photography and drawing

TP wrote:

Yeah, right.


About as meaningful as your photography.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

TP wrote:

Yeah, right.


About as meaningful as your photography.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"TP" wrote in message
.. .
(Sabineellen) wrote:

There was a time when I spent a lot of time picking the brains of some
expert photographers who used to post here. They are all long gone,
thanks to the dumbing down of this newsgroup over the last two years,
a process that was accelerated by the Snapshot Irrelevant. I still
exchange emails with them, but they won't be returning here anytime
soon, at least while the SI continues.

And who are these "expert photographers" who left due to the SI?


Do try reading posts before you reply to them.

I know you like to appear dumb but you really are wasting so much time
replying to posts you haven't read.

OK...

Who are these expert photographers who won't be returning while the SI
continues?


Haha. Gotta admire Mark's simple persistence in asking the question. Surely
didn't get fooled by TP's obvious evasiveness here.

Yes, TP. It's a simple question. Who are those "expert photographers" whose
brains you used to pick and who have all gone thanks to the "Snapshot
Irrelevant", and who "won't be returning here anytime soon, at least while the
SI continues"?

You ought to know; you "still exchange emails with them".

Let me guess how you're gonna avoid answering this one; you want to protect
their privacy or some excuse like that?

"Ha! I say Ha!" - from Streetcar Named Desire applies here.

I think the mark of a photographer is his
photographs. How he got them does not matter. Where are you photographs?

Yeah, right.

I think the mark of a photographer is his photographs. Where are your
photographs?

I think the mark of a photographer is his
photographs. How he got them does not matter. Where are you photographs?

Yeah, right.

I think the mark of a photographer is his photographs. Where are your
photographs?

"Ha! I say Ha!" - from Streetcar Named Desire applies here.


Obligatory Elaboration - gotta be uttered in a Southern (Louisiana) accent :

"Stanley Kowalski: Take a look at yourself here in a worn-out Mardi Gras
outfit, rented for 50 cents from some rag-picker. And with a crazy crown on.
Now what kind of a queen do you think you are? Do you know that I've been on to
you from the start, and not once did you pull the wool over this boy's eyes?
You come in here and you sprinkle the place with powder and you spray perfume
and you stick a paper lantern over the light bulb - and, lo and behold, the
place has turned to Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile, sitting on your
throne, swilling down my liquor. And do you know what I say? Ha ha! Do you hear
me? Ha ha ha! "

Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire

"Ha! I say Ha!" - from Streetcar Named Desire applies here.


Obligatory Elaboration - gotta be uttered in a Southern (Louisiana) accent :

"Stanley Kowalski: Take a look at yourself here in a worn-out Mardi Gras
outfit, rented for 50 cents from some rag-picker. And with a crazy crown on.
Now what kind of a queen do you think you are? Do you know that I've been on to
you from the start, and not once did you pull the wool over this boy's eyes?
You come in here and you sprinkle the place with powder and you spray perfume
and you stick a paper lantern over the light bulb - and, lo and behold, the
place has turned to Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile, sitting on your
throne, swilling down my liquor. And do you know what I say? Ha ha! Do you hear
me? Ha ha ha! "

Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire

If you use manual control for long enough, it becomes second nature,
and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
that you want.

If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature
then
you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in
terms of
focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough
when
necessary for some creative control aspect.

I don't agree with this.
There are a lot of situations where the smartest cameras will not get it
right at all without manual.
There are plenty of examples.
For example...Shooting multiple shots for a panorama MUST use manual to
maintain exposures that don't vary in either DOF or exposure rendition.
Or... Forcing small apertures and higher shutter speeds using flash to
either heighten DOF or freeze motion...or isolate a suject creating a dark
background.
This must be done using manual if you want to control both motion and DOF.
Or... Sunny settings where camera meters are notoriously fooled, and one
must set exposure manually. Simply using exposure compensation gives away
control of either aperture or shutter.

If you aspire to be merely the operator of an
automatic camera that makes creative decisions for you (and that means
any of the camera settings, because they are all creative decisions),
then an auto-everything camera is perfect for you. Just don't call
yourself a photographer, that's all.


I don't see using manual controls as any achievement.

It is an "achievement" to the extent that one can consistently force the
shot they intended, vs. what the camera hands you.

I don't think a mark of a
"photographer" is someone who's an operator of a manual camera.

I agree there.
Many types of photography just don't work well with all manual settings
(like AF in sports, wildlife action, etc.)

I care most
about content and composition. I think the mark of a photographer is his
photographs. How he got them does not matter.

