How about, "great place and great timing"?(As a corrollary, nothing annoys me more than the comment often made on viewing a great photo: "wow, that must be a great camera!" )
Spot on!Oh my, what bull sh*t!
An example he use is that of a chain saw to cut framing boards and complains that you need better tools than a chain say to make a more accurate cut. The fact is you don't need a better tool but you need a more appropriate tool. If the finishing too is so much better tell me that after you try to cut cord wood with it.
What you really need in carpentry and photography is an appropriate tool for the job.
Without reading too much into what has been said, this statement above pretty much resonates with me.It's all about vision. Your camera either supports your vision or creates interference with it. The price/quality of the camera really doesn't matter if it supports your vision.
You either think about what you see or want to see or you think that you can't see because your camera doesn't produce those thoughts about seeing.
Nonsense! Open your eyes and heart and the mind will follow.
Without reading too much into what has been said, this statement above pretty much resonates with me.
This reminds me of the guitar world:
(which is more subjective than sports)
A talented musician picks a guitar and equipment that produces the desired sound he wants to convey. The equipment just amplifies his talent. Never does it make him a better musician.
A beginner may be able to play two chords with beautiful clarity on a 56' Gibson Les Paul, but it won't make him a guitarist, while a pro won't be able to hit that sustained note on a department store beater. It doesn't mean the pro can't play beautiful music on the beater.
Everyone has a threshold.
I have always felt that. I can't count the number of times I've seen a photo from some of the greats and the "DPR part of my brain" (that's the part of your brain that thinks it's fun to post on the DPR site) thinks "hot spots, not quite in focus" or some sort, but the image is gripping because of the subject and the way it was shot.I would also add that some of the most iconic photographs of all time, are technically, not very good. Over/under exposed, not sharp, grainy, etc.
One of the things that makes photography interesting to me, is how it combines "no rules" art with a "full of rules" technical pursuit, but you can never create interesting images on one side without the other. You can have a scene exposed perfectly and in focus, but if the composition is crap, it's not interesting. You can have fantastic lighting and composition, but if the focus is off, it's probably crap ... You need to balance the two aspects, and the people who have done that right are the big names.