Are we a bit misdirected?

Started Jul 7, 2014 | Discussions
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,617
Re: Correct
5

sigala1 wrote:

Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

It's not very sharp, but the composition/subject is better than 90% of the dreck that people post to this forum. I definitely rate it higher than this lousy Statue of Liberty photo: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53970549

I highly recommend that people look to Instragram for better photography.

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.

For the purpose of bringing a smile to the reader's face, of course this photo wins against a lot of what's posted here. But that's like saying that even the worst team in the World Cup finals can play better soccer than the best American Football team.

A bigger issue is that there are periodic and quite frequent lectures in this gear-centric forum to the effect that gear is unimportant and why don't we all go out and spend time to improve our photography. This is wholly inappropriate as there are multiple forums on DPR with names ending in the word 'photography'. In my opinion these lecturers should be shown the door swiftly if they have not found it.

This is a forum about gear, that the gear has a nominal purpose is recognized but that purpose should not outweigh interest in the gear itself. The gear may well be unimportant in the entire effort towards that overall purpose, but we should be allowed to concentrate on the gear locally, and leave the overall purpose, or at least denigrations about interests in gear, to be discussed at more appropriate venues.

Gray Drake
OP Gray Drake Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Are we a bit misdirected?
1

Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

Some missed the point here, I am at the center of my comments.  I spent a buck or two on a system, spend time in the field on composition, sit at the computer to improve results, zoom in to check my IQ and sit back to admire the results of my efforts.  Then I run across a photo that has none of the technical characteristics I seek, but I still conclude WOW this is really a photo I would like to have taken.

There are photos on Flickr, etc that I would love to have authored for technical reasons, and others for content reasons.  I certainly envy the technical skills of many/most, but it is the passion of the moment in landscapes to portraits that will kick me out of the chair tomorrow to capture something exciting.  It is certainly wonderful if these are also technically superb, but for me it is not necessary.

Drake

 Gray Drake's gear list:Gray Drake's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Steven Wandy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,353
Re: Correct
2

tt321 wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

It's not very sharp, but the composition/subject is better than 90% of the dreck that people post to this forum. I definitely rate it higher than this lousy Statue of Liberty photo: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53970549

I highly recommend that people look to Instragram for better photography.

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.

Not true all of the time. There have been (and are) plenty of posts of photos for photography sake. Without attempting to demonstrate anything "techie".

So perhaps the OP's point - and yes I do realize that this is primarily a TECH forum - is valid. Too many people here do poo-poo the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty alter of the technical aspects of current cameras and lenses. I have no issues or problem with his starting this discussion.

 Steven Wandy's gear list:Steven Wandy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0 +5 more
Jim Salvas
Jim Salvas Veteran Member • Posts: 5,304
Re: Are we a bit misdirected?
5

I've been taking nice photos for over 60 years. At first, I took them with a little twin lens box camera (the Kodak Duaflex) and got a few shots that kept me coming back. Most were awful, but a few were darned good and I still have some of them.

As I gained experience, I also progressed to better equipment. My "keeper" rate improved for both reasons. By the time I was in my 20s, I was more than an advanced amateur, having had photography courses in college and in the Army. I bought a Nikon F outfit and took even more good photos more frequently. I even sold some and became a bit of a semi-pro, especially in portrait and product photography ( I have a website about that).

And so on, until digital cameras got "good enough" to replace film for me. Somewhere around 2003, I got a decent DSLR and since then have an explosion of "keepers," as my skill set and my equipment both peaked.

But inside, is the same 12-year-old kid who looked down into the tiny finder of that Duaflex and said to himself, "I bet this would make a good photo."

You just saw that in your daughter's photo. Pretty neat, eh?

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas
"You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretsky

 Jim Salvas's gear list:Jim Salvas's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +11 more
pocketpygmy Contributing Member • Posts: 829
Re: Correct

tt321 wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

It's not very sharp, but the composition/subject is better than 90% of the dreck that people post to this forum. I definitely rate it higher than this lousy Statue of Liberty photo: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53970549

I highly recommend that people look to Instragram for better photography.

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.

For the purpose of bringing a smile to the reader's face, of course this photo wins against a lot of what's posted here. But that's like saying that even the worst team in the World Cup finals can play better soccer than the best American Football team.

A bigger issue is that there are periodic and quite frequent lectures in this gear-centric forum to the effect that gear is unimportant and why don't we all go out and spend time to improve our photography. This is wholly inappropriate as there are multiple forums on DPR with names ending in the word 'photography'. In my opinion these lecturers should be shown the door swiftly if they have not found it.