But how one shoots and utilizes full control may well determine if he "gets"
them as he *envisioned, vs. the hap-hazard results of camera-brain-reliance.
Don't misunderstand my point... I think a smart camera is very useful and
helpful for tons of shots. I just wouldn't discount the usefulness of
mastering manual shooting--at least in terms of shutter and aperture
controls, and focus in certain situations.

Where are you photographs?

He'll never show them to you.
He's afraid to. I guess I don't blame him after the way he shoots his mouth
off about how crappy other people's photos are. Once you do that, you just
set yourself up for ridicule when/if you post your shots.

If you use manual control for long enough, it becomes second nature,
and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
that you want.

If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature
then
you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in
terms of
focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough
when
necessary for some creative control aspect.

I don't agree with this.
There are a lot of situations where the smartest cameras will not get it
right at all without manual.
There are plenty of examples.
For example...Shooting multiple shots for a panorama MUST use manual to
maintain exposures that don't vary in either DOF or exposure rendition.
Or... Forcing small apertures and higher shutter speeds using flash to
either heighten DOF or freeze motion...or isolate a suject creating a dark
background.
This must be done using manual if you want to control both motion and DOF.
Or... Sunny settings where camera meters are notoriously fooled, and one
must set exposure manually. Simply using exposure compensation gives away
control of either aperture or shutter.

If you aspire to be merely the operator of an
automatic camera that makes creative decisions for you (and that means
any of the camera settings, because they are all creative decisions),
then an auto-everything camera is perfect for you. Just don't call
yourself a photographer, that's all.


I don't see using manual controls as any achievement.

It is an "achievement" to the extent that one can consistently force the
shot they intended, vs. what the camera hands you.

I don't think a mark of a
"photographer" is someone who's an operator of a manual camera.

I agree there.
Many types of photography just don't work well with all manual settings
(like AF in sports, wildlife action, etc.)

I care most
about content and composition. I think the mark of a photographer is his
photographs. How he got them does not matter.

But how one shoots and utilizes full control may well determine if he "gets"
them as he *envisioned, vs. the hap-hazard results of camera-brain-reliance.
Don't misunderstand my point... I think a smart camera is very useful and
helpful for tons of shots. I just wouldn't discount the usefulness of
mastering manual shooting--at least in terms of shutter and aperture
controls, and focus in certain situations.

Where are you photographs?

He'll never show them to you.
He's afraid to. I guess I don't blame him after the way he shoots his mouth
off about how crappy other people's photos are. Once you do that, you just
set yourself up for ridicule when/if you post your shots.

If you use manual control for long enough, it becomes second nature,
and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
that you want.

If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature
then
you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in
terms of
focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough
when
necessary for some creative control aspect.

I don't agree with this.
There are a lot of situations where the smartest cameras will not get it
right at all without manual.
There are plenty of examples.
For example...Shooting multiple shots for a panorama MUST use manual to
maintain exposures that don't vary in either DOF or exposure rendition.
Or... Forcing small apertures and higher shutter speeds using flash to
either heighten DOF or freeze motion...or isolate a suject creating a dark
background.
This must be done using manual if you want to control both motion and DOF.
Or... Sunny settings where camera meters are notoriously fooled, and one
must set exposure manually. Simply using exposure compensation gives away
control of either aperture or shutter.

If you aspire to be merely the operator of an
automatic camera that makes creative decisions for you (and that means
any of the camera settings, because they are all creative decisions),
then an auto-everything camera is perfect for you. Just don't call
yourself a photographer, that's all.


I don't see using manual controls as any achievement.

It is an "achievement" to the extent that one can consistently force the
shot they intended, vs. what the camera hands you.

I don't think a mark of a
"photographer" is someone who's an operator of a manual camera.

I agree there.
Many types of photography just don't work well with all manual settings
(like AF in sports, wildlife action, etc.)

I care most
about content and composition. I think the mark of a photographer is his
photographs. How he got them does not matter.

But how one shoots and utilizes full control may well determine if he "gets"
them as he *envisioned, vs. the hap-hazard results of camera-brain-reliance.
Don't misunderstand my point... I think a smart camera is very useful and
helpful for tons of shots. I just wouldn't discount the usefulness of
mastering manual shooting--at least in terms of shutter and aperture
controls, and focus in certain situations.

Where are you photographs?

He'll never show them to you.
He's afraid to. I guess I don't blame him after the way he shoots his mouth
off about how crappy other people's photos are. Once you do that, you just
set yourself up for ridicule when/if you post your shots.