point is that without a camera, even HCB couldn't take a great > photo. > > One could be a wag and say that, no camera that frank owns will ever > have anything to do with taking good photos, but ~that's~ not what he > meant either. > > At least, I don't think so... > > ;-) > > cheers, > frank > >
-- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
