Related posts:
-
-
Custom Search Categories
Archives
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008




3 Comments
$ 10,000 Oooooooooh
Hmmm, wondering back a bit to the days of the ailing and starving Edward Weston on Wildcat Hill near Carmel. Wonder what EW would think of all these rich city boy shutterbugs…who’ve never taken a decent picture but have all the latest toys.
Do you need such an expensive lens to take a good picture in most situations? Obviously not. You don’t even need a Leica (dare I say!) (Chase Chavez with an iPhone is awesome). (I say most situations because you do need an expensive lens like a 400mm f/2.8 or a 600mm /4.0 to take decent wildlife pictures, and those lenses are expensive).
Does it necessarily follow that if you are rich and have a bunch of camera equipment, that you are necessarily a bad photographer who has never taken a decent picture? Or that if you did it’s out of pure luck and skill? I don’t know, but I think that is a bit of stereotype. Is that much different than saying that poor people who have cheap camera equipment are more likely to take decent pictures? Again, I don’t know since I’ve never conducted a controlled study myself . . .