This is a forum about gear, that the gear has a nominal purpose is recognized but that purpose should not outweigh interest in the gear itself. The gear may well be unimportant in the entire effort towards that overall purpose, but we should be allowed to concentrate on the gear locally, and leave the overall purpose, or at least denigrations about interests in gear, to be discussed at more appropriate venues.

lighten up, pal.

tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,617
Re: Correct

Steven Wandy wrote:

tt321 wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

It's not very sharp, but the composition/subject is better than 90% of the dreck that people post to this forum. I definitely rate it higher than this lousy Statue of Liberty photo: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53970549

I highly recommend that people look to Instragram for better photography.

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.

Not true all of the time. There have been (and are) plenty of posts of photos for photography sake. Without attempting to demonstrate anything "techie".

I can't see anyone having any problem with that. Are these photos not properly appreciated?

So perhaps the OP's point - and yes I do realize that this is primarily a TECH forum - is valid. Too many people here do poo-poo the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty alter of the technical aspects of current cameras and lenses. I have no issues or problem with his starting this discussion.

This is out of line, for me, with my understanding of the spirit and the name of the forum. People "poo-pooing the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty altar of the technical aspects of cameras and lenses" are exactly at home in this forum and should not be denigrated in their home territory. I don't believe there are gear heads going into photography art forums to denigrate the photographer in favour of the gear, but if there were and if I read in a forum where this happened, this would be the exact same response I would have produced.

VincentWSLim Forum Member • Posts: 69
Re: Are we a bit misdirected?

Hmm.. does her photos consistently show a high level of skill in composition?

Remember, if enough monkeys type at the keyboard long enough, they can produce Shakespearean works

My point being that despite me being a not too proficient photographer, I still manage to take some keepers some of the time, where-else a great photographer with the right equipment will take keepers for most of the time.

 VincentWSLim's gear list:VincentWSLim's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Canon EOS 600D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF5 Panasonic G85 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +9 more
semifast Contributing Member • Posts: 780
Re: Are we a bit misdirected?

I think your daughter's photo is one of the best photos I've seen in my 58 years. Period.

Besides the value to the family, it's an incredible photo of Americana, the joy of children and summer.

 semifast's gear list:semifast's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 Sony SLT-A58
Steven Wandy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,353
Re: Correct
1

tt321 wrote:

Steven Wandy wrote:

So perhaps the OP's point - and yes I do realize that this is primarily a TECH forum - is valid. Too many people here do poo-poo the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty alter of the technical aspects of current cameras and lenses. I have no issues or problem with his starting this discussion.

This is out of line, for me, with my understanding of the spirit and the name of the forum. People "poo-pooing the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty altar of the technical aspects of cameras and lenses" are exactly at home in this forum and should not be denigrated in their home territory. I don't believe there are gear heads going into photography art forums to denigrate the photographer in favour of the gear, but if there were and if I read in a forum where this happened, this would be the exact same response I would have produced.

Why "out of line"? I admitted that this was a TECH FORUM and have accepted the fact that the vast majority of discussions/thread are of a TECH nature. But in my opinion the OP did not "denigrate" anyone, just pointed out that perhaps we are sometimes looking too much at the technical aspect of photography.

And I am sure that there are plenty of posts in photography forums that do lean towards art/asthetics where someone will point out how unsharp/unclear/etc a particular picture is. There was a thread here years ago where someone posted a link to a discussion in one of those "artsy" forums. The thread there was started with a photo by Henri Cartier Bresson (without naming the photographer) and the thread quickly went into the lack of technical excellence in the photo.

 Steven Wandy's gear list:Steven Wandy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0 +5 more
morepix
morepix Veteran Member • Posts: 9,148
A classic unrecognized so far

I'd put this photo right up there with Cartier-Bresson's "Behind the Gare St. Lazare," in technical quality and in human interest.

And it's notable how we love, like medieval theologians, to discuss and debate the unresolvable. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is this a place for technology or aesthetics? Blah, blah, blah.

That's what a forum is for. Thanks, DPR.

