Your camera takes really nice pictures
C J Campbell
http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Alan Smithee
news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
Neil Ellwood
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
Re: subject line.
My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
take nice pictures.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Alan Browne
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>
>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
> Re: subject line.
>
> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
> take nice pictures.
Duh, I tink he gaught itt.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Bob G
wrote:
So, if it's not the camera, why are we constantly upgrading?
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bob G <mrbob...@yahoo.com> saying
something like:
>So, if it's not the camera, why are we constantly upgrading?
"I have a better camera than you."
Scott W
wrote:
I have had cameras that take really nice picture and I have had
cameras that don't.
Some people would like to feel that the gear does not matter, but it
does, to some degree.
BTW I also have a very nice set of pans, and yes they make a
differance in my cooking as well.
If someone watches me cooking and compliments me on my pans I am not
going to get upset,
why should I get upset if someone compliments me on my camera.
Scott
C J Campbell
Lunch is at Scott's house!
Allen
Allen
Paul Furman
> On Jan 23, 11:24 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>
>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
So that the camera doesn't prevent us from taking good pictures <g>.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>>
>> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
>> take nice pictures.
>
Oh but ARE YOU in control? You are likely in control of the direction, for sure,
and the focal length.
But how many people are, these days, in full control of everything else,
all of the time?
On my camera, it is very hard to be in full control of the flash,
unless its all the way off. I can indeed control everything else ...
but I usually don't. I was very careful to buy a DSLR
that allows full control, and I do use it, but not most of the time.
I simply could not have taken the panoramas I have, especially inside
Carlsbad Caverns, without complete, full control.
Doug McDonald
Neil Harrington
<guffaw!>
Alan Browne
Most (all?) DSLR's and many "zlr's" have allowed full control of
everything including fixed power output of the flash over several stops.
It is no big deal.
Robert Coe
<grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
MUCH easier to prove than "I'm a better photographer than you." ;^)
Bob
Robert Coe
: Bob G wrote:
: > On Jan 23, 11:24 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
: >>
: >> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
: >
: > So, if it's not the camera, why are we constantly upgrading?
:
: So that the camera doesn't prevent us from taking good pictures <g>.
I like your thinking, Paul!! Whilst my new 50D doesn't hold me back *quite* as
much as my old XTi did, it's clear that the manufacturers still have a lonnnng
way to go in allowing me to express my full artistic potential. When they
FINALLY come up with a camera that proves that I belong up there with the
Giants of Photography, I'll buy it immediately, and damn the cost!
Bob
C J Campbell
<grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> said:
There is a certain amount of truth to this. Stock agencies demand
minimum picture sizes. You had probably better not be charging $10,000
for a wedding and be seen with anything less than the very latest gear
or people will think they are not getting their money's worth. It ain't
fair, but that is the way it is.
C J Campbell
For me, if the camera makes it easier to get the pictures I want, then
I upgrade.
ASAAR
>>> BTW I also have a very nice set of pans, and yes they make a
>>> differance in my cooking as well.
>>> If someone watches me cooking and compliments me on my pans I am not
>>> going to get upset,
>>> why should I get upset if someone compliments me on my camera.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>> Lunch is at Scott's house!
>
> <guffaw!>
When you taste his local delicacy cooked in either All-Clad or
brightly enameled Le Creuset pans, you won't believe how delicious
it is. Pineapple topped fried spam at its best!
Paul Furman
I was kinda joking but really, the new gear does do new stuff & that's
all stuff which can be applied to the endeavor. I like putting on a
weird lens & letting that be the challenge: to see what can be done with
it's strengths & weaknesses. When I was growing up in Colorado I skied a
lot over the years & was always amazed how much new gear really made a
difference in my abilities... then I moved into cross country & telemark
which was the opposite, using archaic gear to make turning harder but
more direct and rewarding... it's all fun.
Viperdoc
that anything related to flying costs less than $100s or thousands of
dollars if it's at all substantial.
