From: Ray Fischer on
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd suggest the former. Why? Because using a large camera is a

More elitist snobbery.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Rich on
On Apr 24, 2:46 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> RichA  <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'd suggest the former.  Why?  Because using a large camera is a
>
> More elitist snobbery.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer        
> rfisc...(a)sonic.net  

Spoken like someone who can't appreciate hard work and what comes from
it. In other words, a liberal.
From: Ray Fischer on
Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 24, 2:46�am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I'd suggest the former. �Why? �Because using a large camera is a
>>
>> More elitist snobbery.
>
>Spoken like someone who can't appreciate hard work and what comes from

Another rightard bigot who canot take any responsibility for his
actions.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Pete on
On 2010-04-24 02:54:40 +0100, tony cooper said:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest the former. Why? Because using a large camera is a
>> commitment, force of will is needed for some people and it usually
>> translates into more carefully considered images. P&S's and the new
>> mirrorless things seem to encourage people to take a more
>> lackadaisical attitude towards photography. Case in point;
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35127470
>
> No, I would say the P&S *allow* people to put just as much effort into
> taking photographs as they choose to. And that's not a bad thing.

That's a very good thing. Friends have said they enjoy using their
small camera and will happily use my P&S when I hand it to them. They
will not use my SLR kit because they are afraid of breaking it and
don't think their photography is good enough for it. Small cameras are
less intimidating giving the owner more enjoyment and an opportunity
(rather than a pressure) to improve.

> There's no reason to think that everyone should have the same
> requirements for their photographic output that some of us do. If
> they don't care that the snapshots are badly composed or fuzzy, that's
> their business.
>
> I was out taking some candids with my dslr in a downtown park this
> afternoon and saw three young people passing around their small P&S
> and taking pictures of each other. I volunteered to take a photo of
> all three of them together with their camera.
>
> I had them face a different direction to take advantage of the light
> and move away from a large utility box behind them. My shots of them
> were better composed than their shots of each other. However, I
> suspect they will be just as pleased with their shots as they will be
> with mine.

I'm sure they will be very pleased you did that for them. You showed
interest in their photography and a willingness to help, which could be
of great value to them.

--
Pete

From: bugbear on
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cfd371fb-8bd4-4b39-bbfb-45350d34a5d0(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> I'd suggest the former. Why? Because using a large camera is a
>> commitment, force of will is needed for some people and it usually
>> translates into more carefully considered images. P&S's and the new
>> mirrorless things seem to encourage people to take a more
>> lackadaisical attitude towards photography. Case in point;
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35127470
>>
>
> Nah - it means Joe Public can do what the pro's have always done - shoot
> loads of images and pick out the best ones later. With film this is
> expensive for amateurs and meant carrying loads of film.

And motordrives were expensive accessories.

But what's the cliche noise of a (esp) fashion
photoshoot - motordrive.

BugBear
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The big questions about DSLRs
Next: What is sad about today