Like, so absolutely!
Ok, stop it now Cotty!
Christian
No no - it's 'Coddy'
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read Mike Johnston's latest over at Luminous Landscape.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-04.shtml
Notice he mentions the PDML :)
He also blush mentions this photo:
http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/7d202806.htm
But he got the story
The ethical
standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get
what
you want without cheating has improved.
Umm, have you not been watching CNN lately?
I think the world as a whole is becoming less ethical, and
journalism, while not leading the herd, is certainly somewhere in
Cotty wrote:
While staying at tvs, I did some channel-flicking and MY GOD what a
nightmare. Mercifully I was able to catch a bit of the BBC news on BBC
World. I don't understand how north America survives most news programmes.
Cheers,
Cotty
Easy - we who survive don't watch them
Quite nicely, thank you.
Cil my Landlord.
Where's my chainsaw?
Everyone's gonna PAY.
Cotty wrote:
snip
I don't understand how north America survives most news programmes.
I survive it by seldom watching it. There are good things happening in the
world, but you would never know from American TV News programing. Unfortunately,
many think the world is as bad a place as they portray it. I sometimes wonder
how many suicides a year they are responsible for.
--
Cotty
You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you?
No.
Photography is not about chemistry.
It is about light.
William Robb
Like, so absolutely!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shot a wedding last winter (I don't do them often, anymore). While
at the location we had chosen for our portraits, another photographer
was also working.
She had a couple of cheap studio flash units, I think they were the
low end Photogenics that aren't actually called
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gonz
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Interesting article. Do you think Laurenceau's work falls in that
category?
Heck no, I just like stirring the pot..
Trouble maker... ;)
But much of what he says it true, alot of the photos
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Like, so absolutely!
Ok, stop it now Cotty!
Christian
You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you?
Nick
-Original Message-
From: William Robb[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you now need to be a computer whiz rather than a photographic
technologist to be a competent photographer.
Kinda changes the whole concept of
- Original Message -
From: Nick Clark
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you?
No.
Photography is not about chemistry.
It is about light.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Gonz
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Have you ever seen this fellow's (contemporary) work?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=338558
In his case I don't think his talent is due to his equipment, even
if it
IS a hassy + nice lenses.
Read
Interesting article. Do you think Laurenceau's work falls in that category?
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gonz
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Have you ever seen this fellow's (contemporary) work?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=338558
In his
I dunno. It's possible to turn this arguement upside down.
Photoshop is not exactly an easy take. Read any understandable
smart flash manuals recently? One hundred plus pages of Japanese-
To-English that makes you think that flash is one hell of a lot
smarter than you are. Cameras and lenses
Didn't Minolta actually have a model out that took cards?
You want DOF preview, stick in some smarts? I remember
rolling my eyes
John Francis wrote:
There's also a certain amount spent on stuff that looks like a good
idea when you buy it, but somehow never really ends up being used.
Many
There are many many professions where you don't have to be a nerd to be
good at your job. Whatever gets you from A to B is just fine is a lot
of peoples books. I think a lot of people actually concentrate too much
on the tech and forget much more important considerations such as
light,
- Original Message -
From: Lon Williamson
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
I dunno. It's possible to turn this arguement upside down.
Photoshop is not exactly an easy take. Read any understandable
smart flash manuals recently? One hundred plus pages of Japanese-
To-English
That's because you probably already have a spouse better than you need. :)
Tom C.
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:43:24 -0400
You know, at GFM someone had a D2H with a VR 80
You know, at GFM someone had a D2H with a VR 80-400 sitting on the table
in our area, so I was able to pick it up and dry fire a bit. It's a
big thing, but fits nice in your hands. Of course, if I wanted a camera
like this I'd have to switch since Pentax will never make a pro model
like this.
In the beginning..., the chicken was the egg! Self replicating molecules...
Regards,
Bob...
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg. It's obvious the chicken
came first.
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Tom C wrote:
No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg. It's obvious the chicken
came first.
If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
hen.
anders
Hi,
No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg. It's obvious the chicken
came first.
If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
hen.
There is a very fine Ethiopian dish called
If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
hen.
That's why I said the chicken... :)
I've heard they didn't have any food, but of course that was from some
organization that wanted me to send money to feed the starving Ethiopians.
--
Bob W wrote:
Ethiopia has superb food!
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
From: George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eliminating the technology threshold opens up the field to more folks
that
are good at seeing the image but not good technologists.
The leaves you free to concentrate on framing theory. I find
increasingly that pros are trusting automation to handle the
Hi,
Ethiopia has superb food!
I've heard they didn't have any food, but of course that was from some
organization that wanted me to send money to feed the starving Ethiopians.