Also, I wish I could upgrade and double my capabilities every two years or
so, like from D2X to D3 to D3X I'd be into a King Air or Citation by now
(for a few paltry million or four).
Photographers are becoming more focused on technology rather than improving
their basic skills- probably the same could be said for Cirrus and the surge
of glass cockpits.
C J Campbell
Possibly. Or they are just learning different skills.
Sheila
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>
>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
> Re: subject line.
>
> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
> take nice pictures.
>
>
>
Funny, years ago I was at my nephews wedding and I took a photo of his
brother, when my sister-inlaw saw the photo she made the comment that I
must have a really good camera. Nope, nothing about me taking a good
photo. I always laugh about that.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Stephen Bishop
>Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
>http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
Blasphemy! Everybody knows that the camera takes the picture. All
you have to do is buy the most expensive one you can find and you will
have pro pictures. If they don't turn out the way you wanted, you
just need to buy a more expensive one and a few more lenses.
<Not!>
Stephen Bishop
<GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:08:15 -0800 (PST), Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I have had cameras that take really nice picture and I have had
>>cameras that don't.
>>
>>Some people would like to feel that the gear does not matter, but it
>>does, to some degree.
>
>Yes, the camera does make a difference. BUT give the very same camera
>to two different people: One a professional photographer, and one an
>average person and guess who is going to have the better pictures!
>
>Gary
Funny, buying a new set of golf clubs never made me a better golfer,
either.
:-)
mianileng
I get that kind of comment ALL the time. Most of the time they're
sincerely intended to be compliments.
Sheila
I don't think it was the case in my example. She meant that it was a
good photo and it was all because of the camera. It depends on who
makes the remark and your prior experiences with that person whether you
take it as a compliment or not.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Frank ess
I was photographing a well-populated and active social function a few
weeks ago, when a lovely young woman approached me and smiled, saying,
"You have very good equipment". I acknowledge the truth of that
statement: "Yes".
I knew it, and wonder how she knew it.
--
Frank ess
aquadiver
But if you were a shitty cook, it wouldn't matter how good your pans
are. If you have a dead eye, it won't matter how good your camera is.
The point remains, the camera is just a tool. A good artist or a good
craftsman chooses the best tools he can, or he makes the best of the
tools he has. But it is the person using the tool, not the tool, who
does the work.
gc
Sheila
tony cooper
wrote:
\
I'm sure she was referring to the whole package.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
matt...@gmail.com
The proper response to that was, "And so do you, my dear, and so do
you," with a lingering look at her tits, or her eyes. Whatever. ;-)
whisky-dave
<matt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7b6414d-b021-40bc...@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Get your clothes of and let my 'equipment' do the rest ;-)
whisky-dave
"Bob G" <mrbob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59208244-e2db-488f...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 11:24 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
}So, if it's not the camera, why are we constantly upgrading?
'cos' a good workman would never blame his tools, and
a good workman would never use bad[1] tools.
And the difference between a man and a boy is the size of his toy.
[1] bad = old, outdated, not as shiny etc.....
George Kerby
On 1/25/09 11:56 AM, in article 2009012509565837709-savageduck@savagenet,
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote:
> On 2009-01-25 05:52:40 -0800, "Viperdoc" <jn...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> The same applies to yachting.
> America's Cup racing has been described as standing in a shower tearing
> up $1000 bills. For day sailors that would be $100 bills.
> The maintenance & upgrade costs have become exponential in many fields.
Explains how Ted Turner won.
Mike
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
> > Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> >http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
>
> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
> take nice pictures.
Your fingers type really obvious statements. :D
p.s. are you a Rush fan?
Pat
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
Every so often the P&S crowd and the dSLR crowd banter back and forth
about what's the better camera. The P&S people say that their cameras
out-perform a dSLR, have better sensors, don't need fancy lenses, and
create world peace just through their presence. The dSLR people say
they need the flexibility, there's a reason that you need to add on
extras, and given the right accessories they will produce manna from
heaven.
