You No Longer Need Photography Skills to Be a Good Photographer

You No Longer Need Photography Skills to Be a Good Photographer

When you combine modern photography gear, even at the entry-level, with today's post-production software, it has never been easier for people to get high-quality images. The days of perfectly matching time, elements, and light are essentially done.

Though the list is quite exhaustive, I want to offer three major reasons why most of the skills photographers once held close, and sometimes secret, have become essentially obsolete. 

The first is gear. The advancements of camera gear over the last two decades have taken the results and image qualities of amateur and pro photographers alike to levels that were once perhaps unimaginable. With regards to many of today’s bodies, you have things such as:

  • In-body-image-stabilization
  • Almost global frame autofocus coverage
  • Incredibly accurate animal and human eye autofocus and tracking
  • Up to 30 fps burst rates
  • 8K video shooting
  • 60+ megapixel sensors

The list could go on, but you get the drift. Modern camera bodies are equipped with so many phenomenal features. I use the Canon EOS R5, and I am still amazed more than a year after receiving it by just how good it is compared to my previous cameras.

And that’s before we even get to lenses. In today’s market, we have the native lenses that pair seamlessly with our maker’s bodies, and we also have so many third-party options, led by the likes of Sigma and Tamron. In short, the quality of the gear today at relatively affordable prices means that even the most inexperienced beginners can feel confident that they’ll get high-quality shots whenever they take their gear out to shoot, regardless of brand- or lens-body combination.

The simple fact is that the capabilities of gear today make photography so easy. Ask yourself this: why is it so hard for people to make any kind of living selling prints these days? It’s because cameras and lenses, including mobile phones, are of such high quality and do so much of the work that if people want to print something, they often don’t need to source prints anywhere else because their images are perfectly sufficient for their needs.

But there’s more to it than just gear. Beyond the outstanding work your camera gear does for you in getting the quality images you desire, when you add the post-production options available, I would almost go as far as to say that anyone can get high-quality images that they can confidently print and put up on a wall or send off to websites or magazines for publication.

It’s a big assertion, I know. And I also know that many of you will heartily disagree with me. Thus, I want to use an example to show you what I mean. My premise is that when you combine today’s gear with today’s software, good photography has almost become foolproof.

The first part is to shoot far wider than you need to. In the photo below, I shot far too wide for this article to introduce one point that makes modern photography so easy: cropping options. Due to the sensor resolutions in many modern cameras, if you shoot wide enough and capture more of the scene than you think you might need, you can pretty much crop into whatever composition your heart desires and still get more than enough to work with for printing.

I shot the image below with my Canon EOS R5, knowing, firstly, that the autofocus would do its job and also that I could crop in very tightly and still have plenty to work with because of the 45-megapixel sensor on the R5.

After straightening the horizon, I still had 43 megapixels to play with.

Once I got back home, I played around with a few different compositions and placed the subject in different parts of the frame, until I came up with something I was happy with. I intended to show enough of the wave behind the surfer to intimate he could have gone the other way, and also to show enough of the black vest, as I work a lot with that particular wetsuit brand. Importantly, you can see how much leeway I had and how much room I had to work with.

After the crop, I still had 4.4 megapixels, which is more than enough when you enhance the resolution 4x to 17 megapixels.

However, as you can see above, cropping in so tightly only left me with 4.4 megapixels to work with. No problem. As most of us know, due to recent AI developments, that is no longer an issue. I simply right-clicked on the new crop, selected Enhance, and within a few seconds, I had a new image to work that was 17 megapixels — more than enough to print large or send off for publication in pamphlets.

In this example, I used Adobe’s native Super Resolution feature, but you could also use other software, such as Topaz Gigapixel or whatever else is on the market. The salient takeaway is that as long as you shoot wide enough to get more of the scene in the frame than you need, you can use the crop function to get pretty much any type of composition you like and then increase the resolution and megapixel count later without losing any quality.

And if you need to print to a specifically sized paper, Photoshop’s Crop Tool even has many of those templates available for you as well.

When you do crop in so tightly, one issue you might not have immediately noticed is noise, or how soft your image might be. Such imperfections tend to be exacerbated with extremely tight crops. Again, thanks to modern technological advancements, there are no problems in dealing with such inconveniences.

Let’s start with noise first. As you can see in the image below, there is enough noise there that it needs attention. I use Topaz DeNoise AI or Nik Collection’s Dfine2. Photoshop and Lightroom both have their noise reduction functions also.

