PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post

**Neil Harrington[_3_]** · October 7th 09, 12:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:09:44 -0400, wrote:
: Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
: their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
: with the tools than the images they make?

It's just you.

Bob

Maybe so. Based on the responses, I may be wrong.

I just seem to see many many post about this lens or that
camera or a plastic part used here or there or someone worried that
that this or that camera has 5% more pixels.

Time and ime again, their arguments all tend to be, plastic is
bad, or this or that lens may resolve a couple of additional lines for
1,000. They tend to embrase the science of photography while ignoring
the art of photograhy, the end result.

I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of
photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely
talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better
results than the lesser photographer with the best gear.

I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this
NG is devoted to a specific type of camera.

Pretty much.

But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the artist
playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with his tools in a
very intimate way. The science of the tool in artistic hands is understood
in the terms of the art, not the science, So discussions tend to be
heated, passionate, and very unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with
a little patience, it becomes clear that two combatants are actually on
the same page, only speaking different language.

Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads.

There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of
photography. And there are some talented artists out there who really
don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very skilled
photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The difference
between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent is inate. Skill
understands the science of why it does what it does. Talent understands
the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill may be able to express it
reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if you will, while talent is less
able to express its reasoning scientifically. But it can speak to the
emotions of what drives it. Performance differences between skill and
talent can be negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever
talent does inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the
art.

And there will usually be more skilled photographers than talented
photographers.

So, the discussions tend to the science.

And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will be
fewer discussions by the talent of the art.

So, again, discussions tend to be of the science.

Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled, learning the
science, pursuing the art.

Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for the ego.
It's one of the things that makes them brilliant.

But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they tend
to take the last word, about the science and the art.

And...yes, plastic is bad.

Other than Nikon plastic.