The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Photography Is Dead! ... Long Live Photography!

fotografz

Well-known member
I thought I would post part of an on-going face-to-face conversation between myself and another Get Dpi member regarding the state of photography and our own personal quest of how to move forward. Perhaps of interest to others here ... and better yet, more insight could be contributed by other members.

- Marc


"Jim,

I thought about our conversation some more after you left.

Like many other photographers these days, including myself, there is something of a crisis of indecision going on ... quite confusing for many.

I think we covered the various problems yesterday, but not many solutions.

The decisions regarding gear and process seemed well represented ... how much gear?, film verses digital?, color verses B&W?, printing the results (silver prints verses inkjet?) ... even the effects of advancing age in our case, the proliferation and democratization of photography, and how society reacts to the photographer when the main subject is people. All well defined issues.

However, I believe we were dancing around the primary core issue. All of those discussion points we covered are actually an array of answers in search of the real question. They cannot be answered because they are answers themselves. To use them as answers first requires defining the purpose of our photography.

In essence, all the gear/process stuff keeps getting rehashed over and over because the key tool in any visual art including photography is the eye and brain. All the other stuff is just enabling the eye/brain ... to make visible what we think and see.

Jean-François Leroy says it quite well in a video recently included on the Burn Magazine site ... scroll down to it and give it a look:

burn magazine

Consider subscribing to Burn, as well as Photo RAW because they are much more oriented to purpose, subject matter and art, than the means to take photos that dominates most photo forums.

Photo Raw Magazine | The voice of a photographer..

These two websites offer some relief from the usual web chatter, and tend to point to the desperate need to think about what we want to say visually, and how that informs our choices. The notion that "all eyes are equal" is no more true now with a trillion images being taken by the cell-phone/shutterbug collective, than it was when photography was more technically specialized.

If the public can't distinguish our efforts, than it may be so because we aren't thinking enough, we don't have "the eye" that Leroy so well defines in the above video, or the audience is simply wrong. Since when did distinguishing creative or artistic success fall to the masses anyway? Just because we take photos doesn't make us a photographer. To become one requires the brain/eye development meshed with RAW talent as a base ... then the means to make that visible is a minor issue that is more easily answered.

Your thoughts?"


- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There Marc
Thank you for that - I enjoyed Jean-Francois Leroy's piece very much.

It seems to me that it boils down to two issues.

1. developing one's 'eye' to the extent that it works unerringly, and so that the equipment (whether it be an iphone or an S2) doesn't get in the way.

2. directing one's 'eye' to produce coherent work.

Neither of these things has a great deal to do with the kit - mind you, personally I think that an interest in kit is an honourable occupation . . . it just doesn't have a very close relationship to the images one takes.

all the best
 
V

Vivek

Guest
However, I believe we were dancing around the primary core issue. All of those discussion points we covered are actually an array of answers in search of the real question. They cannot be answered because they are answers themselves. To use them as answers first requires defining the purpose of our photography.


- Marc
Gold Dust! :) :thumbs:
 

GregMO

Member
"
If the public can't distinguish our efforts, than it may be so because we aren't thinking enough, we don't have "the eye" that Leroy so well defines in the above video, or the audience is simply wrong. Since when did distinguishing creative or artistic success fall to the masses anyway? Just because we take photos doesn't make us a photographer. "
I think the public in general is very uneducated about the qualities that make up a "good" photograph or what truly goes into making one. The majority of images floating around are very poor & that number grows exponentially everyday. So the average person looks around & says to themselves.. "I can do that or I can take a better picture." In their logic, someone who takes a picture is a photographer. Though, I don't think that most people go as far enough to call themselves artists.

So maybe the better question to ask to differentiate ourselves is how we make our photographs art. All genres of photography have images that call fall into some definition of art. It's certainly possible, just more challenging.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jean-François Leroy is right, and it's annoying. The iPhone crowd is easy to live with, being directly related to those who took photos with Kodak Instamatics during the sixties and seventies. The biggest difference is that they take a zillion more photos, mostly of themselves.

At the other end of the universe are the storytellers and those who take truly beautiful photos. There are probably as many of those as there ever was, but being seen has become increasingly difficult in a world filled with digital noise. Related to them is a small army of commercial, event and wedding photographers who soldier on, fighting diminishing profit margins but survive on their enthusiasm and hopes for a better future.