Not all Ethiopians are in Ethiopia, and not all Ethiopians in Ethiopia
starve during famines.
Nevertheless, the
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs Cameras
The ethical
standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get
what
you want without cheating has improved.
Umm, have you not been watching CNN lately?
I think the world as a whole
As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl
photographer) has always been in the let the camera do the technical
stuff camp.
Currently he uses F100s - before that he was using the N90s. I don't
kn ow what he was using at the time of the Afghan Girl shot - that was
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
William Robb wrote:
...and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game.
I know what you intended Bill... but disagree as stated. :) One
can have
technology do everything but compose the shot
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
I use _my_ Lear Jet as a dust blower to keep the Van Goghs clean
...
One of the local Indian bands near where I live has a Lear sitting in
a quonset on the reservation.
The thing has never been flown
- Original Message -
From: Bob W
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Hi,
Photography seems to be the only profession where it is accepted
that
one needs little or no technical knowledge to practice the trade.
I think IT has you beat by a very, very large margin.
Just testing
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:41:53 -0600, William Robb wrote:
I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of
some sort. I like fixing things.
Well, if you get a Miata, you'll have a reliable British sports car.
That's the upside and the downside. You'll get a lot of the British
sports
- Original Message -
From: Doug Franklin
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:41:53 -0600, William Robb wrote:
I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of
some sort. I like fixing things.
Well, if you get a Miata, you'll have a reliable
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:01:38 -0600, William Robb wrote:
I thought they missed the boat when they put an inline 4
instead of a Wankel into the Miata.
They fixed that issue with the RX-8 though.
I agree about the rotary in the Miata. I've heard of 12A and 13B swaps
into a Miata, and lots of
Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
I knew _someone_ was going to say that. I had a good idea who, too.
Personally I think there is a far closer parallel between contemporary
image capture technology and the new
On 6 Jun 2004 at 19:52, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Touche.
I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't images to rival St. Ansels in on-
line galleries (considering the capabilities of the media).
Why there seems to be such a belief that only the past photographers like Ansel
and HCB were capable
Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
On 6 Jun 2004 at 19:52, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Touche.
I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't images to rival St. Ansels in
on-
line galleries (considering
I doubt all pros in photography are equipped with the finest.
In my neck of the woods, it seems to be a lot like the music
scene. Full time local musicians are poor as church mice, and
so are many full time photographers. In both cases, the equipment
would be considered marginal by many. Yet
Lon Williamson wrote:
I doubt all pros in photography are equipped with the finest.
In my neck of the woods, it seems to be a lot like the music
scene. Full time local musicians are poor as church mice, and
so are many full time photographers. In both cases, the equipment
would be considered
Hi,
I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team
at
a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8
with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than
what
I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1198
Another tired example of trotting out the 1/10 of 1% crowd.
Interesting read, but it has as little bearing on what most
photographers do or need in their equipment.
I'm not surprised he's got Holgaroids, carrying all that
edwin wrote:
The people bemoaning the death of photography are overlooking
the fact that the goal of most photography is not photography.
... a pearl of great price, IMHO
Bill
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: photography vs cameras
A lighter load, more shots before reloading, and better lens
options?
Presumably 35mm was adopted because it either gave users more good
shots,
or an equal number of adequately good shots for less weight
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek Vlcek
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their
sane
mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car,
but
anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has
At 05:04 AM 6/4/2004 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she
got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures.
Unless you saw her photos, you don't know what she got. And what's dull to
you can be a treasured memory to someone else. Or maybe she did get 99
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Mike Nosal wrote:
If someone spends $8000 (or $800, or $80) on photo equipment and they are
satisfied by the outcome, good for them. Let them spend their money on what
they want.
And fund development for *your* camera.
Kostas
people really honestly do pick things up rather easily.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
ein If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid
ein If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would
ein buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer.
ein Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent
ein the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek Vlcek
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their
sane
mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car,
but
anybody with a camera thinks he
Hi,
I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team
at
a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8
with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what
I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced
she
Bob,
Very well said. I was thinking of that very same comment by Hurn when I
read the original post ;-))
Shel Belinkoff
[Original Message]
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6/4/2004 4:12:20 PM
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Hi,
I was watching a rich
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was
very
common for people to repair most minor problems with their own
hands.
(There was also far more economical incentive to do so
Yo Bill,
You can do some work on the Titan as well if you purchase a service
manual. It's not as mysterious as it seems.
Paul
On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:41 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Back in the days when cars weren't
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:44:58 -0400
From: Shawn K. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said:
I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team
at
a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8
with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than
55 matches
Mail list logo
