NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, My way is the right way. Youse is all wrong if you dose it any other way.
Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:24 PM Subject: I'm all about enablement, baby > > Subject: Of course, anything Mike says is by definition right.... > > > I should reply more seriously: > > I strongly believe that there are no rules with any of this stuff. One PJ > says four lenses is the max, and Elliot Erwitt takes along everything he > owns! Well, point disproved, eh? Because Erwitt is certainly one of the > greatest. > > I really think that if one person uses only one lens and refuses to touch > anything manufactured after 1978 and has to develop his prints in goat > urine, well, that's cool, and if another person buys everything the day it's > introduced and picks his lenses based on what he's wearing that day and > shoots only in the morning, WHATEVER! There just is no right and > wrong...except if it's what works and doesn't work for each of us. It's a > HOBBY, and we're having FUN,* and that means whatever we choose to > concentrate on is okay. People used to call me at the magazine and apologize > for this or that technical interest, as if it were somehow shameful to > collect old box cameras or make spreadsheets on d.o.f. for each focal length > or experiment with developer additives. Why apologize? If it's fun and you > think it's useful, do it up. I really think anything goes with this stuff. > > I even think that some of the widely accepted "truths" are bull, too. For > instance, does a "good" lens make for better pictures? Not in my book. Is > what matters the finished work? Don't bet on it--I know plenty of REALLY > GOOD photographers who've never gotten any recognition or remuneration. And > so what if somebody sucks as a photographer but enjoys shooting, or learning > about some aspect of photography, or collecting something or other? Why does > the fact that their pictures suck make the hobby any less enjoyable? It may, > but it may not, and, if it doesn't, then I say screw it and enjoy yourself. > > It's one of the nice things about this list that people are generally so > tolerant. JCO is crazy about Spotties and Aaron's got the 67 bug, and I had > that little psychotic episode where I felt it was up to me to justify > digital, and there are even a few people who don't even shoot with Pentaxes, > and everybody seems to take all that in stride. Which is ENTIRELY the right > attitude about photography as far as I'm concerned. > > So am I always right? Just for me. I've got my mojo worked out and yeah, I > believe in what I do and I'm enthusiastic about it, and I'll tell anybody > who wants to listen. But if I hate cat pictures, so what? Does that mean > somebody else can't exclusively concentrate on cat pictures as a life's > work, and refuse to look at any photograph that doesn't have a cat in it? Of > course not. That person is just doing THEIR thing. I'm doing mine. We're all > cool. > > Now I'll stop before I start sounding any more like a retread hippie. <g> > > --Mike > > * You might say that some people are professionals and it's all business for > them. Well, I say that's bull too--they're doing this because they love it > too; they're just being more serious and sensible about the hobby, is all. > I've never met a photographer who didn't dig photography. > - > 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 . - 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 .