Somewhere in between is a community of pretentious, well healed semiprofessional amateurs with camera bags filled to the brim with red dot gear. You see them in the streets of Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, cities with more "international" photo workshops than inhabitants, taking portraits of children who are probably poor and hungry since they have no iPhone, before they return to the safety of a western style bar and an air-conditioned hotel room. I wouldn't mind if they didn't see themselves as a cross-breed between HCB and Christopher Columbus and posted all their photos on every Facebook, Instagram, 500px etc. street corner available on the world wide web, expecting "likes" in the thousands. And the claqueurs are there, ready to click the mouse. Increasingly many have too much these days, and somehow confuses ability to buy with ability to create.

I'm not sure if much of this have changed dramatically, but there is so much more of everything now than before. At least there's more junk; iPhone junk, Leica junk, Canon Junk etc.

In the middle of all this, there are photographers who try to create images that make a difference. It's tempting to give up. Challenging the wall of noise seems an impossible task most of the time. My criteria are changing. Photos of friends and relatives are safe bets, in addition to the commercial work I do.

I bought a smartphone a few weeks ago. It's probably the most pointless device I've ever owned. It has no keypad, making it awkward to work with, has a great camera with a useless interface and has so many functions that I've never felt a need for that I feel dizzy just looking at the thing. A stupidphone and my F6 work better for me. Much better. I don't mind carrying a camera, and when I don't, I can live with not getting a photo of whatever crosses the road on my way to the toilet. The fact that a device looks and works like something from a science fiction movie doesn't make it more useful.

But I'm wrong of course. Smartphones will take over a huge majority of the camera market, and it's happening right now. This happens at a time when photographers who need something more advanced have started to realise that they don't need to upgrade at every street corner. All the cameras that I own produce more than acceptable results, and most of them will continue to do so for the rest of my life. So I've started looking more at which cameras give me the most satisfaction to use. Then I go out and take photos with today's choice, if I find something worth capturing. Yesterday, I took 2 photos. Happy memories captured on Ilford Delta 3200 with my OM-3.

So camera manufacturers are in a very vulnerable position. There aren't many left, but still I think some will die or at least be considerably reduced in the years to come. One can of course hope for some kind of revolution, but I already question much of the inventions that have appeared the last decade. I predict lots of plastic fantastic sci-fi inventions but few new cameras that better my F6 or my Contax RX when it comes to what I try to achieve: Create images that make a difference for at least one more person than myself.

Sorry for the rant.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Jean-François Leroy is right, and it's annoying. The iPhone crowd is easy to live with, being directly related to those who took photos with Kodak Instamatics during the sixties and seventies. The biggest difference is that they take a zillion more photos, mostly of themselves.

At the other end of the universe are the storytellers and those who take truly beautiful photos. There are probably as many of those as there ever was, but being seen has become increasingly difficult in a world filled with digital noise. Related to them is a small army of commercial, event and wedding photographers who soldier on, fighting diminishing profit margins but survive on their enthusiasm and hopes for a better future.

Somewhere in between is a community of pretentious, well healed semiprofessional amateurs with camera bags filled to the brim with red dot gear. You see them in the streets of Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, cities with more "international" photo workshops than inhabitants, taking portraits of children who are probably poor and hungry since they have no iPhone, before they return to the safety of a western style bar and an air-conditioned hotel room. I wouldn't mind if they didn't see themselves as a cross-breed between HCB and Christopher Columbus and posted all their photos on every Facebook, Instagram, 500px etc. street corner available on the world wide web, expecting "likes" in the thousands. And the claqueurs are there, ready to click the mouse. Increasingly many have too much these days, and somehow confuses ability to buy with ability to create.

I'm not sure if much of this have changed dramatically, but there is so much more of everything now than before. At least there's more junk; iPhone junk, Leica junk, Canon Junk etc.

In the middle of all this, there are photographers who try to create images that make a difference. It's tempting to give up. Challenging the wall of noise seems an impossible task most of the time. My criteria are changing. Photos of friends and relatives are safe bets, in addition to the commercial work I do.