Once I get the image into Topaz DeNoise, then I can do some side-by-side or setting-to-setting comparisons and play around with the different options to dial in what I like.

The most important part to be mindful of here is that all of this takes place with the click of a few buttons and barely takes more than a minute. As you can see below, the result is very good.

After that, I like to do some minor edits to color, always staying mindful of not reintroducing noise or digital artifacts. With modern software, there are so many options that make your workflow incredibly fast. There is something for everyone’s taste and I feel that with the options out there, there’s no need to do everything yourself from scratch.

Even within Photoshop, there are numerous one-click actions to get your edits started. Just click Ctrl + F (Windows) to bring up the Discover dialog box, and away you go.

I like to work with tones, so that’s where I start. Again, it’s a one-click thing for me that takes zero effort. Once I get the tones from dark to light in front of me, then I can quickly decide what I want to work on.

With two clicks, I was able to get the color and light much closer to what I wanted.

Then, using the Content-Aware Tool, I was able to remove the two surfers in less than 30 seconds. You can choose between various other options like the Patch Tool as well.

Finally, I wanted to sharpen the image a tad. To do that, you can use so many different methods. In Photoshop, you can use the native sharpen functions or use a High Pass filter. I like to use Topaz Sharpen AI, but Nik Collection’s Sharpener Pro 3 (Output Sharpener) is also a very good option I often utilize.

Like the Topaz DeNoise plugin, the Topaz Sharpen software allows you to put different settings side-by-side for comparison. You can tweak the settings on each one until you settle on something you like. Then, of course, you can mask in or out different parts of the frame in Photoshop.

The final image I settled on for use in this article is below. To reiterate, I wanted two main things from this shot: to show enough of the unbroken wave behind the surfer to suggest riding the wave that way was also possible and to show the surfer wearing the new vest from this wetsuit company’s catalog.

The main point is that I could do all of this with a single exposure and about 10 minutes' editing time.

In closing, modern gear, cropping choices for pleasing composition, and the vast software options and features currently available mean that photography these days is becoming almost foolproof. Naturally, there might be a few scenarios where user acumen trumps everything, but those situations are disappearing with every iteration of camera bodies and editing tools.

To be sure, I don’t think this is a good thing, but it is what it is, and we can’t pretend that getting great photos for newer photographers isn’t easier than ever. What are your thoughts?

Iain Stanley's picture

Iain Stanley is an Associate Professor teaching photography and composition in Japan. Fstoppers is where he writes about photography, but he's also a 5x Top Writer on Medium, where he writes about his expat (mis)adventures in Japan and other things not related to photography. To view his writing, click the link above.

Log in or register to post comments
Previous comments

Except that what you ended up with, with all due respect, isn’t anything special, just a bit better than what you started with. It’s nice that these tools enable us to get a useable image from a low starting point, but you’re hardly making the case for your exceptionally clickbaity headline.

Fastest race car still needs an skilled driver as good camera still needs a good photographer. Creative vision of a photographer is as important as good equipment.

Great example! Give me (an amateur) a fast race car and I'll no doubt see better results on a track day, but put that same technology in a professionals hands and their results will speak for themselves! The additional tech in photography today won't replace the photographer, if anything it'll help amateurs have a better experience on their journey

As a motorsports photographer, I have to agree! When newer drivers get extra souped up cars, they either crash or set low times. But they do have fun!

I like how modern cameras automatically pose the model for you.

Photography always has been and is currently way more than the gear. Most of what makes a good photograph occurs based on the decisions a photographer makes, not how in focus, crisp, etc. the photo is.

A bad photo is going to be a bad photo no matter how technically good it may be. A good photo will always be a good photo no matter how technically awful it is.

Look at photographers like Peter Lindbergh. His photos are known for being blurry, grainy, and pretty rough from various technical points of view. Yet they're some of the best fashion photos you'll ever see. When he transitioned from film to digital due to necessity, he found ways in post production to negate the "perfection" that is inherent with digital. The point being is that you can look at a Peter Lindbergh photo taken at any time during his career with either film or modern digital gear and know almost immediately that it's a Peter Lindbergh photo. It wasn't the gear that made his photos stand out. It was HIM.

What a sad and depressing piece to run on a "photography" site.

