Here's an interesting bit of puff: http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...neration-amateur-photographers-art-plagiarism I was going along with the writer until the last few paragraphs. The gist of his argument seems to be that the proliferation of cameras, ease of 'snapping' and social media for sharing devalues photography because nowadays everyone is a 'photographer'. Fair enough, it's a point of view. But then the writer suggests "The moral is, if you want to take really great pictures, don’t go on a cruise. Go to a war zone" and proceeds to give examples of 'great' photographs, and thereby, 'great' photographers. Hmm. Well, I get the point about originality, but I'm less convinced that alone makes a 'great' photographer. It could be argued that all those iconic war photos are only iconic because they are pretty rare and therefore almost unique and I'd bet than pretty much anyone could have taken them had they been in the right place at the right time. Would that make us 'great' photographers? Most of us will have seen the pictures of that crashing plane in Taiwan yesterday - well they are pretty unique and original pictures aren't they, but are they great photos? So, what does the panel think makes a 'great' photo? Is originality or rarity really enough?