I bought a smartphone a few weeks ago. It's probably the most pointless device I've ever owned. It has no keypad, making it awkward to work with, has a great camera with a useless interface and has so many functions that I've never felt a need for that I feel dizzy just looking at the thing. A stupidphone and my F6 work better for me. Much better. I don't mind carrying a camera, and when I don't, I can live with not getting a photo of whatever crosses the road on my way to the toilet. The fact that a device looks and works like something from a science fiction movie doesn't make it more useful.

But I'm wrong of course. Smartphones will take over a huge majority of the camera market, and it's happening right now. This happens at a time when photographers who need something more advanced have started to realise that they don't need to upgrade at every street corner. All the cameras that I own produce more than acceptable results, and most of them will continue to do so for the rest of my life. So I've started looking more at which cameras give me the most satisfaction to use. Then I go out and take photos with today's choice, if I find something worth capturing. Yesterday, I took 2 photos. Happy memories captured on Ilford Delta 3200 with my OM-3.

So camera manufacturers are in a very vulnerable position. There aren't many left, but still I think some will die or at least be considerably reduced in the years to come. One can of course hope for some kind of revolution, but I already question much of the inventions that have appeared the last decade. I predict lots of plastic fantastic sci-fi inventions but few new cameras that better my F6 or my Contax RX when it comes to what I try to achieve: Create images that make a difference for at least one more person than myself.

Sorry for the rant.
Rant appreciated Jorgen!

I think the point about "noise" meshes with my comment about "Since when did the public at large become the arbitrators of visual creativity?"

That there is "more" noise is not in doubt. It has become a cacophony of epic proportions where wave upon wave of photos are "here today, gone today".

The question is ... why do we care? Do we look to the public for approval? Do we really care that "the many" post mundane images in the billions, and then congratulate each other? Did HCB give a care what some 9 to 5 shop keeper thought about his images?

This isn't meant to appear elitist ... it IS elitist ... just like most other forms of personal creative expression. Is Cindy Sherman driven by what most people think? Or Sally Mann ... Or was Eugene Meatyard?

To succumb to wanting such approval renders us back to a childlike state ... to days when Mom proudly taped your drawing to the 'fridge. As an artist, I fast outgrew what my mother thought of my drawings ... she didn't have a clue.

One cannot cast pearls to swine, and then complain when the herd of piggies stomp all over them in the mud, or totally ignore them.

If discrimination is the hallmark of making better photographs, doesn't it stand to reason that same discrimination needs to be exercised in where, and with whom, we share our thinking, expressions and efforts?

Your statement ... "What I try to achieve: Create images that make a difference for at least one more person than myself." is one damned good place to start IMO.

However, I also subscribe to the notion that you have to make a difference to yourself first.

BTW, I don't have any opinion about people with more means than ability or talent ... nor care much whether some people upgrade at every new development. I don't have a clue if it is legitimate or excess. Doesn't mean I can't indulge if I so choose ... IF it can help me better express myself.

As a side note: I now only take weddings I want, and increased my prices to sift out those that do not appreciate the effort I make on every wedding I shoot. At the last wedding, I spent a lot of time setting up a portrait ... moved tables, positioned the couple, got them to relax etc. etc. ... when I turned to get into position there were 22 people shooting my set-up ... some with high end Nikons and Canons. I humorously quipped to the Groom that this image would be up on Facebook before I got home that night. It was ... and the herd endorsed the talents of the posters who basked in the glory with no mention of who set it all up. Of course by the time the real shot gets exposed with professional lighting etc, the immediate need gratification will be gone ... here today, gone today ... move on to the next photo injection. Yet, the client is ecstatic and sees the difference ... which is why they hired me ... a difference made for two people ... which is just fine.

- Marc
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Thank you for your positive feedback. I was worried for a moment. Luckily, there always seems to be some with enough talent and energy to float a few inches higher than the rest. Those of us who are over 50 might not recognize that talent when we see it. The world is changing after all. Maybe riding a wrecking ball in the nude is what it takes these days to gain some recognition :eek:
 

Tim

Active member
I felt uneasy about photography when the cost of grabbing a single image became close to zero - this happened when digital came about. In the days of film there was both a monetary cost and an effort cost of having film processed, picking up prints or making prints. I think we took more care on what and how we made images as there was an upfront and cost after. At least I think I did.

