No need to know anything..

Maybe advertising like the above has convinced people they just need to
buy a great camera and not knowing anything about photography isn't an
issue?

What do you mean "maybe"? :-) Advertising exists for the sole purpose of
selling something -- regardless of anything else, including morality.

People are suckers for glitz as well as for the latest and greatest -- and
the advertisers know that.

(And I won't go into my rant about how a computer geek can Photoshop his or
her way out of a disaster, noting your "not knowing anything about
photography.")

*sigh* I do love my Provia.

K W Hart

2010-12-30 23:24:15 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Someone spammed saying.

My favorite analogy is after eating a delicious meal, you say to the cook,
"That was great! You must really have some good pots and pans!"

There is a poem, I think the title is something like 'The touch of a
master's hand'. The storyline of the poem is an auctioner is trying to sell
an old violin. He starts the bidding at $100 and goes down. When he gets
down to five dollars or so, someone steps forward, picks up the old violin
and starts to play it. After playing it beautifully, the auctioneer starts
the bidding again, at $1000 and goes up.
It's not how good the camera is, it's the skill of the person behind the
viewfinder.

Noons

2010-12-31 03:32:21 UTC

I love it when they comment "Wowie, what a great photo, did you use a Canon
DSLR?" and I answer: "No, I use film on any camera".
Invariably, their face puckers up and they go "film? is it still available?".
I am soooo glad this type of photographer has moved on to digital and left film
to those who like photography!

And people constantly ask me for advice on what new camera to get to do a
certain thing like product photography, ignoring the fact they have no clue
about lighting etc etc etc. Then they get insulted if you try to explain to them
that unless they take some classes or study the subject, a new camera isn't
going to fix their problem they have with their present camera. I know I could
take nice shots with the gear they are using now as going from 5MP to 12MP one
isn't going to fix glare off glass, poor contrast from bad lighting, awful
clutter in the background and other problems they have.
Maybe advertising like the above has convinced people they just need to buy a
great camera and not knowing anything about photography isn't an issue?

It's the same reason commuters buy Mercs and Beamers instead of Toyotas and
Nissans. In their minds they all become racing "pros" while waiting for the
next red light to go green.

Lawrence T. Akutagawa

2010-12-31 19:08:10 UTC

wrote in message news:ifipbv$ufh$***@news.albasani.net...

Someone spammed saying.

Does anyone else ever get sick of how the public assumes good camera
= great images and it has nothing to do with the person knowing how to
use the camera? 90% of the time when someone looks at my images their
first comment is "Wow, that's a great camera". I actually use fairly
crappy ones and many of them are over 50 years old.

/snip - follow the thread/

********
Hey don't knock digital. If not for digital, the great mob of common folks
would not have the kind of images they have. And a good 80-90% percent of
the time, those images are not bad at all. Have you at any - any - kind of
large public gathering looked around and seen the number of camera toting
folks? There is a small fortune in photo hardware around you, be it a
parade, a stage presentation, even a place like Glacier Point or the Grand
Canyon.

And don't forget the classic retort when your neighbor/friend/relative
foists upon you that well exposed, well focused (but not well composed)
picture saying something to the effect "Isn't this a great picture?" - "Yes,
this is a very well exposed and well focused picture. It's as good as well
exposed and well focused as the pictures my four year old grandson takes
with his digital camera."

Dunno about you, but I can well remember when the best chance any four year
old had of taking a decent well focused and well exposed image was with a
Kodak Brownie Hawkeye using Verichrome Pan. And even at that, those images
were nowhere as well focused and well exposed as those from even a 1.3
megapixel digital. By the way - those older digitals make wonderful gifts
for the young ones. And they are inexpensive as can be on EBay and
Shopgoodwill.com.

Now that having been said, for "serious" stuff nothing - nothing - beats
the look and feel of a good, well processed silver gelatin print. I
understand that if I am willing to pay lots, I can get a digital print with
a look and feel similar to a traditional silver gelatin print. But why pay
more for something "similar" when I can get what I want for much, much less?

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-02 19:15:37 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Someone spammed saying.

/snip

I wasn't specifically talking/knocking digital. This has been happening
for decades, long before digital came out. I guess this just stuck a
cord with me after trying to explain to an folk artist friend of mine
that buying a new camera wasn't going to magically get her
magazine/catalog quality product shots.

Stephe

Alan Browne

2011-01-09 23:35:41 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Does anyone else ever get sick of how the public assumes good camera
= great images and it has nothing to do with the person knowing how
to use the camera? 90% of the time when someone looks at my images
their first comment is "Wow, that's a great camera". I actually use
fairly crappy ones and many of them are over 50 years old.

It's just marketing spew of the kind that happens with just about any
other product. Nothing to get hung up about.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Maybe advertising like the above has convinced people they just need
to buy a great camera and not knowing anything about photography
isn't an issue?

That is the role of successful advertising. Sell something.