Just buy all these software products and make a few clicks. You're awesome.

I don't know what the future of photography is, but it looks looks like the future of photography web sites is clickbait.

Not really. I though so at first, but then realized that the tools making it easier for beginners also make it more efficient for "skilled" photographers. Analyzing the article the second time through I started to see some of the "convenient omissions" the author used. First was the $3,500 camera. That's a pretty steep entry price. Second, was the idea that beginning photographers know about noise, cropping, aspect ratios and using Lightroom/Photoshop effectively, etc. Then there was the natural light-only set of images presented. Nothing about using flash, strobes, controlling light, ND filters, polarizers, scrims, reflectors and so on. Also nothing said about posing, color coordination, camera angle, lens choice, f-stop and shutter speed choices. If you use your camera on Auto, you will get average results!

William Murray's comment about a painter picking up a camera is a bit flawed because of the parallel skills (light, composition, color theory, etc.) a painter has that can be utilized in photography. Not exactly the same situation as a new photographer.

Yes, smartphones and mirrorless cameras can capture decent, average images in good lighting conditions, but when you get into wonky lighting, mixed lighting, backlighting, special effects and other situations where you actually need to control the light and the scene, his premise falls flat on its face.

No they don't make it easier, it just all adds to the delusion. He thought he made a silk purse out of a pig's ear when in reality he made a small pig's ear out of a larger pig's ear.

That’s true. Look at all the people taking photos with cellphones.

Tools only work when you hold the correct end of the hammer.

I'd recommend comparing the image presented as proof that "photography skills are no longer needed" against the work of professional surfing photographers. If you don't see the difference, well, there's not an app for that.

Too true. It's the whole devaluation of what constituters a good photograph.

Interesting opinion. I love that technology makes photography more accessible to people to capture images and create good, quality, imagery. I do not feel threatened as a photographer because, like anything, there are those people who want to take pictures for their own reasons and are happy with the results, even if they are not on the same league as a professional. What I feel that your opinion might not be considering is the aspects that, to my mind, are just as important to the gear, that goes into making a good image. Having a tool that can help solve a lot of the technical considerations that need to be accounted for when shooting, does not help with the non-technical ones. There is something about a great image that goes beyond the technical. I think as photographers we have all seen those images that stop us, for whatever reason, and that power that stops us I am willing to bet is not just technical. The technical usually plays a part, but what speaks from the image is more. Naturally as photographers our tools are very important, but that importance is more along the lines of how the tools will help communicate or create our vision. I saw wonderful work from a photographer the other day shot with a plastic Holga. Simply beautiful work with all of it's imperfections. That was the right tool for her to create that. She also works with much better cameras, but I do not think that her Leica would have created the image as well, though technically it would be much better. Anyways, I think it's great that people can more easily take nice images and have the tools to help them.

Since Mr Pigeon made a real point of conflating the question with professional practice . The day is coming where art/creative/campaign directors will not use a professional photographer. They'll take a photo, with average lighting, in house, and the rest will be done on a machine with AI. That day is closer than you think.

And before you emotionally respond, take a second to reflect upon the implications of depth mapping in a phone.

In the interim, there's a hell of a lot of really talented people, desperate to break in, who'll do it for nothing.

Yes they will take pictures in house and do the rest in AI. Totally depict what we do on a daily basis. We all take pictures in house. Nice!

My wife is currently managing team of people who think they are indispensable.

Every last one of them is going to be made redundant within 6 months.

I'm seeing a lot of the same thinking here.

So you are saying your wife is about to lose her managing job...and she probably has nothing to do professionally with photography.

No, she's an executive, and her job is secure, since she's executing the restructure.

And yes, lawyers thought they were safe from AI too, they weren't.

Regardless, you won't believe it till it starts happening, and that's really not my problem. As previously discussed, I wouldn't touch professional photography with a barge pole.

Being an executive doesn't mean she is safe as far as I know. I don't know if you are aware, we are already seeing CGI in photography. It actually can generate more work to photographers than you think. About 15% of my income this year derivate from CGI in actual photography work. I'm not worried about CGI or AI simply because it's evolution and if I have to go do something else I am prepared. I am already adjusting to changes but right now photography is still good to me.

Yes, some will evolve, the very top end (like that guy who does the car photography for Astin Martin) will continue to thrive, most will not.

It's probably best you don't assume the circumstances pertaining to my wife, or me for that matter. You lack the data to draw any inferences.