The camera in a "smartphone" is nearly given away with the phone - after all its the phone that most are buying, but it happens to include a camera. So we have a double value reduction on both the camera and the cost of grabbing the image within. Has this led to the loss in quality and the noise that Jorgen describes?

Forget the old game of "if you could only have one camera which would you choose" what would you do if you could only take one image a week? How much effort would you make for that image? Would you choose more carefully how to "spend" the frame?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thank you for your positive feedback. I was worried for a moment. Luckily, there always seems to be some with enough talent and energy to float a few inches higher than the rest. Those of us who are over 50 might not recognize that talent when we see it. The world is changing after all. Maybe riding a wrecking ball in the nude is what it takes these days to gain some recognition :eek:
Hi Jorgen
I thought that was what you were doing with your rant (riding a wrecking ball in the nude).
. . . and I did enjoy it - being over 50 myself I recognise the 'grumpy old man' symptoms only too well.

But actually . . . I'd bet that amongst the increased digital noise there are more prints being sold to a more discerning public than in the history of photography - sure, they may be a smaller proportion of the total taken . . . but then they may not, we cannot possibly tell.

The fact that it's a tougher life as a wedding photographer or staff photographer than it used to be is undoubtedly true . . . . unless you happen to be really good.

Workshops in remote places / the latest and greatest camera / Exotic locations - I don't think they have anything to do with what makes a good photograph - and I think they are completely separated - no more relevant than the car the person may drive or the type of lavatory cleaner they use.

My personal bete noir is going to the same place everyone else has been and taking the same photograph all over again! But that's me being irritated, and of course, if the photographer is good the photos will be too (even if you have already seen 82,923 photos of a slot canyon!)

In which case, they're hardly worth discussing in the same breath.

If people want to publicise their photos and enjoy the likes - than that's also a separate issue.

I like Marc's title to the thread. As long as people like looking at images (and they do, more than ever), then there will be ways to make money doing it (even if it's increasingly difficult). The fact that things are changing is pretty damn irritating if you've spent half a lifetime perfecting a model for delivering images to a receptive public isn't nice. Like Marc, I find it a little odd taking wedding snaps with a little Leica when there's a barrage of huge cameras behind you . . . unlike Marc I think that part of the job of a wedding photographer is to get a facebook gallery up really quickly - then you can concentrate on the more difficult part.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Forget the old game of "if you could only have one camera which would you choose" what would you do if you could only take one image a week? How much effort would you make for that image? Would you choose more carefully how to "spend" the frame?
HI Tim
you might make more of an effort - but it's unlikely that the image would be so good.
Practice improves, and one of the great wonders of digital is that you're free to practice - and to assess the results really quickly.

The solution to the problem of proliferation is to edit ruthlessly.

I'd wager that the person who takes 100 photos a week, but throws away 99 of them will do a great deal better than the person who only takes one.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Forget the old game of "if you could only have one camera which would you choose" what would you do if you could only take one image a week? How much effort would you make for that image? Would you choose more carefully how to "spend" the frame?
I have tried that consciously. Conclusion- no, I will not spend more time.* It is not impossible to "condition" one self to be choosy before the shutter is tripped.

This does not work with the auto focus wonders which have a mind of their own. :rolleyes:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Jorgen
I thought that was what you were doing with your rant (riding a wrecking ball in the nude).
. . . and I did enjoy it - being over 50 myself I recognise the 'grumpy old man' symptoms only too well.

But actually . . . I'd bet that amongst the increased digital noise there are more prints being sold to a more discerning public than in the history of photography - sure, they may be a smaller proportion of the total taken . . . but then they may not, we cannot possibly tell.

The fact that it's a tougher life as a wedding photographer or staff photographer than it used to be is undoubtedly true . . . . unless you happen to be really good.

Workshops in remote places / the latest and greatest camera / Exotic locations - I don't think they have anything to do with what makes a good photograph - and I think they are completely separated - no more relevant than the car the person may drive or the type of lavatory cleaner they use.

My personal bete noir is going to the same place everyone else has been and taking the same photograph all over again! But that's me being irritated, and of course, if the photographer is good the photos will be too (even if you have already seen 82,923 photos of a slot canyon!)