The perception generated when a commercial shows a person (famous or
otherwise) pointing at a scene with a camera and then the resulting
(perfect of course) image is just powerful. It must be the camera since
that's what (s)he was holding. We learn mostly through our eyes.
Advertising people are very much aware of that...

The latest camera commercials, with video capable DSLR's, even close
with the message "This commercial was shot entirely on the same camera."
Powerful stuff if you're selling something.

But in the end, why should it offend you so much? Really, you have your
photographic goals so go ahead and focus on that.

One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result
is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the
stove, the cookware or such, it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I
have the recipe?"

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-10 17:28:09 UTC

But in the end, why should it offend you so much? Really, you have your
photographic goals so go ahead and focus on that.
One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result
is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the
stove, the cookware or such, it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I
have the recipe?"

Offended isn't my reaction, it's more just irritating. If they asked
"how did you take that", that would be a question I could answer that
would help them improve their photographic skills. Just like your recipe
example does.

When people present a photographic problem to me involving special
lighting etc, they FOCUS on what sort of camera to buy instead. They
refuse to believe that possibly they already have the right gear, they
just need to learn a technique to solve their problem. -That- is
irritating trying to explain that some new fancy camera is going to
result in nothing more that wasted money.

Stephe

Alan Browne

2011-01-11 00:29:13 UTC

Offended isn't my reaction, it's more just irritating. If they asked

Irritated, offended, whatever. Wasted emotion?

Post by s***@yahoo.com
"how did you take that", that would be a question I could answer that
would help them improve their photographic skills. Just like your recipe
example does.

True enough. But many people tend to think that it's the camera doing
the magic and that the photographer is a button pusher.

I've learned a lot from pros by watching, listening and asking
questions. But I ask about lighting and composition (my favourite and
weakest areas, respectively) and not about equipment (too much). The
lessons that always strike home are when the pro does something special
with very little fuss or equipment. Experience, talent.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
When people present a photographic problem to me involving special
lighting etc, they FOCUS on what sort of camera to buy instead. They
refuse to believe that possibly they already have the right gear, they
just need to learn a technique to solve their problem. -That- is
irritating trying to explain that some new fancy camera is going to
result in nothing more that wasted money.

I'll repeat from my prior post, in a nutshell, the commercials as
presented raise the expectation that the camera will make the image for
them. That they are perplexed (or confused, angry, dumbfounded, etc.)
that they don't get the photo they expect can be for a large part laid
on that. Expectations are a powerful thing.

I sometimes help people with the basics, and most learn for a while, and
most of those forget those basics unless they practice a lot. Most
don't. Most depend on the "P" mode a lot of the time. A few go a bit
further. A few go a lot further.

My SO and one of my friends are cases in point. Both, over the years
keep coming back "so if I want the background soft, I set the aperture
to a big value or a small one?" (etc). They know it can be done. They
know it involves those f things - just not which way. Neither has
forgotten the best lesson, though: magic hour.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

shiva das

2011-01-11 02:19:46 UTC

Offended isn't my reaction, it's more just irritating. If they asked

Irritated, offended, whatever. Wasted emotion?

Post by s***@yahoo.com
"how did you take that", that would be a question I could answer that
would help them improve their photographic skills. Just like your recipe
example does.

True enough. But many people tend to think that it's the camera doing
the magic and that the photographer is a button pusher.
I've learned a lot from pros by watching, listening and asking
questions. But I ask about lighting and composition (my favourite and
weakest areas, respectively) and not about equipment (too much). The
lessons that always strike home are when the pro does something special
with very little fuss or equipment. Experience, talent.

I'll repeat from my prior post, in a nutshell, the commercials as
presented raise the expectation that the camera will make the image for
them. That they are perplexed (or confused, angry, dumbfounded, etc.)
that they don't get the photo they expect can be for a large part laid
on that. Expectations are a powerful thing.
I sometimes help people with the basics, and most learn for a while, and
most of those forget those basics unless they practice a lot. Most
don't. Most depend on the "P" mode a lot of the time. A few go a bit
further. A few go a lot further.
My SO and one of my friends are cases in point. Both, over the years
keep coming back "so if I want the background soft, I set the aperture
to a big value or a small one?" (etc). They know it can be done. They
know it involves those f things - just not which way. Neither has
forgotten the best lesson, though: magic hour.

Nothing whatsoever is new under the sun:

In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would find
a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small fraction
of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier, and it cost
half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked the letter K,
wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and wanted a word that
was unique and easily remembered.

Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak came
loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs. Then the
owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who returned it
with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the camera. George
Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business.

One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a
mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it could
handle what had always been a very complicated technology [wet collodion
or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is universally regarded as
one of the greatest slogans in advertising history: ³You press the
button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was a sensation, and George
Eastman became fabulously rich.

