Monday, May 22, 2006

The Photographer, or The Camera??

OK, this is an oldie, from January 2003. I’ve been looking through my archive disks, trying to rework some of the past productions. And it’s made me rethink an axiom. Is it the photographer, or the camera?? I’ve long held that a good photographer can excel with a bad camera, while the best camera in the world won’t salvage the vision of a bad photographer. But in reviewing these old shots, I’m not so sure (at least about the 1st part). After being back in the “real” camera world for 1.5 years (with my Nikon D-70), I’m shocked at how bad these old shots are. Crappy sharpness, digital noise, poor dynamic range... the whole thing. I had to do a TON of post processing on this one to even get it up to mediocre. And several shots that I posted to contests 3 years ago are downright unsalvageable. Maybe a really good photographer could excel with that old Kodak LS443, but I was churning out crap!!.

5 comments:

Jonathan S. said...

How dare you to say that the person who took the picture of "Lady Blue" is a bad photographer! That's the best photograph I've ever seen of a lady in blue. Blue ladies get their pictures taken A LOT, and there's no better blue lady picture taker than the one you mentioned as "bad." Shame on you. You go, Blue Lady photographer, You go!

LSqrd said...

my humblest apologies..

Ol' Froth said...

Heh, I was half expecting the "bad photographer" link to take me to one of my crappy shots!

LSqrd said...

Nah. You're safe Frothy, you've got potential! And you haven't pasted crappy shots in photo contests (yet). Even I've done THAT!

Sherry P said...

i was sure that when i clicked it would be one of my old 110 photos of my basil plants. now, there's excitement! ; )