Isn't this really the same question as poised in the cartoon. Is it
the camera that produces good pictures or the photographer? Will a
sh*tty photographer with a good camera out-perform a good photographer
with a sh*tty camera?
These are really both just different parts of the same issue.
tony cooper
Point out the scene and position the two photographers the same and
shitty photographer with the good camera will get the best image. The
real difference is that the good photographer has an eye for the scene
and an instinct for the position.
C J Campbell
I think you are thinking too hard about it. I think the cartoon is just
making fun of the ignorant majority who seem to believe that good
photography is just pushing a button and that the reason their pictures
are not as good as the pros is because the pros have better cameras.
Frank ess
I seem to remember someone reporting a scene in which an ordinary
person wanted to know what brand typewriter John Updike (RIP) used in
writing his "Rabbit ... " novels. And another: what number pencil was
used by Thomas Wolfe as he stood at the refrigerator, writing about
going home? What shoes did Hemingway wear as he paced, thinking up
"The Old Man And The Sea"?
Equally relevant, if I dig up a Speed Graphic, will my work suddenly
improve to equal that of Usher "Weegee" Fellig? I don't think so. I
don't have the courage, chutzpah, vision, or the same kind of
personality imbalance he had. Could he do better than I, with my
one-generation-old camera and redline Canons? Probably.
I think improved machinery makes good photography easier; even the
best can't make good photography great. That comes from outside the
camera.
Scott W
had going for them was their better camera. On a photography cruise
my wife and I were on a pro was going to show us how good he could do
with a cheap point and shoot. The end result was he spent the whole
time saying how much he wished he had brought his DSLR, the other
result was that the passengers got way better photos then he did. I
do believe that will be the last time he tries to use a cheap camera.
The point is that whereas a good camera does not mean you will take
good photos, to take good photo you need a camera that is capable of
doing so.
A case in point, people like the photos I take at paddling events,
more then the photos that they take. I am using a DSLR with a very
good long lens that is image stabilized, they are using P&S cameras.
I don’t care how good of a photographer they are they simply will not
get the same photos I do. Or to put it more simply, my camera takes
really nice pictures.
Take a look at who is winning the photo contests here
http://www.dpchallenge.com/
Very few P&S camera take the top three photos, sure once in a while
they will but mostly it is DSLRs. So is it just the case that someone
with a DSLR is a more serious photographer and would do just was well
with a P&S, I don’t think so. Back when I was entering these contest
I noticed that my score when up right at the time I started using a
DSLR.
Scott
Kevin Grant
wrote:
>
>Take a look at who is winning the photo contests here
>http://www.dpchallenge.com/
>Very few P&S camera take the top three photos, sure once in a while
>they will but mostly it is DSLRs. So is it just the case that someone
>with a DSLR is a more serious photographer and would do just was well
>with a P&S, I don’t think so. Back when I was entering these contest
>I noticed that my score when up right at the time I started using a
>DSLR.
Many photos have the EXIF data hanging out. What self-respecting
dslr-worshipping snob or dslr-troll is going to vote for a p&s camera's
photo if he finds out it was taken with gear 1/10th to 1/20th the cost,
even when they did think it was the better photo. "My camera and glass cost
over $12,000! No way in hell am I going to vote for that better photo taken
with a $100 camera. Screw that guy with the cheap camera! It must have been
pure luck, that's what it was. I can't vote for someone's one-time lucky
shot! I'm here to vote for SKILL! (and the price of his camera, but only if
it's the same kind as I have)"
Nikon dslr owners vote for Nikon dslr photos. Canon dslr owners will vote
for Canon dslr photos. Insecure photographers who think their camera is the
better part of their skill want others to think their camera was worth the
cost, or what's all that camera expense for? Talentless "my camera is
better than your camera" snobs vote for "my camera is better than your
camera" snobs. It's that simple.
Have them remove all EXIF data from all photos during voting, vote blind to
what gear created the photo, watch the tide change to "neither, nor" being
the preferred camera type.