In which case, they're hardly worth discussing in the same breath.

If people want to publicise their photos and enjoy the likes - than that's also a separate issue.

I like Marc's title to the thread. As long as people like looking at images (and they do, more than ever), then there will be ways to make money doing it (even if it's increasingly difficult). The fact that things are changing is pretty damn irritating if you've spent half a lifetime perfecting a model for delivering images to a receptive public isn't nice. Like Marc, I find it a little odd taking wedding snaps with a little Leica when there's a barrage of huge cameras behind you . . . unlike Marc I think that part of the job of a wedding photographer is to get a facebook gallery up really quickly - then you can concentrate on the more difficult part.

all the best
Interestingly, for the past few years, a majority of my wedding clients do NOT want their professional wedding photos put up on FaceBook or any social media. Even after I deliver their images, they rarely place more than a couple of them on their FaceBook page.

Their expectations of what I do is totally different from what social media is all about. They tend to separate one from the other, and see it as a more intimate and private experience which they do not want diluted by being mixed in with the mash of cell phone shots.

Perhaps the real reason behind this attitude is that of permanence ... they see what I do with hopeful eyes for their future not some just immediate need gratification. They almost always tell me to take my time, don't show us until you think it is ready. There seems to be an element of anticipation that heightens the perception of value ... and makes their wedding experience last longer.

While there were a zillion people taking photos at my last wedding, when I presented the 90 image slideshow and 445 images one-on-one to the couple, she started crying and later said that I made her look better than at any time in her entire life.. Yesterday, I presented a 54 page coffee-table Wedding Album design, and they ordered 4 of them. (BTW, the Groom gave me a $400 tip).

With-in a week or so I DO provide is a direct link to a SmugMug Pro Gallery, which they then can share with friends and family ... and allows guests to order prints no matter where they may be. This is a much more controlled, higher image quality environment than any social media.

When these people pay me so much money to do this work, they are buying a sense of longevity and a bit of a fantasy ... and my job is to make sure that happens, not feed the "here today, gone today" social media clutter.

Works for me.

- Marc
 

Tim

Active member
HI Tim
you might make more of an effort - but it's unlikely that the image would be so good.
Practice improves, and one of the great wonders of digital is that you're free to practice - and to assess the results really quickly.

The solution to the problem of proliferation is to edit ruthlessly.

I'd wager that the person who takes 100 photos a week, but throws away 99 of them will do a great deal better than the person who only takes one.
Yes I do agree, I'm not suggesting it was a good idea but was put out there to see how we go about quality over quantity. Your suggestion would work better for me I am sure.

For me personally, I am very very much a visual person. I honestly believe I know a great photo when I see one, how you may ask? I have had honest, unexpected, sudden, powerful emotional reactions when I see a top image. The last big reaction was at an art gallery several years back. Mixed in amongst the paintings was a 14 x 10ish sized B/W framed print, the subject/s in this image was normally nothing particularly astonishing but the way the photog composed, captured, printed and presented it, it was clearly a work of art and deserving of its place. My emotions told me.

I have had some emotional responses to images I've seen online since but nothing as much as this art gallery image.

I look eagerly for the next great image I might see to have that same level of emotion resurface. I sometimes think I am a better consumer of images than a producer of them...
 

alajuela

Active member
HI Tim
you might make more of an effort - but it's unlikely that the image would be so good.
Practice improves, and one of the great wonders of digital is that you're free to practice - and to assess the results really quickly.

The solution to the problem of proliferation is to edit ruthlessly.

I'd wager that the person who takes 100 photos a week, but throws away 99 of them will do a great deal better than the person who only takes one.
+1 and +1 again


All types of photography, the controlled studio, the wedding photographer with and with out lights or assistant, the photojournalist, the landscape photographer, the term I hate street photographer, and the photographers I love, the people who make nice images, they use the tools they have, but more importantly the ideas they have. I was always taught (Here is my resume, I am 63 years old, started shooting in college, with the original Nikon F - a camera that made sense and was virtually indestructible. 400 tri - X) - its all about the print. Lived in the dark room, your were judged by yourself, your peers, your professors by what you brought out of the dark room.