-- hide signature --

David
www.pbase.com/morepix

 morepix's gear list:morepix's gear list
Ricoh GR Olympus Stylus 1 Panasonic LX100 Fujifilm X100F Olympus OM-D E-M10
pocketpygmy Contributing Member • Posts: 829
Re: Correct

clearly he fancies himself to be some kind of disciplinarian. my understanding of the spirit of the forum is based on inclusiveness and openness given that it is structured around a portable and flexible multi-brand system whose applications/audience run the gamut from furrowed-brow professionals to kids taking photos of bubbles. very democratic if you ask me -- not any one way to be.

tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,617
Re: Correct
1

Steven Wandy wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Steven Wandy wrote:

So perhaps the OP's point - and yes I do realize that this is primarily a TECH forum - is valid. Too many people here do poo-poo the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty alter of the technical aspects of current cameras and lenses. I have no issues or problem with his starting this discussion.

This is out of line, for me, with my understanding of the spirit and the name of the forum. People "poo-pooing the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty altar of the technical aspects of cameras and lenses" are exactly at home in this forum and should not be denigrated in their home territory. I don't believe there are gear heads going into photography art forums to denigrate the photographer in favour of the gear, but if there were and if I read in a forum where this happened, this would be the exact same response I would have produced.

Why "out of line"? I admitted that this was a TECH FORUM and have accepted the fact that the vast majority of discussions/thread are of a TECH nature. But in my opinion the OP did not "denigrate" anyone, just pointed out that perhaps we are sometimes looking too much at the technical aspect of photography.

This is exactly what I am objecting to. Such opinions are best aired in other forums, for instance, in the very top forum 1018, than here at lowly 1041.

This forum's discussions, no matter how gear-centric, even to the point of ignoring the purpose of the gear, is not out of place. There may be people who do use their gear to make excellent photographs but come here exclusively to talk about gear and not their photography; there may even be people who are not at all interested in making good photographs at all. They don't need to be educated about maybe they should not concentrate on the gear so much. They are adults and have, or should be assumed to have, done the required thinking at this philosophical level before deciding it's enjoyable to come to 1041 to talk about gear and tech. In other words, wondering "that perhaps we are sometimes looking too much at the technical aspect of photography" is out of context here.

An advantage on concentrating on gear and not art is that art is very subjective, and often difficult to use precise language to even construct a meaningful dialog about, mostly because art is a language in itself, whilst gear and tech tend to be more amenable to commonly agreed and well defined terminology. If someone needs to describe/explain/discuss a photograph in so many words, why did they make the photograph in the first place? Compare this to discussing whether the DoF is suitable, whether shutter shock has affected the sharpness, whether the ISO is set too high, etc. and to me the latter are much more tangible and discuss-able.

Skeeterbytes Forum Pro • Posts: 12,492
Re: Are we a bit misdirected?
1

Utterly charming shot. Am certain my kid will approve.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

Gray Drake
OP Gray Drake Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: HEY, COME ON!

Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

 Gray Drake's gear list:Gray Drake's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
sigala1 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,818
Partially true, partially not true

tt321 wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

It's not very sharp, but the composition/subject is better than 90% of the dreck that people post to this forum. I definitely rate it higher than this lousy Statue of Liberty photo: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53970549

I highly recommend that people look to Instragram for better photography.

Because of the emphasis of the forum, "90% of the dreck" posted to it is not meant to be photographic art, but to help illustrate something about some gear. For that purpose, this photo above has no value, unless accompanied with appropriate EXIF data or technical descriptions.

For the purpose of bringing a smile to the reader's face, of course this photo wins against a lot of what's posted here. But that's like saying that even the worst team in the World Cup finals can play better soccer than the best American Football team.

A bigger issue is that there are periodic and quite frequent lectures in this gear-centric forum to the effect that gear is unimportant and why don't we all go out and spend time to improve our photography. This is wholly inappropriate as there are multiple forums on DPR with names ending in the word 'photography'. In my opinion these lecturers should be shown the door swiftly if they have not found it.

This is a forum about gear, that the gear has a nominal purpose is recognized but that purpose should not outweigh interest in the gear itself. The gear may well be unimportant in the entire effort towards that overall purpose, but we should be allowed to concentrate on the gear locally, and leave the overall purpose, or at least denigrations about interests in gear, to be discussed at more appropriate venues.

I have no objection to someone starting a topic that reads "Test shot from 17mm lens" and I would expect that the photo would be such that you could learn something about the technical quality of the lens but that the photo wouldn't be an especially good photo from a composition perspective, and I'm totally OK with that.

But on the other hand, this forum also gets a topics with titles like "Great photos from my vacation!" and then I expect to see photos that are at least as good as what people post on Instagram, and instead I usually see dreck.