It appears that there's another problem with your self-deluded "proof"--the
percentage of those entering with either camera design on that site.
20 out of 22 photos with EXIF data on the first page of the latest "A
Single Tree II" challenge were all taken by dslrs. Is it any wonder that
more dslrs win contests there? You rigged your proof, or are just this
self-delusional to try to convince yourself that you made the right camera
choice, it's difficult to say which. Going by that percentage, then the
number of winners are even-up between the two camera types. If 95% of the
contestants are dslr owners and only 5% of the winning photos were taken
with p&s cameras, then the amount of winners is really 50/50 by
camera-type.
But this does show that dslr owners are that publicly competitive (read:
insecure) with each other and are drawn to sites like that, as moths to a
flame. Where they can bump chests to try to prove their gear is better than
the other person's gear. To try to prove to themselves that it had to be,
it must be, worth the investment. They're the kind of people that eye the
crowd and count how many people have the same cameras and lenses as they
have. If more people in the crowd or on the sidelines don't have their kind
of camera then they doubt even more their choices in life. Insecure sheep
that can never think for themselves but want to be first in line for the
mad dash to the financial slaughter house.
Quite frankly, every last one of the photos on that first page of that
current competition is standard stock-photography fodder, badly done
editing jobs, most are sub-par even for stock-photography. Not one would be
worth my vote. I won't waste my time looking further than that to prove you
wrong. One page of that is enough of my wasted time. All those dslr owners
who can't produce more than sub-par stock-photography with their gear? That
sure is some great proof that you provide.
It's fun watching dslr owners that keep trying to justify their perpetual
doubts. The more insecure you are about your camera choice, the more that
you'll try to convince yourself and convince others that they should do the
same as you. If you weren't so insecure about your camera choice then you
wouldn't care one bit what kind of camera another person uses to always
best you.
whisky-dave
}"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:be2aebfd-9326-4533...@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 12:24 am, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
}Isn't this really the same question as poised in the cartoon. Is it
}the camera that produces good pictures or the photographer? Will a
}sh*tty photographer with a good camera out-perform a good photographer
}with a sh*tty camera?
another good question is if there's a "good picture" in the offering
and there's no photographer to record it then does the "good picture" exist
;-)
John McWilliams
> It's fun watching dslr owners that keep trying to justify their perpetual
> doubts. The more insecure you are about your camera choice, the more that
> you'll try to convince yourself and convince others that they should do the
> same as you. If you weren't so insecure about your camera choice then you
> wouldn't care one bit what kind of camera another person uses to always
> best you.
No chance this could apply to compact camera owners, now, is there?
--
lsmft
Scott W
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:44:01 -0800 (PST), Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com>
The fact is that during voting no exif data if visible, and the images
are resized so that you can't tell from that either, and of course the
photographer's name is not know.
And it is not just DSLR vs. P&S, the P&S cameras that do place high
from time to time are the high end ones.
The point was not DSLR vs P&S as much as the fact that the camera
really does matter.
Scott
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Is it the camera that produces good pictures or the photographer?
It's the photographer that does everything before pressing
the button (and the weeding out and postprocessing and
displaying afterwards).
> Will a sh*tty photographer with a good camera out-perform a good
> photographer with a sh*tty camera?
Will you let the photographer do everything before pressing
the button, including bringing a camera that is good enough
for the job? Or are you, in the interest of "fairness",
going to limit the photographers?
> These are really both just different parts of the same issue.
Will a good woodcutter with a lousy saw outcut the lousy
woodcutter with a good saw?[1]
-Wolfgang
[1] Yes, in the long run, because in the long run the lousy
woodcutter will be squashed by a tree!
Bob G
Can no one see the difference between a black and white contact print
from an 8x10 view camera and a similar photo made with a digital
camera?
Photographs made with a pinhole camera, or a Diana with a plastic
lens, or with Polaroid materials, all speak in their own language an
have their own beauty.
