Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
An intriguing analogy, as I have a 1930s Colt National Match. I can shoot a lot straighter with that than I can with a 'cooking' Colt .45, but how much is that (a) expectation/'comfort'/sentimental value (we inherited it from my late father-in-law) and (b) the fact that it's factory blueprinted?
Perhaps still more relevantly, how close is the analogy between 'shooting straight' (which is pretty much all there is with a gun) and technical/ aesthetic qualities in photography?
I believe it is having an expectation that you, when you do your part, will not be disappointed in the results by the performance of your equipment. It is also in how well you know your tools.
I would like to concentrate with the composition, expression of the subject, and the light with the tools appropriately following my lead.
I have pictures in my mind that I failed to capture due to the wrong equipment, and often, just timing-- you cannot stop the car, the subject is gone, expression, and perhaps the worse is some technical difficulty.
As to Colt's Factory standards, I can tell you have not toured them, as my late gunsmith had, there were some surprises. My 1873 shot much better when they changed the barrel from one marked 44 to one was was 44. Glad they got it that way around, would not care to try to force a 45 down a 44 barrel.