<http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2003/5/2003_5_23.sh
tml>

Alan Browne

2011-01-11 13:29:20 UTC

Post by shiva das
In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would find
a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small fraction
of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier, and it cost
half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked the letter K,
wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and wanted a word that
was unique and easily remembered.
Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak came
loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs. Then the
owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who returned it
with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the camera. George
Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business.
One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a
mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it could
handle what had always been a very complicated technology [wet collodion
or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is universally regarded as
one of the greatest slogans in advertising history: ³You press the
button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was a sensation, and George
Eastman became fabulously rich.

A good take on the origins. However, in a sense we have to thank George
for his endeavours and vision. It helped start photography down a very
affordable path that led to the first 35mm cameras.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

David Nebenzahl

2011-01-11 21:15:28 UTC

Post by shiva das
In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would
find a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small
fraction of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier,
and it cost half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked
the letter K, wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and
wanted a word that was unique and easily remembered.
Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak
came loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs.
Then the owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who
returned it with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the
camera. George Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business.
One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a
mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it
could handle what had always been a very complicated technology
[wet collodion or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is
universally regarded as one of the greatest slogans in advertising
history: ³You press the button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was
a sensation, and George Eastman became fabulously rich.

A good take on the origins. However, in a sense we have to thank George
for his endeavours and vision. It helped start photography down a very
affordable path that led to the first 35mm cameras.

Well, I guess. I certainly agree with your first statement. However, I
think that in no way was (or even is, perhaps) 35mm the /sine qua non/
of photography that you (implicitly) make it out to be.

I'd guess, maybe even bet, that *far* more images were taken on other
formats than 35mm, certainly up to, say, the 1960s: 116, 120, etc. You
know, the formats that the great unwashed public used. "Miniature"
cameras (35mm) were pretty much a novelty or a speciality for a long,
long time after Mr. Eastman popularized photography.

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-11 04:56:33 UTC

Offended isn't my reaction, it's more just irritating. If they asked

Irritated, offended, whatever. Wasted emotion?

There is quite a difference between offended and irritated. I'm not
taking it personally if I am irritated. I want to help them but I can't.
I sure don't get upset, it's just frustrating trying to help someone who
has been brainwashed by advertising into thinking it's ALL what camera
you own.

Actually you can see this very thing with some of the 'accomplished'
photographers when reading these forums, especially the Dslr ones.
Unless you own brand X model Y with Z lens, you can't possibly get
decent results.

Stephey

Alan Browne

2011-01-11 13:12:06 UTC

Offended isn't my reaction, it's more just irritating. If they asked

Irritated, offended, whatever. Wasted emotion?

There is nothing more wasteful to your spirit than worrying about why
other people don't get it as you do. Horses to water, etc.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Actually you can see this very thing with some of the 'accomplished'
photographers when reading these forums, especially the Dslr ones.
Unless you own brand X model Y with Z lens, you can't possibly get
decent results.

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.

The "My brand is better than your brand" wars predate DSLR's by a very
long period. DSLR's have increased the numbers, but not the flavour.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-11 19:19:26 UTC

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,
YMMV.

Stephe

Alan Browne

2011-01-11 21:56:36 UTC

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.

Above, I was replying to your statement:

" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y
with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "

That is something not worth worrying about.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-12 11:15:28 UTC

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.
" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y
with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "
That is something not worth worrying about.

Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or even
read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate this crap
was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers spew out.

On the kodak example, what they did WAS ground breaking compared to the
wet plate and other types of early photography. I don't see that as
being hype like what I was talking about.

Stephey

Alan Browne

2011-01-12 13:16:30 UTC

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

David Nebenzahl

2011-01-12 19:02:26 UTC

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about
others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography
much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach
them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on
myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.
" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z
lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "
That is something not worth worrying about.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you
don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And
probably a waste as well?

shiva das

2011-01-13 01:36:08 UTC

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about
others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography
much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach
them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on
myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.
" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z
lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "
That is something not worth worrying about.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you
don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And
probably a waste as well?

Deaf ears, I'm afraid. Alan is a legend in his own mind, with the
correct opinion on everything, and the rest of us are not even dust on
his shoes.

Pity, I used to think Canadians were generally polite.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-13 02:51:50 UTC

Post by shiva das

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about
others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography
much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach
them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on
myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.
" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z
lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "
That is something not worth worrying about.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you
don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And
probably a waste as well?

Deaf ears, I'm afraid.

What I find odd is he is TELLING me I am upset about this after my
saying multiple times I'm not! lol Just was pointing out these online
clowns who debate their personal gear choices over minutia you can't see
in a print perpetuate this crap. Maybe a struck a nerve with him saying
that? :P

Stephey

shiva das

2011-01-13 03:47:52 UTC

Post by shiva das

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about
others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography
much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach
them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on
myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.
" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z
lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "
That is something not worth worrying about.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you
don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And
probably a waste as well?

Deaf ears, I'm afraid.