The advent of the 35mm hand camera many years ago produced an
aesthetic revolution in Photography: it enabled pictures hitherto
impossible to be obtained with the greatest of ease. And many advances
within this camera type also created new visions: the wide angle lens,
the zoom lens, the motor drives, and so on.
The latest advances in digital Photography will certainly bring their
own fresh visions to our art. That is yet to come.
But I do regret the high cost of top quality digital equipment and the
fact that it can create a sharp line of division between two equally
endowed artists, one rich and the other poor.
Stephen Bishop
Even so, it is you taking the pictures that makes them either good or
bad. All a camera can do is help or hinder the process.
>
C J Campbell
>
> }"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:be2aebfd-9326-4533...@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 12:24 am, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>
>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
>
> }Isn't this really the same question as poised in the cartoon. Is it
> }the camera that produces good pictures or the photographer? Will a
> }sh*tty photographer with a good camera out-perform a good photographer
> }with a sh*tty camera?
You know, I have seen some good photographers take some very nice
pictures with cell phones. But a bad photographer will actually do
worse if given a good camera.
>
> another good question is if there's a "good picture" in the offering
> and there's no photographer to record it then does the "good picture" exist
> ;-)
I am of the opinion that there are an infinite number of good pictures
out there. They just haven't been taken yet.
Paul
> Neil Ellwood wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> >>http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
>
> > My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
> > take nice pictures.
>
> brother, when my sister-inlaw saw the photo she made the comment that I
> must have a really good camera. Nope, nothing about me taking a good
> photo. I always laugh about that.
>
> Sheilahttp://swdalton.com
Yes, as if anyone in the world would become Ansel Adams,
if given his equipment, right? Right!
Check out what a Nikon Coolpix s550 can do (all
by itself!) :
http://flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157612943107763/show/
Stephen Bishop
I would refine that a bit to say that there are no pictures to be
taken anywhere. Good pictures are created from visual chaos, not
stolen.
Sheila
> On Jan 25, 10:15 am, Sheila <swdal...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>> Re: subject line.
>>> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
>>> take nice pictures.
>> Funny, years ago I was at my nephews wedding and I took a photo of his
>> brother, when my sister-inlaw saw the photo she made the comment that I
>> must have a really good camera. Nope, nothing about me taking a good
>> photo. I always laugh about that.
>>
>> --
>> Sheilahttp://swdalton.com
>
>
> Yes, as if anyone in the world would become Ansel Adams,
> if given his equipment, right? Right!
Yes, people really do have funny ideas.
>
> Check out what a Nikon Coolpix s550 can do (all
> by itself!) :
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157612943107763/show/
>
>
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Pete D
"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Y9WdnVfWgvwnYOfU...@pipex.net...
> "C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...> Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
Actually some of my very expensive pots cook the same food a whole lot
better, really the same goes for cameras, while my basic cameras will take
an adequate photo using my better cameras lets me take better photos,
definately more keepers.
Pete D
"Sheila" <swda...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cYqgl.2544$pq....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Funnily enough even Ansell used the best equipment he could, no reason for
anyone not to.
J. Clarke
He'd schlep an 8x10 and a darkroom into the back country, so I'm not
sure how typical he is.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Sheila
Paul Furman
Yep.
> definately more keepers.
Better keepers.
And the more advanced camera opens new opportunities for photos. It
becomes possible to shoot scenes that would just not work on a lesser
system. Of course you have to learn what those limitations &
opportunities are to make intentional use of them. The geek will know
it's best to stop down, crank up ISO & adjust exposure compensation for
a particular kind of situation, a casual shooter may never get all that
and never take advantage of the high ISO performance of his overpriced
camera even though it's capable of much more than an average pocket cam,
he might use it the same way.
