From: Peter on
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message
news:i0ud9d01lvm(a)news7.newsguy.com...
> On 7/6/2010 12:07 AM, Mike Russell wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:43:51 -0500, Die Wahrheit wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:30:38 -0500, Allen<allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Naturally, the subject rapidly turned to equipment, which may or may
>>>> not
>>>> identify amateur vs. pro.
>>>> The best way to tell is this: the amateur is the one who is smiling and
>>>> appears to be enjoying him/herself.
>>>> Allen
>>>
>>> The amateur just does it more often. The fool, all the time. The true
>>> Pro
>>> only when it really matters to the art of photography. Their joy now
>>> being
>>> 100-fold that of the amateur or fool. Greater views for greater
>>> enjoyment
>>> require more challenging climbs.
>>
>> Or a helicopter.
>
> The true pro doesn't give a hoot in Hell about art, he's in it for the
> money.
>


I don't know how many pros you know. I know at least a dozen fine are &
fashion photographers. Every one of them takes great pride in their art. I
only know two fine art photographers who do really well. (Income over 7
digits not counting decimals.)
Most I know are not in that business for the money. They do it for the self
fulfillment an artist gets.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4c327598$0$5514$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message
>> news:RfmdnU_hiNm_yK_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>>> Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits
>>> easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise,
>>> anything up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It
>>> would be ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every
>>> imaginable control, a P&S.
>>
>> I own an 8800, which I have always referred to as a P&S. Yes, it does
>> have a lot of controls. I converted it to infra red and still use it.
>>
>>
>> This whole conversation is ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are quite
> happy! I own both and have no problem with the term.
>


Imagine someone worrying about being politically correct when referring to a
camera.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:nke6365auqrka4ut9385fagk0t1svfmqqa(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 18:44:36 -0400, in
> <4c32607f$0$5549$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:050720100934157149%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>>> In article <9s0436hjo7s7rrnp6or68uc7988k4p901t(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Point and shoot as used here is pejorative, as I'm sure you know.
>>>
>>> nope.
>>>
>>>> Canon does not use "point and shoot" for its high-end models, only its
>>>> lower models. Likewise Olympus.
>>>
>>> wrong. olympus does:
>>>
>>> <http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital.asp?section=sp>
>>>
>>> b&h calls them point and shoot and so does keh, as do a lot of people.
>>>
>>> only in your mind is it considered to be derogatory.
>>>
>>> you're threatened. it's clear.
>>
>>Oh pulese! How can Mr. never be wrong feel threatened.
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>


Well!
We are waiting for your proof. Until then,
Bye


--
Peter
Sorry he first posted that here.

From: Peter on
"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:3te636lv4fmjmbvfpq5k0k2ogqpik9stts(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:07:19 -0500, in
> <gie436dqgdo3vfor0co497mqgm1stucum9(a)4ax.com>, Joel Connor
> <myemail(a)myserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:34:21 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>b&h photo, one of the largest if not *the* largest worldwide seller of
>>>photo equipment, classifies digital cameras into three categories,
>>>point & shoot, slr and mirrorless system cameras for the latest large
>>>sensor compacts, a category that didn't exist until recently.
>>
>>And many multinational drug companies, far wealthier than B&H, who are now
>>getting class-action lawsuits advertised on TV to try to find all those
>>who
>>were injured or killed by their products will call deadly medications as
>>"Safe and Effective".
>>
>>Your point?
>>
>>Do you always let advertising define your reality for you?
>>
>>You have some serious problems if so.
>
> Side note: It's almost certainly a wild mischaracterization to claim B&H
> is "one of the largest if not *the* largest worldwide seller of photo
> equipment" -- even with annual sales of $100M+* my guess(tm) is that
> it's not even close to mass retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, Costco.
>
> *
> <http://www.safenet-inc.com/About_SafeNet/Customer_Success/Customer_Success_Items/B_H_Photo_Selects_SafeNet_for_PCI_Compliance.aspx>


And you proof of sales of camera equipment by Wal-Mart and Best Buy is?

--
Peter

From: nospam on
In article <4c33cb1c$0$5505$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

> "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:nke6365auqrka4ut9385fagk0t1svfmqqa(a)4ax.com...
> > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>
>
> Well!
> We are waiting for your proof. Until then,

you'll be waiting a long time.