See, that's the thing. People like him believe that if anyone disagrees
with them it is due to either abysmal ignorance or extreme young age.

You see he _knows_ that you are in fact terribly upset, and that you are
abysmally ignorant of that fact. That's why he has to keep repeating it
-- eventually you will see the light and come around to the correct
(his) way of thinking.

On the other hand he has never been anything but a complete asshole on
any newsgroup I've had the misfortune to find him. If usenet weren't
completely moribund I'd killfile the ass-hat, but there are few enough
posts as it is...

Noons

2011-01-13 09:39:14 UTC

Post by shiva das
On the other hand he has never been anything but a complete asshole on
any newsgroup I've had the misfortune to find him. If usenet weren't
completely moribund I'd killfile the ass-hat, but there are few enough
posts as it is...

Actually, you *should* killfile him. He's been nothing but an ignorant,
opinionated idiot since ever. Not worth it, busy Usenet or not.

Alan Browne

2011-01-13 14:09:41 UTC

Post by shiva das
See, that's the thing. People like him believe that if anyone disagrees
with them it is due to either abysmal ignorance or extreme young age.
You see he _knows_ that you are in fact terribly upset, and that you are
abysmally ignorant of that fact. That's why he has to keep repeating it
-- eventually you will see the light and come around to the correct
(his) way of thinking.

I never said Stephe was ignorant, only that all of her posts on the
subject she started have been emotionally driven over something out of
her control. eg: not really worth getting lathered about. And every
retort of Stephe's repeats the emotional track again.

Do I care about Stephe's condition? Only to the point that if she'd
stop worrying about what all those nasty gear heads say, it would allow
her the peace to pursue more interesting photographic topics.

Ep

The ad hominem. The last refuge of the pathetic. Do please KF me.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

shiva das

2011-01-13 17:22:36 UTC

I never said Stephe was ignorant, only that all of her posts on the
subject she started have been emotionally driven over something out of
her control. eg: not really worth getting lathered about. And every
retort of Stephe's repeats the emotional track again.
Do I care about Stephe's condition? Only to the point that if she'd
stop worrying about what all those nasty gear heads say, it would allow
her the peace to pursue more interesting photographic topics.
Ep

The ad hominem. The last refuge of the pathetic. Do please KF me.

You are clearly being overly emotional. You shouldn't be. Stop it. Now.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-13 17:35:15 UTC

Do I care about Stephe's condition? Only to the point that if she'd stop
worrying about what all those nasty gear heads say, it would allow her
the peace to pursue more interesting photographic topics.

Are you capable of admitting you could possibly be wrong about
anything? How can I be so worried about what they are saying when I
don't even read it? It's like saying I get upset about the news show I
didn't see. LOl fail logic there Alan.

Stephe

Alan Browne

2011-01-13 19:41:39 UTC

Are you capable of admitting you could possibly be wrong about anything?

I'm wrong about my share of things. Often I see them eventually.
Sometimes I don't. Sound familiar?

How can I be so worried about what they are saying when I don't even
read it? It's like saying I get upset about the news show I didn't see.
LOl fail logic there Alan.

Of course you read it. I've seen you commenting on it in other NG's
(your comments on increasing digital resolution for example in
rpdslr-sys sometime last year). So no logic fail.

As for me, I haven't shot any MF film since last spring. I do have a
studio project coming up, though that doesn't require it, but I'll try
to shoot some there in any case.

What's been your latest MF/LF project?

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-13 17:31:50 UTC

Post by shiva das
You see he _knows_ that you are in fact terribly upset, and that you are
abysmally ignorant of that fact. That's why he has to keep repeating it
-- eventually you will see the light and come around to the correct
(his) way of thinking.

Pretty strange behavior. I've seen him act this way about his personal
gear choices or whether to shoot film or not etc but to claim he somehow
knows my emotional state better than I do? Only thing I can fathom is he
is one of the people I was referring to!

Stephey

Alan Browne

2011-01-13 14:04:52 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
What I find odd is he is TELLING me I am upset about this after my
saying multiple times I'm not! lol Just was pointing out these online
clowns who debate their personal gear choices over minutia you can't see
in a print perpetuate this crap. Maybe a struck a nerve with him saying
that? :P

Your language in every post on this is about YOUR being irritated over
something out of your control. Even in this latest reply of yours you
say: "Just was pointing out these online clowns who debate their
personal gear choices over minutia you can't see in a print perpetuate
this crap" - that's an emotional statement of the kind you keep
repeating. Really.

You're the one who brought up the subject. Don't be surprised when some
answers don't please you.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

s***@yahoo.com

2011-01-13 17:52:14 UTC

Your language in every post on this is about YOUR being irritated over
something out of your control. Even in this latest reply of yours you
say: "Just was pointing out these online clowns who debate their
personal gear choices over minutia you can't see in a print perpetuate
this crap" - that's an emotional statement of the kind you keep
repeating. Really.
You're the one who brought up the subject. Don't be surprised when some
answers don't please you.