No worries, even if she was, it would still be the same. May be if she owned the business she could be safe, may be. Based on your understanding on what we do in advertising photography, I feel pretty confident I don't want to hear about what you do for a living.

You can't help yourself, can you? I dangle a really obvious opening, and you grab on and crank for all it's worth.

What makes you think I had any intention of divulging any information, vis-á-vis my profession, education, or anything else? I have no brand to protect, and I don't care whether you like or respect me.

And I'm glad you think being an advertising photographer makes you special. It's obviously working for you, keep it up.

It is illuminating that you seem to think people just open a business, and they are immediately successful; them clients will just rush to your door, right? I think you've forgotten how this works.

But while we are playing the *your work is too narrow, and you should try commercial photography* card, maybe you should go shoot weddings.

That rage against commercial photography that you started many posts ago, please address it to the writer. Let me post this again. "The final image I settled on for use in this article is below. To reiterate, I wanted two main things from this shot: to show enough of the unbroken wave behind the surfer to suggest riding the wave that way was also possible and to show the surfer wearing the new vest from this wetsuit company’s catalog."

Oh, princess, you really aren't very good at this; "rage" would imply I care. Photography just isn't that important.

..and all artists will just use paint by numbers. AI can indeed do things. People have always thought that new tech would supplant old tech but thats not always the case. People are funny choosing what they put value on. Tech while making things easier can at times devalue what it processes. While streaming playlists is fine and dandy and does what it does pretty well, will it ever replace the experience and the moments when you remove a new album from its sleeve all black and full of shiny goodness, place it on the turntable and let it play in the order as conceived by the artist while you read over the sleeve notes and admire the cover? You tell me? The future you imagine looks pretty fucking bland and depressing to me good luck with it.

I didn't see the apology, Eric.

I'm a little over people insulting me for today. Maybe next time.

I disagree

Today's shoot.. a holiday property, the sun was low, causing all sorts of havock to the interior shots

I was shooting 4 or 5 brackets, multiple flash frames

highly technical, and a whole load more technical editing to do.

real professional photographer can handle any horrible situation, because we know how too

skill trumps camera specs

Did you know they are working on sensors which have infinite dynamic range? When the photodiode fills up, a counter clicks over, it empties, and starts filling again.

Depth mapping means you can add any lighting anywhere, in post.

You guys are seeing a very different future to me. These skills are more complex, and therefore harder to solve for, but no less subject to automated redundancy than someone who does menial repetitive work.

no I didn't know that.

today's issue was huge shafts of light coming into the room

solutions included dropping the window blinds, scriming the windows, bracketing, adding an more light

Oh, I get it, and I'm not discounting the skill involved (in any genre).

Maybe we can get back to the present, which is the timeframe for the article's premise. The author says it's easy and then assumes there's no learning curve for Lightroom and Photoshop. He doesn't define what a "good photo" is or several other key concepts like what is a "skilled photographer". Then he takes a photo and obliterates it with post processing and calls it "good"??

My personal experience from teaching photography classes is that unskilled photographers can, by chance, get an acceptable photo or two, but they can't do it repeatedly or on demand. They also have to learn some basic skills, terms and concepts to improve their images in post processing. At what point do they become the dreaded "skilled photographer" he's insulting with his article?

I do have to agree with him on one statement -
"I would almost go as far as to say that anyone can get high-quality images that they can confidently print and put up on a wall or send off to websites or magazines for publication."

Yup, I can easily take a high-quality, 47.5MP photo of my big toe and print it up 20"x30" for my wall plus send it in to any number of magazines for publication. Not that my wife would actually let me put it on a wall or that those magazines would actually publish the photo.

On a personal note, William, you do have a very nice collection of architectural and landscape work and fair is fair. Here's mine -

Thank you for your kind words, Larry, and for sharing. I especially like your black and white dancers.

Re what is currently happening in the industry, I'll defer to Mr Pigeon, who estmates approximately 15% of his work is (currently) CGI. I think recent history has demonstrated how rapidly technology drives change.

My point remains, these aesthetic skills are in no way unique to photographers; painters and traditional artists, designers, art directors have these skills. I assert the argument that technology can't replace photographers because of some special aesthetic insight is empirically rebuttable.

What is much more difficult to replace, potentially impossible, is the creative genius that exists at the top end - a space I could never dream of occupying.

