OMFG! They'll have no arguments left!

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

'Tis a newsgroup disaster of catastrophic proportions. Their eventual
education and advancement in intellect (is that even possible?) will surely
bring this newsgroup to a standstill.

Truly indeed.

I should be careful of what I wish for. If it weren't for having to
continuously correct the pretend-photographer trolls there'd be no reason
to even type for this newsgroup.

"OMG" wrote in message
...

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

'Tis a newsgroup disaster of catastrophic proportions. Their eventual
education and advancement in intellect (is that even possible?) will
surely
bring this newsgroup to a standstill.

Truly indeed.

I should be careful of what I wish for. If it weren't for having to
continuously correct the pretend-photographer trolls there'd be no reason
to even type for this newsgroup.


What was the reason you types this for again??

Like the sound of your our ramblings I guess.

LOL, sad.

"OMG" wrote in message
...

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

'Tis a newsgroup disaster of catastrophic proportions. Their eventual
education and advancement in intellect (is that even possible?) will
surely
bring this newsgroup to a standstill.

Truly indeed.

I should be careful of what I wish for. If it weren't for having to
continuously correct the pretend-photographer trolls there'd be no reason
to even type for this newsgroup.

Name one award winning photograph that was taken without using a camera. I
think the camera does play a role, despite your insane ramblings.

"OMG" wrote in message
...

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

'Tis a newsgroup disaster of catastrophic proportions. Their eventual
education and advancement in intellect (is that even possible?) will
surely
bring this newsgroup to a standstill.

Truly indeed.

I should be careful of what I wish for. If it weren't for having to
continuously correct the pretend-photographer trolls there'd be no reason
to even type for this newsgroup.


looks like you job here is done :-)
now **** off, we don't need you any more

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

In article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

"OMG" wrote in message
...

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

Name one award winning photograph that was taken without using a camera. I
think the camera does play a role, despite your insane ramblings.

You're missing the point. Great photographers will take great photos
almost regardless of the equipment they use. Poor photographers, on the
other hand, will still be poor regardless of their equipment.

The only difference the equipment makes is technical, not compositional.

Most of us would prefer compositional and technical perfection, but it
is surprising how poor the equipment can be in the hands of a great
photographer and still make stunning photographs. Nevertheless, for the
absolute best, you probably need a great photographer with a view camera.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Robert Peirce writes:
You're missing the point. Great photographers will take great photos
almost regardless of the equipment they use. Poor photographers, on the
other hand, will still be poor regardless of their equipment.

Generally true, but that _doesn't_ mean that equipment, or technical
quality, is irrelevant. There are many facets that go into making a
great photograph, and while composition, subject, etc are very
important, in many cases, technical quality is _also_ one of those
facets. It isn't _sufficient_ for great photography, but neither is it
irrelevant to it.

-Miles

--
Arrest, v. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

"OMG" wrote in message
...

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

Name one award winning photograph that was taken without using a camera.
I
think the camera does play a role, despite your insane ramblings.

You're missing the point. Great photographers will take great photos
almost regardless of the equipment they use. Poor photographers, on the
other hand, will still be poor regardless of their equipment.

The only difference the equipment makes is technical, not compositional.

Most of us would prefer compositional and technical perfection, but it
is surprising how poor the equipment can be in the hands of a great
photographer and still make stunning photographs. Nevertheless, for the
absolute best, you probably need a great photographer with a view camera.

And that's my point entirely: the camera plays a part, and anyone who says
that gear is irrelevant is simply wrong. Pros, given the choice of using
anything on the market, will gravitate toward the best equipment that suits
their needs, not some low-end crap that's unreliable. Sports shooters do not
shoot using decades-old manual focus film cameras, they use modern Nikons
and Canons with high-speed AF and great low light capabilities. To them,
gear is highly important. So great shooters, in many cases, still need great
gear.

Bowser wrote:

And that's my point entirely: the camera plays a part, and anyone who
says that gear is irrelevant is simply wrong. Pros, given the choice of
using anything on the market, will gravitate toward the best equipment
that suits their needs, not some low-end crap that's unreliable. Sports
shooters do not shoot using decades-old manual focus film cameras, they
use modern Nikons and Canons with high-speed AF and great low light
capabilities. To them, gear is highly important. So great shooters, in
many cases, still need great gear.

It's like a great chef. He can probably make something decent out of
sub-standard ingredients in a poorly equipped kitchen, but it won't be
his best work. To do his best work he needs the proper tools and
ingredients.

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

"OMG" wrote in message
...

Once the pretend-photographer virtual-life role-playing trolls realize
that
it's not the camera that makes the award-winning photo, but the
photographer, whatever will they do to get attention for themselves?

Name one award winning photograph that was taken without using a camera. I
think the camera does play a role, despite your insane ramblings.

You're missing the point. Great photographers will take great photos
almost regardless of the equipment they use. Poor photographers, on the
other hand, will still be poor regardless of their equipment.

The only difference the equipment makes is technical, not compositional.

Most of us would prefer compositional and technical perfection, but it
is surprising how poor the equipment can be in the hands of a great
photographer and still make stunning photographs. Nevertheless, for the
absolute best, you probably need a great photographer with a view camera.

Perhaps for some specific variation of "best" your last
statement is valid, but certainly not for every possible
variation. The best photographs of a baseball game
certainly are not going to come from a view camera. Ice
hockey and basketball are even less likely. The same is
true of many types of photography.

While it is true that a good photographer can get a good
photograph using just about any camera, it is *not* true
that just any photograph can be done well with just any
camera, no matter how good the photographer. If you
want landscapes, or candid people pictures, baseball, or
flowers, or rattle snakes... you'd better choose the
right camera.

With the right camera even a poor photographer can
accidentally get a great image now and then. With the
wrong camera, even a great photographer cannot get a
decent image of any given object.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Perhaps for some specific variation of "best" your last
statement is valid, but certainly not for every possible
variation. The best photographs of a baseball game
certainly are not going to come from a view camera. Ice
hockey and basketball are even less likely. The same is
true of many types of photography.

While it is true that a good photographer can get a good
photograph using just about any camera, it is *not* true
that just any photograph can be done well with just any
camera, no matter how good the photographer. If you
want landscapes, or candid people pictures, baseball, or
flowers, or rattle snakes... you'd better choose the
right camera.

With the right camera even a poor photographer can
accidentally get a great image now and then. With the
wrong camera, even a great photographer cannot get a
decent image of any given object.

Well stated; perhaps the best ever. Now I wish this would put an end to
the ridiculous assertions every few months, but I doubt it.

--
John McWilliams