OK open your brain up to this concept..

I -was- irritated at my own inability to convince a friend a new
camera isn't a solution to their problem. I thought MAYBE someone here
had also run into this and found a good solution for when this happens
in the future.

Clearly you haven't, but then decided to play usenet psychologist and
explain to me that I am all upset and can't be at peace with myself over
some people online spreading this same misinformation. I think those
people are a waste of time, yet you continue to insist you couldn't
possibly have been wrong on your assessment of my emotional state.

Now how can totally forgetting about something I rarely even bring to
mind create some inner peace that is lacking in my life or have some
profound effect on my photography? I also find Sarah Palin irritating,
so I just ignore her nonsensical ramblings as well. But I can't forget
she even exists. I can't stop them from doing what they do, (THAT would
be a waste of time) but I can just avoid listening to them. How does
acknowledging something exists=inner turmoil?

Or is this just another case of Alan Brown is NEVER wrong?

Stephey

Alan Browne

2011-01-13 21:30:47 UTC

Your language in every post on this is about YOUR being irritated over
something out of your control. Even in this latest reply of yours you
say: "Just was pointing out these online clowns who debate their
personal gear choices over minutia you can't see in a print perpetuate
this crap" - that's an emotional statement of the kind you keep
repeating. Really.
You're the one who brought up the subject. Don't be surprised when some
answers don't please you.

Of course I have. And see my first reply to you. In essence, you (nor
I) can solve a broad marketing/advertising campaign that raises
expectations in people about equipment.

And you said what is more effective and rewarding to you: help and teach
people to be better at photography. Worrying about gearheads or people
who expect the camera to do everything never does.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
but then decided to play usenet psychologist and
explain to me that I am all upset and can't be at peace with myself over
some people online spreading this same misinformation. I think those
people are a waste of time, yet you continue to insist you couldn't
possibly have been wrong on your assessment of my emotional state.

Don't take it beyond what I said. I said you're wasting time on it. The
"emotion" thing is driven by your own words. That's your choice of
course. My -advice- is to not worry over such things. And you can take
it or leave it as you see fit.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Now how can totally forgetting about something I rarely even bring to
mind create some inner peace that is lacking in my life or have some
profound effect on my photography? I also find Sarah Palin irritating,
so I just ignore her nonsensical ramblings as well. But I can't forget
she even exists. I can't stop them from doing what they do, (THAT would
be a waste of time) but I can just avoid listening to them. How does
acknowledging something exists=inner turmoil?

Your question was not about acknowledgment of somethings existence it
was about dealing with the something. Here is the beginning of the
opening sentence of your first post:

"Does anyone else ever get sick of how the public assumes
good camera = great images..." - Stephe, 2010.12.30

"Sick"? I know you meant that in the casual sense and not the literal,
but still it's an appeal to your feelings (irritation, frustration). Emotion

And since, as discussed, there is little we can do about how advertisers
set these expectations in people, it's really not worth getting too
irritated (or "sick") about.

Doesn't make it disappear. But not worth getting worked up over.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Or is this just another case of Alan Brown is NEVER wrong?

See my other post.

So, shot any MF/LF lately?

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Jean-David Beyer

2011-01-14 22:46:32 UTC

***@yahoo.com wrote:
me I am upset about this after my

Post by s***@yahoo.com
saying multiple times I'm not! lol Just was pointing out these online
clowns who debate their personal gear choices over minutia you can't see
in a print perpetuate this crap. Maybe a struck a nerve with him saying
that? :P
Stephey

I was at a week-long photo workshop long ago. One of the participants
was using the 120-size Pentax SLR. Most of the other users used 35mm. I
had my 4x5 at the time. But that did not matter a whole lot. People in a
workshop like that should use whatever they were most comfortable with,
since it was not primarily about technique.

He was really concerned that he should use a hardening stop bath, so I
suggested SB-4, although I questioned the need. He complained his
pictures were not sharp enough. He also said his camera was not doing
what it should. I could see that the camera would focus, and could be
adjusted to expose correctly, and so on. I asked what his camera should
do that it was not doing, but he was pretty vague about that too. I
thought his pictures were lousy, but that was due to where he put the
four edges of the frame, the depth of field he chose, and what was in
it, which were artistic decisions he made, not a fault of the camera.

He went on like that all week.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:35:01 up 1 day, 9:29, 5 users, load average: 4.81, 4.85, 4.79

David Nebenzahl

2011-01-15 00:05:19 UTC

Post by Jean-David Beyer
I was at a week-long photo workshop long ago. One of the participants
was using the 120-size Pentax SLR. Most of the other users used 35mm. I
had my 4x5 at the time. But that did not matter a whole lot. People in a
workshop like that should use whatever they were most comfortable with,
since it was not primarily about technique.
He was really concerned that he should use a hardening stop bath, so I
suggested SB-4, although I questioned the need. He complained his
pictures were not sharp enough. He also said his camera was not doing
what it should. I could see that the camera would focus, and could be
adjusted to expose correctly, and so on. I asked what his camera should
do that it was not doing, but he was pretty vague about that too. I
thought his pictures were lousy, but that was due to where he put the
four edges of the frame, the depth of field he chose, and what was in
it, which were artistic decisions he made, not a fault of the camera.
He went on like that all week.