Steven Wandy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,353
Re: Correct

pocketpygmy wrote:

clearly he fancies himself to be some kind of disciplinarian.

HUH??? What about the OP post seems disciplinarian to you? His opinion is that we sometimes forget that the content of photos is (perhaps should be) more important than the technical manner in which they were obtained. (At least that is my reading of his post - he is certainly not suggesting that that is the only way of looking at a photo.)

 Steven Wandy's gear list:Steven Wandy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0 +5 more
Steven Wandy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,353
Re: Correct

tt321 wrote:

Steven Wandy wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Steven Wandy wrote:

So perhaps the OP's point - and yes I do realize that this is primarily a TECH forum - is valid. Too many people here do poo-poo the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty alter of the technical aspects of current cameras and lenses. I have no issues or problem with his starting this discussion.

This is out of line, for me, with my understanding of the spirit and the name of the forum. People "poo-pooing the more aesthetic aspect of photography while bowing at the almighty altar of the technical aspects of cameras and lenses" are exactly at home in this forum and should not be denigrated in their home territory. I don't believe there are gear heads going into photography art forums to denigrate the photographer in favour of the gear, but if there were and if I read in a forum where this happened, this would be the exact same response I would have produced.

Why "out of line"? I admitted that this was a TECH FORUM and have accepted the fact that the vast majority of discussions/thread are of a TECH nature. But in my opinion the OP did not "denigrate" anyone, just pointed out that perhaps we are sometimes looking too much at the technical aspect of photography.

This is exactly what I am objecting to. Such opinions are best aired in other forums, for instance, in the very top forum 1018, than here at lowly 1041.

So I guess we will just continue to feel differently about what I think is the OP's intent with this thread. Why can't these types of opinions/thoughts be aired in a "techie" forum? He is not suggesting that is the only purpose for a photo - just something that perhaps we forget.

 Steven Wandy's gear list:Steven Wandy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0 +5 more
sigala1 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,818
Curation is 90% of photography
2

VincentWSLim wrote:

Hmm.. does her photos consistently show a high level of skill in composition?

Remember, if enough monkeys type at the keyboard long enough, they can produce Shakespearean works

My point being that despite me being a not too proficient photographer, I still manage to take some keepers some of the time, where-else a great photographer with the right equipment will take keepers for most of the time.

Taking a lot of photos, and knowing that only a few of them are any good and that most of them suck, is 90% of being a good photographer.

Gray Drake
OP Gray Drake Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: HEY, COME ON!

Gray Drake wrote:

Gray Drake wrote:

Just a comment about photo quality and it's ability to capture the reality/beauty/emotion of a moment in time. We spend most of our time here (including me) with assessments of the technical marvels of our cameras and our skill with editing.

After looking at this photo taken by my daughter (which I captured off her facebook page), I again humbly realize the effectiveness of the delivery of the essence of the moment to the viewer of the photo has little to do with the technical capability of our equipment or our skill at the computer

Drake

This thread was never intended to raise people's  blood pressure, sorry for this result.  It was a suggestion that perhaps some of us, ME FOR ONE, have over focused on the technicals and under focused on the  content.  Whether a studio portrait, a polynesian sunset or a bunch of kids in a driveway, viewer passion is our intent.  What the heck is negative when this intent can be delivered with an unedited jpeg?  Could the technical in this photo be improved?  Certainly!  Could the passion be heightened with a half hour of editing?  Not so sure!

In response to one comment, I offer that it is wonderful if a cell phone photo delivers the passion we all seek to achieve in our images.  The above photo, however, was taken with a Canon 7D.

.

 Gray Drake's gear list:Gray Drake's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Bob Tullis
Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 33,568
Your position is crystal clear.
2

sigala1 wrote:

I have no objection to someone starting a topic that reads "Test shot from 17mm lens" and I would expect that the photo would be such that you could learn something about the technical quality of the lens but that the photo wouldn't be an especially good photo from a composition perspective, and I'm totally OK with that.

But on the other hand, this forum also gets a topics with titles like "Great photos from my vacation!" and then I expect to see photos that are at least as good as what people post on Instagram, and instead I usually see dreck.

They're happy for what they can manage to do.

You on the other hand are miserably intolerant of those with lesser skills and/or ambitions.

You always make your arguments out to be everyone else is deluded in one way or another.   But the truth is, it's the other way around.

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony Alpha a7R II Fujifilm X-T2 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads