Quote Originally Posted by ACArmstrong
Just for the record, in speaking of the end result, I was referring to the tools used to get there (Sony F717, a throwaway, a polaroid, or a Canon 20D) - that's what doesn't matter. By no means was I speaking of the thought process or seriously working at a craft - knowing light and shadow - exposure - planning your shot. These things HAVE to matter in order to get a truly beautiful photograph. It's the equipment that doesn't matter to the viewer in the end.

Does that make sense?
I am a bit confused :-)

It seems to me there are two different issues here.

When I said "only the end result matters" I meant that a print must stand by itself. When someone looks at a photograph he does not and should not care about what was needed (in terms of equipment, and skills, and luck, etc.) to make this photograph. The image must be judged on its own merits and not on the basis of what a photographer did to make it or who the photographer is.

The second issue seems to be "what is important in making a picture". Andy Armstrong says, as far as I understand him, that equipment is not all that important, while skill is. Generally speaking, this is of course true. There are obvious exceptions where specific equipment is needed to be able to make any decent shots, but I don't think there is any controversy about skill being much much more important than equipment.

It looks like the difference between Andy Armstrong and me is that he says that a viewer looking at an image does not care about the technology used, but he does care about the skill of the photographer. I would say that no, the viewer does not care about the skill -- all he cares about is the end result (and clearly, on rare occasions you can get outstanding results through blind luck and no skill).

Fey