How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many focus errors we see today?)

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:26:10 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications --
it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and
comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author
himself clearly thinks are worthless.
I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any,
for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a
crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending
several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make
in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post.

Ron, that old canard never flew and still doesn't fly. Checking
both rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and rec.photo.digital I see 43
replies for June, 146 for May, 26 for April, 47 for March, 36 for
February and 64 for January. As today is the 27th, it's close
enough to consider it a full month, and your average for six months
is 60.3333 posts per month, or two per day. I may have missed a
couple of posts (news servers occasionally miss a few) but this
should be pretty representative of what you've actually posted.
Virtually everyone in the newsgroup other than you has said that
they can trim posts in a matter of seconds. How can you expect
anyone to take seriously your claim that it takes you several hours
(on average) to trim two replies? Even in May when you must have
been chugging your Geritol you only averaged 5 replies per day.
This is a good example of arguing for its own sake, credibility be
damned. I hope that you don't really believe your "logic".

I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly!

And you assume this is the only newsgroup to which I post?
It is one of those I post LEAST to.

They Just Get Sad and Sadder wrote:


I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly!

Yet another way to detect snapshooters from photographers. They find
anything at all to post about other than photography, any obscure topic at
all that they might know a little about. GPS units, cell-phones, batteries,
syntax and spelling, top vs. bottom posting ... you name it. Anything at
all to get away from that scary topic of photography. The topic where their
book/manual-learned and net-learned ignorance will be easily revealed by
real photographers.

Actually, the kinds of people like above aren't even snapshooters. They
live on the internet, never held a camera in their lives, stalking down
their only known companions in life, that being the text on their screens.
Deducing their rival posters' every move by how many posts their imaginary
"friends" make and in what newsgroups.

They only hope and pray that someone would stalk them in return the same
way one day, showing that much interest in them. They have yet to figure
out that they aren't worth even that much of anyone's time. That kind of
psychotic behavior serves no purpose to those with real lives.

What a sad sad sad self-evident existence. Oh well. Their choice.

Now, what other ways can we list to deduce point and shoot snapshooters
from real photographers? Point and shoot photography style, not P&S camera
style. Because most every DSLR owner is also nothing but a remedial point
and shoot snapshooting camera owner. Otherwise they wouldn't pride
themselves on and depend on all their camera's automatic features. Touting
the superiority of their camera for having the latest and greatest
automatic features. .... Or have we pretty much covered all the more
obvious ways to flush-out these point and shoot snapshooting posers who try
to pretend to be "X-Spurts" online.



Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:18:31 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

They Just Get Sad and Sadder wrote:


I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly!

Yet another way to detect snapshooters from photographers. They find
anything at all to post about other than photography, any obscure topic at
all that they might know a little about. GPS units, cell-phones, batteries,
syntax and spelling, top vs. bottom posting ... you name it. Anything at
all to get away from that scary topic of photography. The topic where their
book/manual-learned and net-learned ignorance will be easily revealed by
real photographers.

Actually, the kinds of people like above aren't even snapshooters. They
live on the internet, never held a camera in their lives, stalking down
their only known companions in life, that being the text on their screens.
Deducing their rival posters' every move by how many posts their imaginary
"friends" make and in what newsgroups.

They only hope and pray that someone would stalk them in return the same
way one day, showing that much interest in them. They have yet to figure
out that they aren't worth even that much of anyone's time. That kind of
psychotic behavior serves no purpose to those with real lives.

What a sad sad sad self-evident existence. Oh well. Their choice.

Now, what other ways can we list to deduce point and shoot snapshooters
from real photographers? Point and shoot photography style, not P&S camera
style. Because most every DSLR owner is also nothing but a remedial point
and shoot snapshooting camera owner. Otherwise they wouldn't pride
themselves on and depend on all their camera's automatic features. Touting
the superiority of their camera for having the latest and greatest
automatic features. .... Or have we pretty much covered all the more
obvious ways to flush-out these point and shoot snapshooting posers who try
to pretend to be "X-Spurts" online.



Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
never know this nor how to implement this.

You've just outted yourself as a lowly DSLR-TROLL snapshooter.

Thanks for playing.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:16:16 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


And you assume this is the only newsgroup to which I post?
It is one of those I post LEAST to.

Well, it's a start.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:16:16 -0500, Ron, the excuse Hunter wrote:

I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly!

And you assume this is the only newsgroup to which I post?
It is one of those I post LEAST to.

Still doesn't fly, Ron. Trimming takes seconds. Actually typing
replies should take much more time unless your typing speed is
extremely fast and you don't spend much time thinking out cogent
things to type. (hmm) So if trimming would take hours, actually
typing the messages should fill nearly the entire 24 hours of your
day. I didn't realize that newsgroups were your life. How much
time do you get to sleep and eat?

You sound like a little child trying to fool their parents with
what he/she thinks is a plausible excuse, but the parents see
through everything because they've been there, done that.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:32:46 -0500, Dave Connors wrote:

Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
never know this nor how to implement this.

Au contraire, dimwit troll. The "steady-cam" method is based on
physics, where two large lever arms are created with the camera
midway between them. Your moment has passed, although you'd never
recognize one. Holding a camera at arm's length is the exact
opposite of what needs to be done to increase steadiness.

You've just outted yourself as a lowly DSLR-TROLL snapshooter.

That's exactly what we expect our anti-DSLR sock puppet troll to
type, so thanks for outing yourself to those not already familiar
with your other telltale signs. I hope this doesn't torque you off
too much. Scratch that. It probably will, though you won't admit
it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:18:31 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to
arm's length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On the one hand you say that you don't have enough time to waste
on trimming quotes, yet here you show that you have enough time to
converse with our *easily* identified sock puppet troll. Why don't
you consider that to be an even more egregious waste of time? We
await yet another of your easily debunked explanations.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:18:22 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:32:46 -0500, Dave Connors wrote:

Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
never know this nor how to implement this.

Au contraire, dimwit troll. The "steady-cam" method is based on
physics, where two large lever arms are created with the camera
midway between them. Your moment has passed, although you'd never
recognize one. Holding a camera at arm's length is the exact
opposite of what needs to be done to increase steadiness.

You put tension in your arm muscles and use them as effective
counterbalance weights and springs against the inertia of the camera. If
the camera is lacking in enough inertia then you also grasp a heavy book or
rock to make up the difference. But then, the only weight you've ever tried
to balance is that useless mass on top of your neck while depending on
advice from "just as stupid and ignorant as you" references online.


You've just outted yourself as a lowly DSLR-TROLL snapshooter.

That's exactly what we expect our anti-DSLR sock puppet troll to
type, so thanks for outing yourself to those not already familiar
with your other telltale signs. I hope this doesn't torque you off
too much. Scratch that. It probably will, though you won't admit
it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

ASSAR, go use some real cameras one day. You're talking out of your ass
again, as usual. You can do nothing but that. You're all ass. To be
expected in every post that you've ever made or will ever make.

Dave Connors wrote:
On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
never know this nor how to implement this.

Yeah, right, "Dave".

jue

Ron Hunter wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
add me to your 'twit list'. Life is way too short to waste doing
something you don't need to do, and which gives you no pleasure.


Hello, Ron:

They're "ganging up" on you, old man! g Seriously, your lack of editing
skill seems to be the rule (rather than the exception), on Usenet.

Incidentally, everybody must be aware of "the ticking of the clock," at
one time or another. Regardless of age, life can end suddenly, due to
accidents, natural disasters, etc.


Cordially,
John Turco