Attacking spelling and grammar on usenet, except as a friendly poke, is
especially poor form.  But I forgive you.  And if your name really is
Michelle Twain, then I appologize for assuming "M Twain" was a pseudonym.

Smug?  Sure.  Why not.  There are so many people around these NG's with
equipment and no technqiue that I do feel a certain smug satisfaction
with my relatively high knowledge and capability.  At that, I always
admit that I have a lot to learn and that it's a never ending cycle.  If
 I live to be a hundred and ten I hope I learn something new and
fascinating in my dying hours.

As to surreptious, it is a form of discrete, stealthy, clandestine
observation, not cowardice.  It is very normal human behaviour and like
me, _you_ do it all the time, day in and day out just like everyone
else.  As I'm a long time photographer I'm always curious as to what
gear people are using.  And as I said elsewhere I often observe good and
useful habits when watching other photographers at work or play.  I've
learned from masters and I've learned from newbies.  That does not mean
I have to talk to them about it!

I was posting about people (the older fellow) being frustrated that his
$7000 camera body was not giving him his expected result because he
simply does not understand how flash photography works.  There is no
amount of money spent on a camera body or frigging with its controls
that will allow any camera in existence to make a
single-flash-unit-on-camera shot of his large and deep subject and get a
good exposure across the frame.

As he did not have multiple other flashes and flash controller (or
slaves) to set remotely and light the scene properly; nor tripod to do a
long shutter period available light shot, there was really nothing I
could do to help him.  It may be that he's not even a novice
photographer and it's not his camera but one the company owns, or that
he has more money than photographic knowledge or experience... he may
pop into the store where he bought it and get the right explanation, or
find it online or from a photographer friend or club, or even here in
this ng.  Or he may find himself enjoying the camera in less challenging
situations.

The point was, as always: you can always screw up a photo regardless of
how expensive and capable your gear is.  For the photo he was
attempting, a cheap 4 Mpix P&S on a cheap tripod with a longer shutter
period, would have achieved an image far supperior to the one he was
getting through lack of technique with his 16 Mpix camera.

Cheers,
Alan

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:

Don't sweat it.  Was a time where I'd stop and try to help and then go
on and firehouse the poor bastard with more info than he could absorb in
a short time just to prove my vast (ahem) knowledge.  I just let it go
now.  I also pay a lot of attention to photogs who I see here and there
to see if they have anything to teach me ... and I learn a lot that way.

One of my booth inmates at this show was harping on how much he hated
digital.  So, in a fit of cruelty, told him all about the great prices
he could get on used Hasselblad gear.... bwahhahahahaha.

Having worked with a number of people who've had more money than clue,
I have to agree with you on that. Those kinds of guys (& it's nearly
always guys) are the sort of people who'd not only be mortally
insulted if a stranger were to get better results than them on THEIR
TOY!, but would actually return it as "faulty" because it "should work
just as well for me!".

I'm sure whatever problems I may have pale in comparison to yours.

Cheers,
Alan