 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / July 2009How to spend $15,000 to take vacation-quality snapshots
Composition and technical nightmare time. Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to acceptability. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=32265093 > Composition and technical nightmare time. > > Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to > acceptability. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=32265093 Who cares and why should it matter just as long as he's happy with the images? His money and trip equals who gives a sh.t what others think. >> Composition and technical nightmare time. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Who cares and why should it matter just as long as he's happy with the >images? His money and trip equals who gives a sh.t what others think. Amen!  SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >Composition and technical nightmare time. > >Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to >acceptability. > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=32265093 Helluva lot better than anything I've seen from you. > Composition and technical nightmare time. > > Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to > acceptability. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=32265093 So what would you have him buy, a plastic P&S? It seems to me you complain about people using what you view as poor cameras, but if someone uses a camera that is too good you give them grief as well. In article <6a1ab895-9981-42d3-8aa6-c3df1d147b2a@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > Composition and technical nightmare time. > > Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to > acceptability. Since you know everything, when can we see some of your award-winning images? What's that? You can only yap out of your pie hole? > Composition and technical nightmare time. > > Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to > acceptability. I guess that's what the mega pixel race was for. BugBear > Composition and technical nightmare time. > > Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to > acceptability. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=32265093 This sounds like the classic case of I'll spend a fortune on expensive DSLR gear to impress everybody, so that they'll think I'm an expert photographer rather than a clueless newbie. I'm continually amazed at the number of happy snappers who think that buying a DSLR will suddenly enable them to become a proficient photographer. The most important thing is what goes on behind the camera, not how much cash you can waste to impress people. >> Composition and technical nightmare time. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >most important thing is what goes on behind the camera, not how much cash >you can waste to impress people. "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner." -Author Unknown "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", by Ken Rockwell <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm> SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>I'm continually amazed at the number of happy snappers who think that buying >>a DSLR will suddenly enable them to become a proficient photographer. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"Your Camera Doesn't Matter", by Ken Rockwell ><http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm> Did Ansel Adams use cheap sh.t cameras? For that matter, does Rockwell? How about Dorothea Lange, Alert Eisenstadt, or Cartier-Bresson? Please name someone who has been able to become a proficient photographer without obtaining a decent camera! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>I'm continually amazed at the number of happy snappers who think that buying >>>a DSLR will suddenly enable them to become a proficient photographer. The [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >proficient photographer without obtaining a decent >camera! Straw man again. There's a world of difference between "cheap sh.t" and decent, as I'm sure you know. Ansel Adams actually used quite basic cameras for much of his work. Likewise Cartier-Bresson and others. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>>I'm continually amazed at the number of happy snappers who think that buying >>>>a DSLR will suddenly enable them to become a proficient photographer. The [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Straw man again. There's a world of difference between "cheap sh.t" and >decent, as I'm sure you know. And apparently you do not. >Ansel Adams actually used quite basic >cameras for much of his work. Likewise Cartier-Bresson and others. Bull pucky. (Adams' "quite basic" cameras at the time of his death were *all* Hassleblads, for example.) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>"Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon >>>>owner." -Author Unknown [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >And apparently you do not. How nice. >>Ansel Adams actually used quite basic >>cameras for much of his work. Likewise Cartier-Bresson and others. > >Bull pucky. (Adams' "quite basic" cameras at the time >of his death were *all* Hassleblads, for example.) While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. <http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700005060067/0506000746-l.jpg> SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>>>"Your Camera Doesn't Matter", by Ken Rockwell >>>>><http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >How nice. But true. >>>Ansel Adams actually used quite basic >>>cameras for much of his work. Likewise Cartier-Bresson and others. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. ><http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700005060067/0506000746-l.jpg> Just like the Hasselblads, those too were just about the most expensive, advanced, and most complex cameras available at the time for the type of work he did with them. Consider Eisenstaedt and Cartier-Bresson, both of whom were jounalists and basically *started* with the most expensive and complex camera available for that work at the time (Leica 35mm). Any way you wish to slice it, use of Rockwell as an authority with his "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" quote simply indicates a complete lack of comprehension of what it takes to learn photography. Anyone can learn to make snapshots, and the camera just doesn't matter. To learn photography, obtain the best camera possible... And of course once qualified as a photographer, it is possible to use just about any camera to get some kind of a useful photograph; but for a journeyman photographer who might be asked tomorrow to get almost *anything*, it probably requires more than one camera that pushes the envelope far past "basic". SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>And apparently you do not. >> >>How nice. > >But true. Speak for yourself, dude. You've got your hands full with just that. I'll speak for myself. >>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >available at the time for the type of work he did with >them. Nonsense -- they are relatively simple and unsophisticated cameras, which is why it takes so much expertise to use them well. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>>And apparently you do not. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Speak for yourself, dude. You've got your hands full with just that. >I'll speak for myself. Snip where you try to speak for me, leave only my response, and then claim I'm the dastardly dude! Bad form Navas, really bad form... >>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Nonsense -- they are relatively simple and unsophisticated cameras, >which is why it takes so much expertise to use them well. The point, since you seem unable to acquire it, is that at the time a Hassy was *the* most sophisticated, complex, and expensive camera available. And that is pretty much exactly what Ansel Adams used them. There is virtually no question that a person like Adams buying a camera today would also pick up on the most sophisticated, complex, and expensive camera available... You, however, would not. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > The point, since you seem unable to acquire it, is that > at the time a Hassy was *the* most sophisticated, > complex, and expensive camera available. And that is > pretty much exactly what Ansel Adams used them. Floyd, calm down. John only allows the top cameras coming out in 2209 to be not basic at any point in time. Advanced cameras will only arrive late in the next millennium. You have to understand him, he *has* to do that, otherwise he might have to admit he was *wrong*. -Wolfgang On 7/2/09 8:33 AM, in article 87vdmbjjl6.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote: >>>>> And apparently you do not. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > response, and then claim I'm the dastardly dude! Bad > form Navas, really bad form... What else is new? >>>Just like the Hasselblads, those too were just about the >>>most expensive, advanced, and most complex cameras [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >complex, and expensive camera available. And that is >pretty much exactly what Ansel Adams used them. Straw man argument. I said nothing about Hasselblads. >There is virtually no question that a person like Adams >buying a camera today would also pick up on the most >sophisticated, complex, and expensive camera >available... Overwhelming evidence to the contrary. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>>Just like the Hasselblads, those too were just about the >>>>most expensive, advanced, and most complex cameras [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Straw man argument. I said nothing about Hasselblads. The Hassy is only an example, and the exact same is true of the cameras he was using earlier in his carrier. How many others ran around the country with a vehicle mounted 8x10 view camera??? >>There is virtually no question that a person like Adams >>buying a camera today would also pick up on the most >>sophisticated, complex, and expensive camera >>available... > >Overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Virtually *all* of the evidence is not contrary. But your pontifications *are* hilarious Navas. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>Straw man argument. I said nothing about Hasselblads. > >The Hassy is only an example, I'd call it an attempted diversion. >and the exact same is true >of the cameras he was using earlier in his carrier. Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >How >many others ran around the country with a vehicle >mounted 8x10 view camera??? Not many. It's a real PITA. >>Overwhelming evidence to the contrary. > >Virtually *all* of the evidence is not contrary. Repeating that claim doesn't make it any more true. >But your pontifications *are* hilarious Navas. The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, much less any manners. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>Straw man argument. I said nothing about Hasselblads. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >much less any manners. John, you've had that insulting attitude from the start, for exactly that reason. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >>much less any manners. > >John, you've had that insulting attitude from the >start, for exactly that reason. Your unwillingness to respect other points of view, especially when supported by facts, does you no credit, showing you to be arrogant, meanspirited and childish. Grow up. It's still not too late to follow the lead of Ebenezer Scrooge. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >>The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, > >>much less any manners. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > meanspirited and childish. Grow up. It's still not too late to follow > the lead of Ebenezer Scrooge. pot. kettle. >>>The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >>>much less any manners. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >meanspirited and childish. Grow up. It's still not too late to follow >the lead of Ebenezer Scrooge. There you go again... Describing yourself and attributing to others what you've just demonstrated about yourself. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >>>>much less any manners. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >attributing to others what you've just demonstrated >about yourself. All that did was prove my point, again. More's the pity. Oh well. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >>>much less any manners. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >meanspirited and childish. Grow up. It's still not too late to follow >the lead of Ebenezer Scrooge. Kettle returns the volley to pot. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Your unwillingness to respect other points of view, especially when > supported by facts, does you no credit, showing you to be arrogant, > meanspirited and childish. Grow up. It's still not too late to follow > the lead of Ebenezer Scrooge. Dear John, maybe you should show us all how. Lead us, John. Show us how you respect other points of view. Show us how you value facts. Show us how you not come about as arrogant, meanspirited and childish! Please! -Wolfgang >>>>Straw man argument. I said nothing about Hasselblads. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >John, you've had that insulting attitude from the >start, for exactly that reason. Pot tells kettle off. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> But your pontifications *are* hilarious Navas. >> The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >> much less any manners. > > John, you've had that insulting attitude from the > start, for exactly that reason. You should talk Floyd... You've had a serious attitude flaw for as long as you've posted here. SignatureD-Mac... Back from the near-dead! With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking. I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time! >>>Straw man argument. I said nothing about Hasselblads. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? There weren't any. >>How >>many others ran around the country with a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The insult only serves to show you don't have a persuasive position, >much less any manners. Eric Stevens >>Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. > >Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? >There weren't any. Non sequitor. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >> >>Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? >>There weren't any. > >Non sequitor. Not at all. You wrote "View cameras are flexible but basic". I don't regard a view camera of that period as 'basic'. They were typically as advanced as any camera you could reasonably buy. That's why I asked "what bells and whistles could he have added" to have made the camera less 'basic'. If there was nothing of significance that he could have added to the camera then it was as advanced as cameras could be at that time. My question was not a non sequitur. Eric Stevens >>>>Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >could have added to the camera then it was as advanced as cameras >could be at that time. My question was not a non sequitur. In those days a Box Brownie was basic. Fixed aperture. Fixed shutter speed. The only control was the one to wind on the film. Eric Stevens >>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Eric Stevens I recall a tab on my Brownie (circa 1954), which when pulled out, added a close-up element. Didn't change a thing in the viewfinder. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>>Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In those days a Box Brownie was basic. Fixed aperture. Fixed shutter > speed. The only control was the one to wind on the film. In the time of the early Box Brownies some of the better flat pocketable compacts of the day where the lens was extended out of the flat package on a bellows included a lens shift mechanism, mostly used for straightening converging verticals in photographs of buildings. The facility was provided because some of the holiday snappers of the time liked having it and used it. From one point of view it's a very simple basic camera adjustment facility, no more complex than changing the aperture to control DoF. Whereas today a shift lens is regarded as something so highly esoteric that only a small number of specialised professionals use it, and you have to spend a lot of money to acquire the facility. Similarly back in those days adjusting aperture when the sun went behind clouds was a simple basic adjustment which was only absent on sunny day snapshot cameras with no adjustments. You now have to spend a lot of money to get a camera where you can control the aperture, and doing so is regarded as sophisticated expert photography. SignatureChris Malcolm >>>>>>Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >a lot of money to get a camera where you can control the aperture, and >doing so is regarded as sophisticated expert photography. You couldn't adjust the aperture on a Box Brownie. Here is a late model one http://www.nigel-roberts.info/images/Kodak-Box-Brownie.jpg Eric Stevens >>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>> Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Eric Stevens Actually some of the earlier ones did have a limited capacity for aperture control. the first camera that I remember using was an old BB that my mother had relegated to the closet. It was made sometime in the 1910s and had a thin metal strip that had a very small tab sticking out of the top. This strip had (as I recall) three holes of different diameters punched in it, though it may have been only two. You stuck a fingernail under the tab and raised it to the diameter you wanted. Again as I recall, this strip was mounted just in front of the lens so you could see if it was properly aligned. As all those old lenses were single element it couldn't be in the middle. And--no pesky plastics; just metal, leather and glass. Another note about it--it used 616 film, which resulted in contact prints 2.5" by 4.25", a great size for landscapes and groups. I have several old pictures of my father's family with upwards of 40 people, all very easily identifiable. Allen >>>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>>> Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >with upwards of 40 people, all very easily identifiable. >Allen Now you mention it, I do remember seeing that. There was a small tab about 6mm wide and 4mm long. My fingernails were never strong enough to move it. Eric Stevens >>>>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>>>> Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >Eric Stevens The "Target Brownie SIX-16" that I'm holding in my hands right now begged me to add some corrections. I keep this one visible on my shelves at all times to remind me that an award winning photo can be taken even with a camera like this--in the hands of any real pro. The aperture slide has 2 holes, for cloudy and sunny. F/16 and f/32, if I recall. I doubt that any were made with 3-stops, since casual photographers only thought in terms of sunny, cloudy, and bulb back then. A quick measure of the stops at 6.5mm and 4mm dia. suggest a little larger than f/32 for the 4mm dia. stop. The lens was, as far as I recall and know, a pair of plano-convex lenses to ensure more field-flatness than any single element can obtain. I took this one apart down to individual components many years ago to refurbish it back to near-mint condition. In fact, opening it up just now and looking from the back, the two lenses' surfaces are clearly visible in reflections. A smaller more strongly curved front element and larger dia. less-curved back element. This model of Brownie also has a bulb tab just below the shutter tab, so you could fire off flash-powder or the more modern flash-bulbs while you held the shutter open. Having had one as a child too, I also recall being the more adventurous photographer where I would use the bulb mode to time my own shutter experiments for night-shots and fireworks. Also using it hooked up to my small home-made telescope for fairly nice shots of the moon. Since I couldn't take the lens out of it for direct-projection and not being able to see and focus the image at the focal-plane for afocal photography, I recall putting some wax-paper over the back of the opened body. Focusing the moon on that. Noting what focus I had to have on the telescope's focusing tube. Then I reassembled camera with film. Resulting sharpness was none too successful after all the jostling of reassembly, but a fun experiment for a seven/eight-year-old. >>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that only a small number of specialised professionals use it, and you > have to spend a lot of money to acquire the facility. You can get a field camera for less than the price of a full-frame DSLR, and you can get a tilt/shift lens for under 400 bucks. Neither is horribly expensive. > Similarly back in those days adjusting aperture when the sun went > behind clouds was a simple basic adjustment which was only absent on > sunny day snapshot cameras with no adjustments. You now have to spend > a lot of money to get a camera where you can control the aperture, and > doing so is regarded as sophisticated expert photography. A camera with aperture control was always considered to be somewhat sophisticated. Brownies and their competitors did not have aperture control--you didn't usually get aperture control on bargain basement medium format cameras, which included the Brownies and the like, it was't until you got to 35mms and professional medium format that you got aperture control. >>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> that only a small number of specialised professionals use it, and you >> have