I don't think that has changed. the photos we are familiar with are one of thousands shot by the photographer, especially with 35mm, there was an adage - don't waste the shot, but if you shot 5 rolls and get one great print - wow - successful you are. The rest of the shots were practice - use them to learn.

As photographers, - professionals from many different fields, artists or craftsmen for the love photography, or just people who shoot the kids and the dog. We should not feel threatened, irrelevant, by technological progress , we all pick and chose how we want to proceed. Rod Klukas of AS / USA is running classes for wet plate. Pick up a copy of the magazine Photo Techniques - they don't seem bothered by the noise from the maddening crowd.

Everything changes, always has - always well, what we should be is true to ourselves. My father used to say, "I don't remember anybody signing a contract with you , that things won't change - get used to it"

Go out shoot and enjoy, there never has been a better time to make great images!!

Best

Phil
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Marc,
What you say in your post above is very important. While the instant gratification concept that appeared by the birth of digital photography, further strengthened by camera phones, seems very "democratic", it creates a clearer distinction, or divide if you want, between photography as art and photography as ad hoc documentation. I enjoy Jono's event photos as much as I enjoy yours, and both may last forever, but Jono may be the exception to the rule; most of those who try to create his kind of photography end up with something that is fun there and then, but won't have the same value in ten years or more.

There's a real danger that those who appreciate and are willing to pay the price for quality photographs will be looked upon as "snobbish" and pretentious. In that case, I'm happy to be a snob. The real pretenders are those who don't understand the difference between a great piece of equipment and a creative mind.

When I divorced many years ago, a good friend asked me "Who will you watch photo albums with when you get old?", a question that became somewhat emotional for me. I don't need to worry anymore. Smartphones and Facebook have eliminated that problem for most people :rolleyes:
 

Hosermage

Active member
Be forewarned, here are some thoughts from someone younger (almost 40).

To me, the proliferation of camera phones and digital cameras means exposure. I would not be here today, on this forum to learn more about photography, if I wasn't exposed to the simple act of taking a shot, and decided I want to get better shots... digital photography made it possible for me. I bet the same lowered bar of entry is inspiring many more younger shooters to want to become better photographers.

I agree that most of these youngsters/amateurs have plenty of room to improve, but the development of a skill can (must?) be celebrated and encouraged at every stage. Not everyone who can scribble a few words can write a good novel, but they need the thirst and support to write more, learn more, and develop more. To me, that's what the digital age is about. Give everyone a chance, and let the talents shines. Maybe some kid decides to become a serious photographer (or at least give it a try) because more than a few people "liked" his images. To me, that's a good thing. Soon we may see (or has it already begin?) a bunch of newer digital photographer start to try film for the first time, something I've been threatening to do for a while now.

I would also guess there are some among us who don't like the singing/talent shows like The Voice or American Idol (or their variants), where suddenly anyone who can carry a tune (or not) thinks they can be a star. However, it's programs like that show me there are plenty of undiscovered raw talents out there, and maybe they inspire someone to work harder on their dreams now that they see a glimmer of hope because someone they can relate to just made it big.

Instagram usually heats up a photography forum to the boiling point. With the tons of junk it provides, there are quite a few gems to be found. Not every picture needs to be fine art... it's now a substitute for communication (look what I did, what I eat...), for humor (silly selfies and pets), etc, etc... Some people do take it seriously on Instagram and make wonderful images, it would be your loss if you let the noise distract you from seeing the good stuff.

I see plenty of discussion of "one camera, one lens" to teach a young photographer how to see, watning simplicity in their gears, a good photographer can take good images with any camera, limitation breeds creativity, etc. Isn't using only iPhone a way of limiting oneself? Smartphones may be the techno crap gadget to some, but they are like second-nature to my son, niece and nephews. My 5 year-old son loves to use the ipad to capture random things; I want to encourage that and I can't wait for him to grow old enough so I can tell him to hold still to avoid motion blurs. I would be ecstatic (and I'm praying) if one day the technology is so advanced that my phone camera can produce the quality that I want. It doesn't mean there'll be less junk out there, but it would benefit me more because the best camera is the one that's with me.

Sorry for the unfiltered thoughts, but I must go to sleep now :p
 
Top