Sorry I've been away so haven't been able to reply to this thread since starting it. To clarify, I'm not saying gear doesn't matter. I'm not saying go out with a phone cam or a point and shoot and expect great results. I was referring more to gear taking priority from a photographer's viewpoint. An example was obsessing over minor differences in sharpness. What this does, in my opinion, is put you on the road to mediocrity. If you spend more time discussing lenses than using them, perhaps the priorities are wrong. What I was saying is: use the gear that works for you, but really USE it. And using it means using the six inches behind the camera more than anything else.

... and neither should you. Hopefully this isn't too inflammatory. I just feel the need to say, seeing so many continuous threads about what lens is sharper than another, which camera is better than another, that these are simply tools - a means to an end. The final image is what matters. This is 99% your timing and composition, not whether you used a slightly sharper lens to shoot it than you had last week. The greats don't list what gear they used to capture the great images. They had what they had and they got the photo. I have taken better photos with the kit lens than I have with my nice sharp primes, and vice versa. Great photographers have taken great images using the most basic of equipment. Of course the tool matters, if you need that to capture the moment - and good gear Can help - but the emphasis should be very much on what you shoot. What matters is that you DO capture the moment. Gear is but a part of the role to get that image that has something to say.

The same could go for other technical considerations.
"What use is having a great depth of field if there is not an adequate depth of feeling?" - W. Eugene Smith

To clarify - I don't bemoan choosing good gear. I use a K-7 and fast prime because it has stabilisation, is fast and not too noticeable. However I don't discuss it all the time, list it continuously, and feel that is or isn't why I get my images I want.

Use what you need to and be done with it! Thoughts?

The Online Photographer talks to Ned Bunnell (President of Pentax USA):
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/intervi...#more

Doesn't sound like any plans for a fast standard or moderate wide. Also didn't ask any SDM questions. Apart from that it sounded OK to me.

Oh great, would really like to know what it's like when you get it.

Thought I'd post something that might be of interest, even to those very familiar with the usual classic greats of street photography. Fan Ho is a Chinese photographer (b. Shanghai 1931) who is, perhaps not overlooked, but almost undoubtedly not as well known outside of East Asia as the quality of his work might suggest. He is known outside there of course, to many photographers, but not globally to the extent he might be if he was mixing in France in the thirties or the States in the fifties.

Anyway, there is not a huge amount on Fan Ho online. I can't find any biographical article such as a Wikipedia entry or website. However he is represented by Modernbook publishers, and they've done a good job of putting up some of his work, and a very interesting video which gives information on Fan Ho as well as interviews him, but is hard to hear.

I find his work pretty stunning. You really are transported to the time and place. As well as the 'usual' qualities of great street stuff - interesting moments, beautiful light, shadows, people, geometry... he also often uses very unusual crops, which is interesting.

If you click on either 'Hong Kong Yesterday' or 'The Living Theatre' you'll see some work from two of his major books: http://www.modernbook.com/fanho.htm

Here is the video with Fan Ho from 2009, now a very elderly man: http://vimeo.com/10023156

Enjoy.

Hmm, interesting points - I'm unlikely to dedicate the time tagging and commenting to get much out of it by the sound.
Have seen YouTube slideshows and never been too impressed, I think due to the image quality which seems to take away from it a lot.

Interestingly, I was thinking about this myself after I saw Michael Schlegel's work. I don't think you can get more distinctive than this:
http://www.michaelschlegel.com/

This also reminds me of a Cartier-Bresson comment. He said Robert Capa told him he was in danger of being pigeon-holed as a Surrealist photographer. Capa told him to do whatever he liked, but the label was to be 'photojournalist', 'and Capa was very sound'.

Thanks very much for the great feedback on this little set.

If you're also interested, I have a page here: Camus Wyatt: Photographs | Facebook
Which links new works and things of interest in this area of photography, as well as a few other areas occasionally.

Here's the deal: I have a website which gets decent traffic, and a facebook page which has a couple of hundred interested people. Nothing too major. I'm a street photographer mostly, I do some shows, sell some prints, certainly looking to get into pro doco work in the next few years. I like photos to be seen as well, not just sit on a hard-drive, whether they result in money or not.

Anyway, I was recently advised by another photographer to expand my web presence by setting up a flickr account. I've never used flickr, and decided to set up my own website (through zenfolio) to have maximum control over the presentation, as well as keeping it minimalist and just about images. No offence to flickr users, but often it often seems to be a pat-on-the-back session for average photography (NOTE: at the same time, I have seen a couple of outstanding photographers' work on there, including those with their own separate websites), with some great amateur work. Is there a decent doco/street presence, or is it all people's pets?

This photographer advised me to join groups, add photos etc, and it might have a large impact on the overall visibility of my work.

So I guess my query is this: what do you think - is there a case for also using flickr, or is it a waste of time seeing as how I'm using fb and my own website?

Is it a good outlet for doco work? Are there any specific places doco work is big on flickr?

Thanks for thoughts.

Thanks very much. Unsure how that heavily vignetted version of the last shot snuck in. Here's what it's meant to have been:

link

Hi Tim, yeah I might have put that one there recently I think, or it's on the gallery there. Can't remember - too much shooting lately! Decided that one was a keeper soon as a shot it so it made the website no problems anyway.