to spend a lot of money to acquire the facility. > You can get a field camera for less than the price of a full-frame DSLR, and > you can get a tilt/shift lens for under 400 bucks. Neither is horribly > expensive. >> Similarly back in those days adjusting aperture when the sun went >> behind clouds was a simple basic adjustment which was only absent on >> sunny day snapshot cameras with no adjustments. You now have to spend >> a lot of money to get a camera where you can control the aperture, and >> doing so is regarded as sophisticated expert photography. > A camera with aperture control was always considered to be somewhat > sophisticated. Brownies and their competitors did not have aperture > control--you didn't usually get aperture control on bargain basement medium > format cameras, which included the Brownies and the like, it was't until you > got to 35mms and professional medium format that you got aperture control. The 3A FPK (Folding Pocket Kodak) had adjustable aperture, a shift lens, and took postcard sized photos on 122 film. Sold from around 1903 to 1915. SignatureChris Malcolm >>>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >lens, and took postcard sized photos on 122 film. Sold from around >1903 to 1915. This was basic compared with the camera used by Ansel Adams. Eric Stevens >>>>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>lens, and took postcard sized photos on 122 film. Sold from around >>1903 to 1915. > This was basic compared with the camera used by Ansel Adams. And illustrates my point that back then the more sophisticated of the simple basic cameras included manual aperture and shutter adjustment and tilt lenses for architectural photography. When I was a child I was lent such a camera by a elderly relative who'd bought it for holiday snaps and never bothered to learn how to operate it. Not only had he never read the manual, he'd lost it. There are some things that never change :-) SignatureChris Malcolm >>>>>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >had he never read the manual, he'd lost it. There are some things that >never change :-) As far as I can see the FPK included a rising front but not a tilt lens. Eric Stevens >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >>had he never read the manual, he'd lost it. There are some things that >>never change :-) > As far as I can see the FPK included a rising front but not a tilt > lens. You're right, my apologies, I should have said it had lens shift rather than tilt! SignatureChris Malcolm > The 3A FPK (Folding Pocket Kodak) had adjustable aperture, a shift > lens, and took postcard sized photos on 122 film. Sold from around > 1903 to 1915. http://www.vintagephoto.tv/3afpk.shtml SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >> The 3A FPK (Folding Pocket Kodak) had adjustable aperture, a shift >> lens, and took postcard sized photos on 122 film. Sold from around >> 1903 to 1915. > > http://www.vintagephoto.tv/3afpk.shtml I think I have one upstairs. Still works fine but try to get 122 film for a reasonable price. It works OK with 120 but it ends up a panoramic camera with that. > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:16:19 +1200, Eric Stevens >>On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, John Navas >>>Nope. View cameras are flexible but basic. >>Well, what bells and whistles could he have added at that time? >>There weren't any. > Non sequitor. The most flexible camera system available then and now. Basic. -Wolfgang >>>>>And apparently you do not. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >response, and then claim I'm the dastardly dude! Bad >form Navas, really bad form... But only when someone else does it to you. Otherwise you think it is OK to do this. >>>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >You, however, would not. Eric Stevens >Anyone can learn to make snapshots, and the camera just >doesn't matter. To learn photography, obtain the best [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >get almost *anything*, it probably requires more than >one camera that pushes the envelope far past "basic". Ah ... the endearing plaintive calls of a snapshooter thinking that, "If only I had a more expensive camera, then I too will be the attention-whoring self-promotional expert known as Ansel Adams ..." Warms the cockles of my heart it does. LOL >>>>>"Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon >>>>>owner." -Author Unknown [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. ><http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700005060067/0506000746-l.jpg> Surely you don't call that a 'basic' camera? Eric Stevens >>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. >><http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700005060067/0506000746-l.jpg> > >Surely you don't call that a 'basic' camera? I call it a relatively simple camera, which is why it takes so much skill to use it well, basic in the sense the camera is lacking in features that would make it easy to use. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >skill to use it well, basic in the sense the camera is lacking in >features that would make it easy to use. OH NO! No phase-detection auto-focus? No auto-aperture? No high-speed burst mode? No high-ISO films? Heaven-forbid! How did photographers ever manage that?!?!? I'm appalled. Someone like that was no PRO. I assure you of that. Only "PROs" buy auto-everything point and shoot high-ISO DSLR cameras. Really. Just what was that idiot Ansel thinking? Holy sh.t! >>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >skill to use it well, basic in the sense the camera is lacking in >features that would make it easy to use. They all were in those days. But how many people had the knowledge or skill to properly take advantage of the interchngeable lenses, interchangeable film backs, and the various movements and adjustments which could be made to the camera geometry? Very few in my experience. That was not a 'basic' camera. Eric Stevens >>>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Eric Stevens Yes. Heaven forbid that most every "photographer" knew the most remedial basics of "photography". Such unrelated areas of interest and expertise. Something that few know of today. After all, you have auto-focus, auto-exposure, auto-everything DSLRs. Those idiots of the past never had that. You happy point & shoot snapshooters know everything now. Right? [I don't think I can take anymore of this usenet humor being posted by auto point and shoot DSLR snapshooter. Seriously! My tummy muscles are hurting. Someone make them stop!] >>>>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >point and shoot DSLR snapshooter. Seriously! My tummy muscles are hurting. >Someone make them stop!] I was shooting quarter-plate and 4" x 5" on all kinds of complex cameras, probably when you were coming to grips with a Box Brownie. I was shooting when standard exposures were changed from Weston to ASA and, even later, to ISO. I was shooting when the choice was between hot Amidol and Microphen as a developer. Please don't try and pretend you know what was, and what was not, a basic camera in the days when Ansel Adams was building his reputation. Eric Stevens >>>>>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>>>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Eric Stevens Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [C'mon folks. Does it get any f.ck'n funnier than this sh.t? Seriously. LOL!] >>>>>>>While Hasselblad was Adam's camera of choice in the last 20 years of his >>>>>>>life, "much" of his (earlier) work was with large format view cameras. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. If you can't do anything else, attack the person. You have no answer. >LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >[C'mon folks. Does it get any f.ck'n funnier than this sh.t? Seriously. >LOL!] Eric Stevens >>Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >>plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. > >If you can't do anything else, attack the person. You have no answer. That was simply a pointed observation, not an attack. You were called no names nor denigrated in any way. "The lad doth protest too much methinks!" SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >>>plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You were called no names nor denigrated in any way. >"The lad doth protest too much methinks!" It was clearly a gratuitous insult that was not related to the discussion at all. Typical Navas attack. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >>>>plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It was clearly a gratuitous insult that was not related >to the discussion at all. Typical Navas attack. Typical FLD name calling. Grow up. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>>>Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >>>>>plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Typical FLD name calling. >Grow up. Where is the "name calling", Navas? The only one posting gratuitous personal insults is you, as usual. And every time anyone backs you into a factual corner, you 1) insist they are "attacking" you, and then 2) you begin the insults. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com On 7/3/09 1:43 AM, in article 873a9ei7we.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >>>>>> plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you 1) insist they are "attacking" you, and then 2) you > begin the insults. NavASS does it for a living. Did you not know that? On 7/3/09 12:33 AM, in article d06r459kmg42boqa0lf73p3e8dcbc4niau@4ax.com, >>>>> Yes. But of course. I was in serious error. This is why "Eric Stevens" is >>>>> plastered all over the photo-gallery walls for the last half-century. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Typical FLD name calling. > Grow up. Stop talking to your mirror, fool! > I call it a relatively simple camera, which is why it takes so much > skill to use it well, basic in the sense the camera is lacking in > features that would make it easy to use. Any camera is a basic camera, then. -Wolfgang >> I call it a relatively simple camera, which is why it takes so much >> skill to use it well, basic in the sense the camera is lacking in >> features that would make it easy to use. > >Any camera is a basic camera, then. That's much like arguing: The sun gives off light. Feathers are light. Therefore the sun gives off feathers. Grow up. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> I call it a relatively simple camera, which is why it takes so much >>> skill to use it well, basic in the sense the camera is lacking in >>> features that would make it easy to use. >> >>Any camera is a basic camera, then. > That's much like arguing: The sun gives off light. Feathers are light. > Therefore the sun gives off feathers. Yep, that's your style of argument. Top-of-the-line camera of it's time, doesn't have a motiv bell and a decicive moment autoshutter, must be a basic camera. Yep, you got it. > Grow up. Go answer my 'uninformed speculation' GPS device. Admit you were wrong. Grown ups do that, you know? -Wolfgang >Go answer my 'uninformed speculation' GPS device. Been there; done that. >Admit you >were wrong. When I am I do. >Grown ups do that, you know? Apparently you don't. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman > >Admit you > >were wrong. > > When I am I do. that's funny. any other tales? On 7/3/09 5:36 AM, in article 030720090636297139%nospam@nospam.invalid, >>> Admit you >>> were wrong. >> >> When I am I do. > > that's funny. any other tales? He walks to Alcatraz Island? > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:06:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>Go answer my 'uninformed speculation' GPS device. > Been there; done that. I've not seen an apology from you. I've not seen you admitting you were wrong. I've not seen a single answer from you. I've not seen a single answer from you on Google. I think you are a liar. I think you would have had to admit you were completely wrong. But I'll admit I wronged you here if you point me to the message ID of the answer received by Google (who does see all your posts) before today. >>Admit you were wrong. > When I am I do. I think you are a liar. >>Grown ups do that, you know? > Apparently you don't. You don't, that's for sure. -Wolfgang On 7/6/09 7:28 AM, in article r879i6-v6t.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de, >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:06:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -Wolfgang Wolfgang, you have become one of the latest victims of the NavASS Troll. Don't feel badly. He is VERY good at starting out as a rational human being, only to slowly develop the 'Hyde' persona. When he has his victim fully engaged, he walks off the set, only to re-appear a few weeks later, looking for another round of folks to drag down. The m.o. is repeated ad nauseam... >I think you are a liar. With that you've earned a spot in my kill-file. SignatureBest regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams On 7/6/09 12:38 PM, in article 6hd455d2g1oeuln4m864knshnue41n6r0d@4ax.com, >> I think you are a liar. > > With that you've earned a spot in my kill-file. Welcome, Wolfgang!!! It's a true honor to have you here among friends. > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:28:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg [pointing out in detail why:] >>I think you are a liar. > With that you've earned a spot in my kill-file. Oh dearie, poor John is upset! Watch me be heartbroken over this ... for 0.000001s. -Wolfgang >>>I'm continually amazed at the number of happy snappers who think that buying >>>a DSLR will suddenly enable them to become a proficient photographer. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >matter, does Rockwell? How about Dorothea Lange, Alert >Eisenstadt, or Cartier-Bresson? By today's standards Adam's cameras were indeed "cheap sh.t" with no auto-focus, no auto-exposure, no preview. It tooks literally hours to produce just one print. >Please name someone who has been able to become a >proficient photographer without obtaining a decent >camera! First define "decent photographer". But first note that there are millions of people who have "decent" cameras who are crappy photographers. SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net > Did Ansel Adams use cheap sh.t cameras? For that > matter, does Rockwell? How about Dorothea Lange, Alert [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > proficient photographer without obtaining a decent > camera! Well, since you brought it up.... I use LF cameras (alot) and use a lot of vintage lenses, many of the same that AA and others used, have you ever used a wood view camera, with a brass barrel lens and packard shutter? Weston used an unlabeled $5 lens he bought in Mexico Atget used simple equipment. Lange used whatever was handed to her. Kasabier used what would be considered hobbyist equipment at the time, with no formal training, yet is considered one of the early 20th century's greatest practitioners of portraiture. Cartier-Bresson used one lens, on one camera for most of his life. Muybridge made his own shutters and cameras for his motion studies. Jackson dragged a 20x24 camera around the then unknown west shooting wetplate. Meatyard was an unknown optometrist and hobbiest photographer whose work is just recently (the last 15 years or so) becoming recognized. The list could go on, but I think I've made my point. Maybe you should focus more on those who brought photography as an art to the forefront, Steichen, Stieglitz and Szarkowski come to mind. Google Photo Secession. Of particular note is Stieglitz' association with continental artists of every medium, his galleries introduced the US and world to Picasso's paintings, drawings and sculpture, Rodchenko's sculpture, O'Keefe's watercolors (whom he later married, btw) I don't see the connection between state of the art equipment and artistic quality. Many artists get comfortable with less than perfect equipment early on and continue to use what works for their vision. An art history and/or history of photography class would open your eyes to an amazing array of historical processes. The renewed popularity of VanDyke, Kallitype, Gum Bichromate, Platinum, Cyanotype, Bromoil and Carbrotype should tell you something about artistic expression and your seeming infatuation with the tools, in lieu of the result. While my own work speaks (and sells) for itself, many "hobbiests" on forums and newsgroups cringe at the 1/15th of a second, give or take packard shutter, balsam cement separation, and overall lack of refinement of an old tired homebuilt wood camera. I'm not a member of the "I can afford the best at any price club" everything I have earns money or gets sold off for something that does. While I'd prefer to drag my 8x10 Sinar P out in the field, from a usability and technical accuracy standpoint, I can fit an 8x10 camera, a couple of lenses and 3 or 4 filmholders in a backpack and make photos, as opposed to dragging 150 lbs of the latest and greatest gear to get the (technically) perfect image that is void of any artistic content. e > > Good thing is, with that resolution, these images could be cropped to > > acceptability. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > most important thing is what goes on behind the camera, not how much cash > you can waste to impress people. I have a friend who after years of using a Sony Cybershot 707 upgraded to a Canon 5D Mark II. He is not a great photographer but he is not bad either. With the 5D II he is capturing photos that he was missing with the Sony. In the end the whole reason to own a camera is to be able to get the photos that you want to capture, now the photos what someone else thinks are worthy. From that standpoint the 5D II is working very well for him. Me, I have put more money in my lenses then in my camera bodies. I don’t care how much you do behind the camera, if you don’t have a good lens you are not going to get the photos that I want to be able to capture, and other seem to like. >> This sounds like the classic case of I'll spend a fortune on expensive DSLR >> gear to impress everybody, so that they'll think I'm an expert photographer [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >bad either. With the 5D II he is capturing photos that he was missing >with the Sony. If true, then bully for him. But simply not true in lots of cases. "Damn! Left the lens at home!" >Me, I have put more money in my lenses then in my camera bodies. I >dont care how much you do behind the camera, if you dont have a good >lens you are not going to get the photos that I want to be able to >capture, and other seem to like. Me, I have put less money in my compact super-zoom Leica-branded lenses that are unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the cost. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> This sounds like the classic case of I'll spend a fortune on expensive DSLR >>> gear to impress everybody, so that they'll think I'm an expert photographer [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If true, then bully for him. But simply not true in lots of cases. >"Damn! Left the lens at home!" It probably would not be true of John Navas. >>Me, I have put more money in my lenses then in my camera bodies. I >>don't care how much you do behind the camera, if you don't have a good [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Me, I have put less money in my compact super-zoom Leica-branded lenses >that are unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the cost. >John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) Are you saying that it takes very little in the way of a camera to exceed your needs or abilities? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>If true, then bully for him. But simply not true in lots of cases. >>"Damn! Left the lens at home!" > >It probably would not be true of John Navas. True. When shooting 35 mm it's simply impractical for me to lug all my glass around, and I all too frequently run into situations when I don't have the lens I want with me. I even tried lugging much of it around Europe for a few years, a painful experience I don't care to repeat, yet I still ran into situations where I didn't have the lens I wanted. And even when I do have the lens I want with me, I all too often miss the shot I want while changing lenses. You may be a perfect forecaster and lightning fast lens changer, but we mere humans aren't. ;) >>Me, I have put less money in my compact super-zoom Leica-branded lenses >>that are unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the cost. >Are you saying that it takes very little in the way of a >camera to exceed your needs or abilities? Trying to put words in my mouth is desperate and childish. When you don't have something persuasive to say, be man enough to admit it. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>Me, I have put less money in my compact super-zoom Leica-branded lenses >>>that are unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the cost. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >When you don't have something persuasive to say, >be man enough to admit it. Why not just answer the question honestly, even if it is going to embarrass you and negate all of your simplistic arguments? No need to try insulting everyone that provides a decent point in a discussion John, it just makes your lack of valid perspective more outstanding. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>Me, I have put less money in my compact super-zoom Leica-branded lenses >>>>that are unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the cost. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >a decent point in a discussion John, it just makes your lack >of valid perspective more outstanding. Not even a nice try, Floyd, much less nice. Grow up. It's still not too late. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.