Heh. Interesting, and of course a bit pathetic.

I guess I'm lucky, in that the only photography classes I took were not
at all like this. I actually had a minor brush with celebrity when I
took my first class from Paul Kuiper at his home in Tucson, ca. 1970.
Paul's father was the astronomer Gerard Kuiper, who the University of
Arizona's Optical Sciences Center was named after. Paul also studied
with Minor White, and I'm sure at some point must have met A.A., though
I don't remember that coming up during the class. He achieved some
recognition as a photographer himself.

I remember the class kind of revolving around 4x5 so far as equipment
went, but we mainly looked at photographs, discussed them, and learned
about the Zone System. The class was pretty much all about seeing (and,
of course, "previsualization"). In fact, the only actual experience with
a camera I recall is the one day we went out to a local junkyard with
Paul's 4x5 and took turns shooting Polaroids of stuff there.

The class did inspire me to buy my first "serious" camera shortly
thereafter, a Crown Graphic. After all, one is still pretty
impressionable at the age of 18. I went on to take a "real" photography
class with Kuiper at the newly-opened Pima Community College, which had
a fully-outfitted darkroom with Omega 4x5 enlargers.

Another minor brush with fame: one of the students in that first class
was a quiet, likable guy named John Schaefer, a chemistry professor at
UA at the time. Schaefer went on to become the president of the
university, and was instrumental in establishing the Center for Creative
Photography there with the help of A.A. I don't know how much influence
that one class had on him, but it may well have been a key part of his
development as a photographer.

Lawrence T. Akutagawa

2011-01-15 01:03:17 UTC

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message news:4d30e499$0$2388$***@news.adtechcomputers.com...

/snip - follow the thread/

Another minor brush with fame: one of the students in that first class
was a quiet, likable guy named John Schaefer, a chemistry professor at
UA at the time. Schaefer went on to become the president of the
university, and was instrumental in establishing the Center for Creative
Photography there with the help of A.A. I don't know how much influence
that one class had on him, but it may well have been a key part of his
development as a photographer.

*****

Schaefer, John P. *Zone System for Fine B&W Photography* HP Books, Tucson,
AZ. 1983
ISBN 0-89586-141-0

That John Schaefer? I found this book to be a very readable explanation of
the Zone System. I still have it, and read it from time to time as I do A.
Adams' three part work.

David Nebenzahl

2011-01-15 02:11:50 UTC

Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
/snip - follow the thread/
Another minor brush with fame: one of the students in that first class
was a quiet, likable guy named John Schaefer, a chemistry professor at
UA at the time. Schaefer went on to become the president of the
university, and was instrumental in establishing the Center for Creative
Photography there with the help of A.A. I don't know how much influence
that one class had on him, but it may well have been a key part of his
development as a photographer.
*****
Schaefer, John P. *Zone System for Fine B&W Photography* HP Books, Tucson,
AZ. 1983
ISBN 0-89586-141-0
That John Schaefer? I found this book to be a very readable explanation of
the Zone System. I still have it, and read it from time to time as I do A.
Adams' three part work.

Yep, that John Schaefer. I guess you can thank Paul Kuiper, at least in
part, for that explanation.

Lawrence T. Akutagawa

2011-01-15 06:04:39 UTC

Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
/snip - follow the thread/
Another minor brush with fame: one of the students in that first class
was a quiet, likable guy named John Schaefer, a chemistry professor at
UA at the time. Schaefer went on to become the president of the
university, and was instrumental in establishing the Center for Creative
Photography there with the help of A.A. I don't know how much influence
that one class had on him, but it may well have been a key part of his
development as a photographer.
*****
Schaefer, John P. *Zone System for Fine B&W Photography* HP Books,
Tucson, AZ. 1983
ISBN 0-89586-141-0
That John Schaefer? I found this book to be a very readable explanation
of the Zone System. I still have it, and read it from time to time as I
do A. Adams' three part work.

Yep, that John Schaefer. I guess you can thank Paul Kuiper, at least in
part, for that explanation.
*******

Very interesting. Now would Kuiper have anything to do with A. Adams having
most of his negatives stored at UA? I always was puzzled why Adams didn't
leave his work with one of the California universities and left them with UA
instead. After, he was born, raised, made his name, and lived in
California - particularly northern California.

