Mike Johnston's Scenic Fatigue.

[howard smith]

[font color=\'#000000\']My idea exactly Scott.  If I only have one bullet or one piece of film, I will want to make sure I hit something the first time.[/font]

[image66]

[font color=\'#000000\']>If I had more money to spend on kit I propbably would, but I >don't think that would make me a better photographer.

Yes it would if the quality of your photographs was limited by the equipment.

Do you find yourself heavily cropping pictures because you don't have a long enough telephoto lens?  Are you using stitching a lot because you don't have a wide-enough wide-angle?  Are you having to use excessive sharpening because the lenses aren't sharp enough?  Are you using gaussian blur a lot because the lenses have lousy bokeh?

Equipment isn't everything, but it is important.  I'm rather tired of reading the glurge about Ansel Adams (or insert favorite master photographer) being able to take better pictures with a Brownie than others could with the world's best equipment.  If that was really true, why did he use the best equipment available?  Composition and technique are only two legs of the milkstool.  You gotta have good technology.

Ken N.[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']But can you name another Nikkor-mount SLR/DSLR today at any price which meets the admittedly extreme criteria Rowell used to select the FE-10/FM-10?  I can't.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I'm not familiar with Nikon equipment. Would the Canon 300D be much heavier?[/font]

[Paul Sumi]

[font color=\'#000000\']

To bring this back to the original topic...  Galen's photographs, as good as they are, when in quantity will also result in MJ's Scenic Fatigue.  There is a saying:  "Familiarity Breeds Resentment".  Too much of anything can wear on the viewer.  

<humor mode on>
So, to take this to its illogical conclusion, for maximum enjoyment we should experience something (a place, a food, a piece of music, a photograph, a painting, etc) only once and in a small amount?
<humor mode off>

I am reminded of a fictional character, who ate a food dish only once, never repeating.  However, I seem to remember that he ate a large quantity since he knew he would never experience it again.[/font]

[GordonMcGregor]

[font color=\'#000000\']I build my portfolio the same way.  Strong images first.  Keeps interest  Strong images last.  Leaves a lasting memory.  The weaker stuff fills the middle.   Adds volume and it usually the stuff that gets flippe past anyway.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Perhaps you could take out the weaker center and have a stronger overall portfolio ?  Good initial impact, strong lasting memory...

The biggest flaw I see in portfolios is too many images, good or bad.[/font]

[Krazy_Horse]

[font color=\'#000000\']Does he approve the lastest front page photo - Dawn on Lake Muskoka?
Just another pretty sunset?[/font]

[howard smith]

[font color=\'#000000\']"Ray, if I wanted a lot of meat, I would go to the grocery store and save a lot of money and effort.  If all I wanted were dead grouse, I'd buy a shot gun.  I really like to use my old .22.  Now, pass the grouse."

I know a fellow who hunts geese with a bow and arrow.  That's a pretty stupid way to put meat on the table, but he enjoys it when he has goose.  He isn't trying to feed his family, he is enjoying his sport.[/font]

[Scott_H]

[font color=\'#000000\']I don't find myself doing any of those things.  I know what my equipment is capabel of, and what it's limitation are.  It is up to me to get the most out of it.

All more expensive equipment does, in my mind, is make some things easier.  It will not make me a better photographer.  Better technique and creative vision will make me a better photographer.[/font]

[opgr]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Also, a comment out of left field: I find that many if not most landscapes share a common flaw, that of being overly complex.

Do you mean that it is therefore more prone to fatigue?[/font]