[Aidan Bradley]

Ryan,

I don't think you are being "contrarian" at all. In fact I agree with you for the most part. Classic example is the 10th at Augusta. I have never seen a photographic image and don't believe that I can convey the change in elevation on that hole. Only when you are there and experience it first hand can you truly get the feel of the hole.

However, when you say things like "poor substitiue " and "major shortcomings", hey! I have got to go to bat for my craft and it's craftsman who get up at four in the morning, having slept in yet another different bed, run around a golf course in the freezing cold, grap a few shots and then make a mad dash to the airport only to be hassled by some young TSA agent who has never seen a roll of film and doubts the fact that I am a photographer because I don't own a digital camera.

"Photos are great ways to determine whether any given golf course is of world-class quality"

I am not sure who is the auther of this statement but it is simply not true. Can you experience the taste of mint chocolate ice cream by looking at photograph of same? I rest my case.

Next time you are Santa Barbara, give me a shout, we will play a little  golf and carry on this discussion over a fine single malt Irish whiskey.

Jason,

Angle of the sun and angle of attack are paramount.

[Aidan Bradley]

Before someone jumps all over me, it's "author" not auther.

[rjsimper]

Aidan,
Mr. Jordan Wall made that statement in this very thread:

"But, I am convinced Sand Hills and Cypress must be two of the greatest courses in the world, just by pictures I have seen"

Granted, there aren't many easier targets in the world than he when it comes to refuting a claim, but the whole reason I posted here in the first place was to explain to Mr. Wall the folly of his assumptions.

And I will most certainly give you a holler when I'm up that way - as a guy who owns but pretty much makes a mockery of his D-SLR, I'm certain I could learn a thing or twelve.

[Tom_Doak]

Mrs. Dye used to love my photographs of golf holes because she said I was the only one who took pictures which actually showed how the hole played.

I don't think that's true anymore; I think there are at least a couple of photographers who try to show the substance of a hole as well as trying to get a pretty picture.

If you look at a photo which shows the substance of the hole, it's fair to draw the conclusion that you are looking at a good hole.  But if you've never been there before, and don't have someone else's word for what is going on, it's also possible that you could be looking at a picture that really distorts the nature of the hole to make you think it's better than it really is.

[Dan Kelly]

Before someone jumps all over me, it's "author" not auther.

Noone would jump all over you for that!

After all, we have much bigger fish to fry here -- beginning, I
propose, with the execrable "noone."

[Aidan Bradley]

"Mrs. Dye used to love my photographs of golf holes because she said I was the only one who took pictures which actually showed how the hole played.".......Tom Doak.

Tom.......to show how a hole plays, should it be photographed

tee to green,
or green to tee,
maybe an oblique angle,
or how about 50 yards out.

Curious as to your take on this, examples below.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()