David Nebenzahl

2011-01-15 06:10:06 UTC

Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
/snip - follow the thread/
Another minor brush with fame: one of the students in that first
class was a quiet, likable guy named John Schaefer, a chemistry
professor at UA at the time. Schaefer went on to become the
president of the university, and was instrumental in establishing
the Center for Creative Photography there with the help of A.A. I
don't know how much influence that one class had on him, but it may
well have been a key part of his development as a photographer.
*****
Schaefer, John P. *Zone System for Fine B&W Photography* HP Books,
Tucson, AZ. 1983 ISBN 0-89586-141-0
That John Schaefer? I found this book to be a very readable
explanation of the Zone System. I still have it, and read it from
time to time as I do A. Adams' three part work.

Yep, that John Schaefer. I guess you can thank Paul Kuiper, at least in
part, for that explanation.
*******
Very interesting. Now would Kuiper have anything to do with A. Adams having
most of his negatives stored at UA? I always was puzzled why Adams didn't
leave his work with one of the California universities and left them with UA
instead. After, he was born, raised, made his name, and lived in
California - particularly northern California.

Lawrence T. Akutagawa

2011-01-15 08:26:30 UTC

Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
/snip - follow the thread/
Another minor brush with fame: one of the students in that first
class was a quiet, likable guy named John Schaefer, a chemistry
professor at UA at the time. Schaefer went on to become the
president of the university, and was instrumental in establishing
the Center for Creative Photography there with the help of A.A. I
don't know how much influence that one class had on him, but it may
well have been a key part of his development as a photographer.
*****
Schaefer, John P. *Zone System for Fine B&W Photography* HP Books,
Tucson, AZ. 1983 ISBN 0-89586-141-0
That John Schaefer? I found this book to be a very readable
explanation of the Zone System. I still have it, and read it from
time to time as I do A. Adams' three part work.

Yep, that John Schaefer. I guess you can thank Paul Kuiper, at least in
part, for that explanation.
*******
Very interesting. Now would Kuiper have anything to do with A. Adams
having most of his negatives stored at UA? I always was puzzled why Adams
didn't leave his work with one of the California universities and left
them with UA instead. After, he was born, raised, made his name, and
lived in California - particularly northern California.

No, it was because of Schaefer that Adams's negatives are there;
Schaefer founded the Center for Creative Photography (it now bears his
name) with Adams's help:

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/BOOKS/bid1060.htm

*****

Thanks for the information and concomitant enlightenment, David. I didn't
know that. This bit of information falls definitely into the "you learn
something every day" category. And the heads up on the book about Schaefer
is also appreciated. I like Schaefer's images in *Zone System for Fine B&W
Photography*. This other book of 100 of Schaefer's images looks well worth
getting. Many thanks.

Howard Lester

2011-01-15 16:39:27 UTC

"David Nebenzahl"

I guess I'm lucky, in that the only photography classes I took were not at
all like this. I actually had a minor brush with celebrity when I took my
first class from Paul Kuiper at his home in Tucson, ca. 1970. Paul's
father was the astronomer Gerard Kuiper, who the University of Arizona's
Optical Sciences Center was named after.

Not quite -- The Optical Sciences Center (now the Meinel Optical Sciences
Center) is across the "mall" from the Gerard P. Kuiper Space Sciences
Center, formerly the Lunar and Planetary Lab, aka the "Looney Lab." :-)

Howard

David Nebenzahl

2011-01-15 21:59:29 UTC

Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
"David Nebenzahl"

Oops, my bad; after all, this is memory going back, lessee, 40 years.

I believe all this is near the Flandreau Planetarium, no? (Named after
Grace, right?)

Howard Lester

2011-01-15 23:02:46 UTC

Post by Howard Lester
Not quite -- The Optical Sciences Center (now the Meinel Optical
Sciences Center) is across the "mall" from the Gerard P. Kuiper Space
Sciences Center, formerly the Lunar and Planetary Lab, aka the "Looney
Lab." :-)

Oops, my bad; after all, this is memory going back, lessee, 40 years.
I believe all this is near the Flandreau Planetarium, no? (Named after
Grace, right?)

Lawrence T. Akutagawa

2011-01-16 04:46:17 UTC

Oops, my bad; after all, this is memory going back, lessee, 40 years.
I believe all this is near the Flandreau Planetarium, no? (Named after
Grace, right?)

It is just east of the [Grace H.] Flandrau, yes. It, too, had a name change:
it's now Flandrau Science Center and Planetarium. I think everything around
there's had a name change! (But I had to look that one up!) Good memory,
David. The campus has grown a lot since you were there.

BTW, I have had the pleasure meeting John Schaefer, including borrowing a
couple of his large format lenses for a photo shoot he was involved in. He
was responsible for establishing the Center of Creative Photography, as has
already been cited, and influenced Ansel Adams to donate his negatives and
prints (not all, I am sure). The Center was originally in a vacated bank
building on University and Tyndall, west of campus. It was there I got to
see some of AA's prints without glass in front of them. Pretty spectacular.
A few years later the huge campus building was constructed to house the
archives of many photographers, and to provide a sizeable photography
library and a full gallery. I spent a fair number of "lunch hours" over
there.