To your initial objection about what is the state of the world right now; I put it to you that this question exists within a broader civilisational level question, and these things *are* manifesting right now, and this is only the start.

If I were a professional photographer, I would be thinking very deeply about how technology will drive change, and how I could mitigate the risk. IMO, Mr Pigeon has it right, anticipate the changes, and get in on the ground floor.

I hear what you are saying William but just having a latent ability to do something does not predict anything about the eventual outcome. The worth of a photograph is in no way proportional to the amount of tech that was thrown at it. Jobbing professional people who use or have used cameras in their work are often the last people you want to hear about photography from as they often have a very warped option of what it actually is. Reminds me of the monkeys and the elephant. Which monkey are you William ;-)

Apparently the assertion that photographers don't possess some magical and unique aesthetic vision is upsetting.

No magic required, just creativity, craft and artistry. The fault if there is any fault is the accessibility of cameras, in that everyone had one. The rub is, just because you have one does not automatically turn you in to a photographer. To imagine it’s all about gear and software is totally misunderstanding what photography is.
The other problem is self delusion with some people imagining because they own some high end gear that it bestows on them the ability to take photographs. The delusion extends to thinking their own snaps are worthy photographs. The evidence for this is contained in the very article we are both commenting on.
I was at a photography conference a few years ago where people were presenting their work. One chap in particular displayed a number of images of icebergs he had shot in the high Artic. He imagined they were good images when in reality they were average to terrible. This imagining because you have a good camera system that anything you point it at will yield a good photograph is the delusion of many gear obsessed snappers. Creating a great image is not about gear or software. If you don’t agree then you know nothing about what photography actually is.

As I have said two or three times, the aesthetic sensibilities are not unique to photography; painters and traditional artists, designers, architects, art directors, and video game artists are all such examples.

But sure, go take a look at my portfolio, and take a look at what I'm shooting with. Of course, it must be that I know nothing about photography.

Hi William. Your initial statement is indeed true. However the way in which creativity is utilised in all the disciplines you mention is very different. The underlying thinking and mental workflow required to bring the notion of an image or artefact in any of these disciplines into reality is also very different.
Photographers and film makers may well use the same camera but they will use it in very different ways and more importantly the thought processes behind how they use the same camera will likewise be very different. They may have a very small overlap but in reality they are two very different disciplines. The problem is there are some photographers who delude themselves into thinking because they have a capable camera that they can make films! just as there are people who own cameras who imagine that they can take photographs.

This escalated quickly.

5000 dollars worth of equipment and a dozen different crafts were combined to produce a trite picture that could easily be found in a teen magazine every year for the past 50

what was the author trying to prove?
and the computer skills that were used didn't just pop up overnight

To be sure what you say regarding the edit is true. It mirrors my own workflow exactly and possibly many other photographers. What you say regarding photography and the impact of gear and technology is so wide of the mark. It’s a cliché to say it’s the person behind the camera that makes the difference but in this case the cliché wins. While both gear and technology help support the photographer it’s the creative decisions made at all the various stages in the creation of an image that sets the photographer apart from the snapper.
The example you use of the suffer is a good example of a half decent snap being made into a reasonable snap. It’s far from being a good photograph as it’s a person standing on a surf board riding a wave. It lacks any kind of drama. In a word it’s a very mundane shot or snap. To have achieved a great photograph the photographer would have had to have worked much harder. Your own example has itself shot down your own argument in flames.
Photography is all about craft, creativity and artistry and neither one is available in either s box or as a download.

I know it’s clickbait, but the whole essence of the article clearly illustrates that the author has no understanding of what photography actually is. The idea that it revolves around pointing a device at a scene or subject and snapping away is what photography is not, though it’s a good description of what a snapper is. Snapping and photography are two fundamentally different things and not to be confused. To say the article is born of ignorance I would say is a fair assessment.

The article heading should have been ‘You No Longer Need Photography Skills to Sell Your Photos’. There are two things being confused here. One is art, the other is applied art. Just like there’s painting and illustration. The latter may not be art, but it’s only meant to do a particular job; not be hung in museums for a hundred years. It’s the same with photography.

There’s a massive market for mediocre mid- to low-priced forgettable photographs that have a viewer lifespan of a week or two before they’re never used or ever seen again. If not, all those royalty free image banks wouldn’t exist.

