If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:22:05 -0700, John Navas wrote:
When you act like a dick, expect to get treated like one. Feel free, John, but then you have acted even worse from time to time. I'm no worse than I think you are isn't a terribly good defense. True, but Ron didn't say that. What he did say is more like "I'm less worse than you *really* are.", or better, just read what he wrote and interpret it correctly. He didn't write or imply "I'm no worse", and your addition of "I think" shows that you weren't thinking. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
The OP wins (remember that blowhard?) and once again demonstrates how usenet
devours its own. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many focus errors we see today?)
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:28:58 +0100, "whisky-dave"
wrote: "Truer Dat" wrote in message .. . The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors: Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs. I guess that's true but I wonder if such people[1] even consider checking that the camera is focusing on the image they want. I doubt it as when a person has brought an auot focus camera they expect it to focus automatically. Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge of that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in precise focus? Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a camera you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on. Some Nikon [e.g. D300] cameras allow you to select the point of the image you wish to focus on. In the near future I expect camera will use this technology in that they'll store a picture(s) with varying points of focus a bit like auto-bracking for exposure but with focus, you'll then have the option to tape on teh LCD where you want the best focus point and teh camera will select that stored image deleteing the others all done on-the-fly. There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to do. I think they will do much more, not that it's really needed by those that know what they are doing, but that;s not a good marketing ploy is it. You supply/offer what people want rather than what they actually need. Stagnate and die. This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system. They will start to depend on it as they have done with internal exposure meters. I remember the days when pros and even amateurs didn't 'depend' on the new fangled TTL metering systems. Nor do they ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering system too? I think most people do and will use that meter reading as a starting point at the very least. That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle, The EV compensation does rely on an intial reading. always at the ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real photographers always do. And always will, years ago is it was cloudy, sunny or overcast you'd select an exposure to suit if you were out a little you'd correct it in the darkroom. That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend. Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to try to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're nothing but snapshooters in the first place. People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most important in their cameras. Like whether they are Nikon or Canon or Olympus etc.... Or even what shoes they wear, as comfortable shoes are important if you're taking photos, bad footwear is painful and may lead you to taking shaky photos. [1] those that just buy a camera without really understanding the specs. Eric Stevens |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
ASAAR wrote:
Ok, fair enough, and this reply of yours was even nicely formed, with interspersed counterpoints following points. It's a good thing I didn't hit a key to jump to the bottom of your reply or I would have missed much of what you had to say. nterspersed has its strong points, but following a complex thread through several posters using it can get rather confusing to keep track of who said what. Fortunately, it isn't used too much. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:05:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote in : Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT! Why, since you claim you don't care if anyone reads it? "The lad doth protest too much methinks!" I write for my own pleasure. If someone reads it, and likes what I say, or is helped by it, great. If they don't like it, or don't read it, I really don't care. I have been kicking around on the internet, and before that on Fidonet for about 25 years, and have grown a pretty thick skin, and a back that sheds flames, and insults pretty well. Getting all that upset about something on newsgroups isn't worth the trouble. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter writes Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments? Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response! I admit to arrogance, but then I don't have to resort to personal attacks, or obscene language to make my point. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
JustaTroll wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: JustaTroll wrote: Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the other. - JT You have it! Yes, I do! Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often. I agree... What you did was "trim" out the parts you didn't wish to reply to... It does btw change the original message context . It does however make it quicker to read. Best wishes to you Mr. Hunter... Snip or don't snip as you see fit, I'll read or not read as I see fit. - JT isn't telling you or anyone else how to post messages to Usenet Newsgroups OK. Read the above, carefully, and then reply. If snipping is allowed, what YOU appear to have written MAY be changed to look like something entirely different. All I did was snip your message. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:32:37 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
I have been kicking around on the internet, and before that on Fidonet for about 25 years, and have grown a pretty thick skin, and a back that sheds flames, and insults pretty well. So that explains it, I've got at least 1/2 dozen years on you so you're a newbie! And that's just considering modem use. My first computer (completely hand built) preceded that by a good number of years and it had no OS, just a simple monitor that had to be loaded from paper tape, and the boot code to load the tape I/O routine into memory had to be hand toggled into that same memory which at the time was a whopping 8k bytes, soon to be expanded to 24k so I could run a better BASIC interpreter. The first improvement for that ancient system, before the added memory was a monitor in EPROM which retired the paper tape. I used several of those BBS networks, some of which were really large multi-user BBS systems, and they often networked with other multi-user BBSes. I even ran one (single user, non-network) for a while. But before that was the first BBS, Ward and Randy's single user system in Chicago back in the late 1970s. No charge to use it, but at 300 (with luck) and more often connecting at 110 baud, long distance rates made it only an occasional and very brief indulgence. Getting all that upset about something on newsgroups isn't worth the trouble. There are a couple of guys from the old BBS networks that habitually got themselves vacations from the moderated BBSes due to repeatedly being abusive. A couple were quite knowledgeable and the others much less so, though they didn't realize it. I've seen them here in newsgroup_land. In some ways, not much has changed. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:32:37 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: I have been kicking around on the internet, and before that on Fidonet for about 25 years, and have grown a pretty thick skin, and a back that sheds flames, and insults pretty well. So that explains it, I've got at least 1/2 dozen years on you so you're a newbie! And that's just considering modem use. My first computer (completely hand built) preceded that by a good number of years and it had no OS, just a simple monitor that had to be loaded from paper tape, and the boot code to load the tape I/O routine into memory had to be hand toggled into that same memory which at the time was a whopping 8k bytes, soon to be expanded to 24k so I could run a better BASIC interpreter. The first improvement for that ancient system, before the added memory was a monitor in EPROM which retired the paper tape. I used several of those BBS networks, some of which were really large multi-user BBS systems, and they often networked with other multi-user BBSes. I even ran one (single user, non-network) for a while. But before that was the first BBS, Ward and Randy's single user system in Chicago back in the late 1970s. No charge to use it, but at 300 (with luck) and more often connecting at 110 baud, long distance rates made it only an occasional and very brief indulgence. Getting all that upset about something on newsgroups isn't worth the trouble. There are a couple of guys from the old BBS networks that habitually got themselves vacations from the moderated BBSes due to repeatedly being abusive. A couple were quite knowledgeable and the others much less so, though they didn't realize it. I've seen them here in newsgroup_land. In some ways, not much has changed. My computer experience goes back to 1964. I waited to get one of my own until 1981, and didn't get 'online' until 1983. I ran a local BBS system for 2.5 years, with an average 100 posts/day before shutting it down in order to be able to use my computer more for my own purposes. It was very interesting, and that is the only time I have not used my real name online, although most of the regular posters knew who I was. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Ron Hunter wrote:
John Navas wrote: Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing. Thanks. Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it easy, but I have neither. Thank you for informing us that we, your audience, aren't worth even 3 seconds of consideration. Skipping to the end is vastly easier, 1000 times skipping is faster than one time snipping? Don't make me laugh. and unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for newsgroup access, why bother? Please be informed, that at least I, as part of your audience, feel that you have in the balance nothing valuable to add if you don't even manage basic courtesy. I will negatively score your postings accordingly. Why should I bother to read you? -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Don Stauffer | Digital Photography | 18 | June 25th 09 06:03 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Don Stauffer | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | June 25th 09 06:03 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Doug Jewell[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | June 23rd 09 04:26 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Pete D | Digital Photography | 0 | June 23rd 09 01:02 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Pete D | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | June 23rd 09 01:02 PM |