*******
As far as I know, all of Adams' negatives are at UA except for the two dozen
or so "Yosemite Special Edition Photographs" ones which are kept by the
Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite Village. Adams - bless his heart - kept
those there with the stipulation that prints from them be sold to the public
at reasonable prices rather than the sky high ones his prints otherwise
command. Those negatives are all of images taken in Yosemite National Park.
The prints - about 7 1/2 x 9 1/2 - are true and actual photographic prints,
not poster type reproductions. And when I was first aware of them, they
sold for $50 each. I see from the Ansel Adams Gallery they now sell for
$225 each. http://www.anseladams.com/category_s/2.htm

Note - because these are actual silver gelatin prints, there are minor
variations among them. If you go to purchase from the gallery in Yosemite
Village, go when things are slow - early in the morning on a weekday works
well - and ask to see at least 3 prints of the image you want. Then look
closely at each print and purchase the one you want. You may have to ask
the clerk to humor you - I did...she insisted there was no difference among
the prints until I pointed out to her how the detail in the shadows and in
the highlights varied among the prints.

K W Hart

2011-01-15 17:35:20 UTC

/sarcasm mode on/

Everyone knows that a hardening stop bath will improve any picture. You
don't even have to look through the viewfinder; just fire the shutter
randomly, then use a hardening stop bath, and the pictures will be works of
art. In fact, I use hardening versions of all my chemicals: hardening
developer, hardening bleach-fix, even hardening wash. Because of that, my
pictures are fantastic beyond belief.

You know, if he would have bought the latest digital camera and accessories,
his pictures would have been great. At least for a year, until a new model
camera came out. Then his pictures would be lousy again until he bought a
new latest digital camera and it's accessories.

/sarcasm mode off/

Ken Hart
***@frontier.com

Alan Browne

2011-01-15 21:12:46 UTC

Post by K W Hart
Everyone knows that a hardening stop bath will improve any picture. You
don't even have to look through the viewfinder; just fire the shutter
randomly, then use a hardening stop bath, and the pictures will be works of
art. In fact, I use hardening versions of all my chemicals: hardening
developer, hardening bleach-fix, even hardening wash. Because of that, my
pictures are fantastic beyond belief.

The next v. of photoshop will have a "hardening stop bath" and other
hard plug-ins to get the same effects for digital shooters.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Jean-David Beyer

2011-01-15 21:22:02 UTC

Post by K W Hart

/sarcasm mode on/
Everyone knows that a hardening stop bath will improve any picture. You
don't even have to look through the viewfinder; just fire the shutter
randomly, then use a hardening stop bath, and the pictures will be works of
art. In fact, I use hardening versions of all my chemicals: hardening
developer, hardening bleach-fix, even hardening wash. Because of that, my
pictures are fantastic beyond belief.
You know, if he would have bought the latest digital camera and accessories,
his pictures would have been great. At least for a year, until a new model
camera came out. Then his pictures would be lousy again until he bought a
new latest digital camera and it's accessories.

This was before digital cameras were usual (about 1975).

As far as buying my way to artistic success, my favorite was a series of
"filters" sold by Spiratone (I believe it was). This was a thing you
screwed to the front of your lens, like a filter. It had a color filter,
at least one circular polarizer, and a quarter wave plate. And a lever
on the side so you could turn something inside. Moving that lever made
it go from clear to the color of the filter. There were some with two
colors, so you could change from red to green, for example. I thought of
buying one for laughs, but the laugh was not enough to cover the price,
so I never got one.

Post by K W Hart
/sarcasm mode off/
Ken Hart

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 16:15:01 up 2 days, 8:09, 4 users, load average: 5.37, 4.97, 4.78

Howard Lester

2011-01-15 21:48:50 UTC

Post by Jean-David Beyer
As far as buying my way to artistic success, my favorite was a series of
"filters" sold by Spiratone (I believe it was). This was a thing you
screwed to the front of your lens, like a filter.

Now *there* is an outfit I'd completely forgotten -- thanks for the
"memory!"

Alan Browne

2011-01-13 13:56:57 UTC

Post by shiva das

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about
others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography
much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach
them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on
myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.
" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z
lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "
That is something not worth worrying about.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you
don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And
probably a waste as well?

Deaf ears, I'm afraid. Alan is a legend in his own mind, with the
correct opinion on everything, and the rest of us are not even dust on
his shoes.
Pity, I used to think Canadians were generally polite.

With such an arrogant answer I think you have some reflecting on
yourself to do.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Doug McDonald

2011-01-11 15:31:11 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result
is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the stove, the cookware or such,
it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I have the recipe?"

Not on TV. On some shows, for example on Bravo, product placement is very, very obvious.

Doug McDonald

Alan Browne

2011-01-11 21:53:46 UTC