So the clients who can’t find what they want in an image bank because they specifically want a shot of the wet suit from their catalogue in the shot are gonna be paying just a little bit over royalty free prices. They’re not hiring Peter Lindbergh or Herb Ritts. They don’t care if the picture is bland and emotionless. They don’t want the dark soul of the surfer coming through. They just want that bloody wetsuit and a big ass wave.

So modern cameras and lenses, and current editing software will raise a mediocre photo from the bottom of the triangle to about a third of the way up so that it can be sold to a client for whom good enough really is good enough. And if you’re shooting at that level, and you have enough clients, and can churn out enough average shots, you can make a living.

But if you want to sell art to commercial clients, you have to be very VERY good, at a level of quality that truly is art, and for which no camera or photoshop technique is good enough compensation. At that level there aren’t many clients and you won’t sell many shots. But you don’t need to, because up there at the pinnacle of the triangle, quality costs a lot of money and one sold shot is gonna see you through for awhile.

So all the gear and software does is make mediocrity sellable to the mediocre.

Good job on the headline… you got me. I just HAD to make an account to post a reply:

The core message of this article couldn’t be further from the truth.

Yes, some of the technical aspects of photography are taken care of for you with modern equipment, and you may have more freedom in Lightroom than Ansel Adams ever had in his darkroom. Anything above mediocrity requires understanding the quality of light, composition, concept, color theory, contrast, and developing an instinct for finding or creating moments that speak to the viewer and have something interesting to say.

I would actually argue that availability of equipment makes it more important than ever to develop your eye and really think about what is in the frame. We’re constantly bombarded by uninspiring images, so it takes a lot more effort and experience to cut thru the clutter and capture an image that stands out.

My final thoughts. For the vest, get in the water and make the surfer come your way and shoot with a wider lens. After a few tests, the photographer should have a good idea on what he can do, lens, angle, light amount of wave showing in the background (if that's even needed). May be if it’s not too rough get a floating device to seat or lay on and gain some height and someone in to hold it for some level of stability. I would say that would be a set up with a longer lens but still from in the water. I would go for minimal surfer action that he can repeat after communicating ahead what arms position head and body angles. May be a second assistant can splash water against the wave in direction of the surfer to add dynamism. May be ask a couple surfers to lay on their boards facing the wave and hope they can show a little to make it even more realistic. Plenty of options for sure.Thing is, the camera knowns nothing about preparation, participation, communication or what to look for so before cropping you have to have a plan and anticipate you may have to crop in rather than setting shop knowing you will crop a lot.
When we prepare for a shoot, it’s a lot of work, meets, calls and emails until we feel confident we are set for a good start. Just looking for homes to shoot in is not straight forward. One can have a super nice room but the rest is not usable for our list of shots. It’s all about maximizing the effort and production. Even if you get a nice one it might suddenly not be available anymore, and then there is the weather and people on the set that may not always be very predictable. In my opinion, the author relied on the equipment to get the shoot instead of preparing for the shoot.
The only time I know when a photographer can shoot “unprepared” are sports where action is “improvised” and the context is perfect for the picture to work right away. As soon as you add the vest, you have to decide wave or vest but getting both requires great planning. Being an unpredictable environment this thing was a fail from the start no matter if it was an old film camera or a top end R something.

I'm going to try this again, against my better judgement, and I really would appreciate if people would stop trying to insult me.

My wife has no idea about photography; what I mean by this is she couldn't tell you about shutter speed, aperture, sensor size, brand, etc. She has a Sony RX 100 mk i (which I use far more often than her). She sets it to scene mode, and just tries to capture something pretty - compare shooting film, where you have to understand how it works. She shot the attached on her most recent work trip [jpg, no post, no crop], and her macro stuff is actually pretty good.

The notion that you don't have to understand the gear, but can produce decent photos, was how I understood this article.

Anyway, I've upset a lot of people, and I regret that.

In my opinion, I don’t think Lain’s intention was bad, he just focused on the gear and post process a little too much and his final image showed exactly that. It has nothing to do with his quality as a photographer, he just went too far in one direction trying to make the point that we have a huge amount of options to succeed.
Your wife’s picture shows were she decided to stop and I don’t think she tried to make a point. That’s why you rightfully feel comfortable to present it here.

Thank you, Benoit.

I cannot speak to Iain's intent; however, that was how I read it.

More comments