A beginning skier doesn't appreciate sharp skis, in fact they're harder
to control; cutting in too sharply, making him fall over more & get
discouraged. Most people learn to ski on short, worn rentals but the
sloppy edges are forgiving for casual use. Then they might move up to a
used pair of longer high performance skis... the longer design can be
faster but it's harder to control... then a few years of practice later
they figure out how important it is to sharpen the edges and wow - look
at the great performance I'm getting now. Tighter faster cornering, more
precise control... a new pair of boots at this point that are super
comfortable & perfect support and wow, so much more control, less abuse
on the ankles, the performance can jump by leaps & bounds.
so I would revise the statement to say:
"Your camera allows you to take really nice pictures"
though really the better compliment is:
"Nice camera, you really know how to use it"
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
HowieT
A REAL chef can create a culinary masterpiece using nothing but a campfire,
rolled-up bark or leaves for cooking pots, a slab of rock for frying, and a
mud food-wrap (for oven needs) that would put all of your cooking and
expensive cookware to shame.
Let me tell you about the golden-browned pizza that I made in the coals of
a campfire using an old discarded fry-pan and a piece of tin for a lid. A
pizza that friends still talk about because they've never bought anything
better. Made the sauce from some wild cherry-tomatoes and red-peppers that
were growing in the area too.
Your analogy doesn't work in the face of real talent, creativity, and
expertise--three things with which you are obviously unfamiliar. You're
just a point and shoot fry-cook, just like all the point and shoot dslr
owners who think it's their camera that makes them a better photographer.
If not you would have known better than to reply as you did.
whisky-dave
"HowieT" <how...@giveitarest.net> wrote in message
news:ah05o45u8ja27p8av...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:04:03 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:Y9WdnVfWgvwnYOfU...@pipex.net...
>>> "C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>>>
>>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
>>
>>Actually some of my very expensive pots cook the same food a whole lot
>>better, really the same goes for cameras, while my basic cameras will take
>>an adequate photo using my better cameras lets me take better photos,
>>definately more keepers.
>>
>
> A REAL chef can create a culinary masterpiece using nothing but a
> campfire,
> rolled-up bark or leaves for cooking pots, a slab of rock for frying, and
> a
> mud food-wrap (for oven needs) that would put all of your cooking and
> expensive cookware to shame.
Doesn't thast depend on what you call 'cooking' and a "culinary
masterpiece"
>
> Let me tell you about the golden-browned pizza that I made in the coals of
> a campfire using an old discarded fry-pan and a piece of tin for a lid. A
> pizza that friends still talk about because they've never bought anything
> better.
Perhaps' they are just being polite ;-)
> Made the sauce from some wild cherry-tomatoes and red-peppers that
> were growing in the area too.
But suppose you were say in iceland and you couldn;t get those wild
cherries but had to get those cheap ones from the cheapest mass produced
crap
money can buy. I'm certainly no cook but I can tell a decent tomato from
a tin of slush are you saying you can create the taste of wild Cherrie
tomatoes
from red pulp and a sprinkling of E numbers and artifical colours ?
And why do you need a frying pan and tin foil 100s of years ago those didn;t
exist,
so you can't cook without modern utensils to help you ?
> Your analogy doesn't work in the face of real talent, creativity, and
> expertise--three things with which you are obviously unfamiliar. You're
> just a point and shoot fry-cook, just like all the point and shoot dslr
> owners who think it's their camera that makes them a better photographer.
> If not you would have known better than to reply as you did.
And I think you're both wrong :-)
>
whisky-dave
Well there's convience too, and using ther best equipmetn eliminates soem
excuse
you can use for not getting a good picture. :)
> Sheila
> http://swdalton.com
Sheila
>
> Well there's convience too, and using ther best equipmetn eliminates soem
> excuse
> you can use for not getting a good picture. :)
>
>> Sheila
>> http://swdalton.com
>
>
Yes, that's true.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Allen
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
number of people who have had a sense-of-humor-ectomy.
Allen
Pete D
Good for you that you have an opinion. I suppose you don't drive either
because it would take something away from the trip. And why use a boat when
you could swim?
Seriously get over yourself man, you are looking like a silly goose.
Pete D
"Neil Ellwood" <cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:w-mdnVD4mfTym-bU...@bt.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
> take nice pictures.
>
So without a camera you can still take nice pictures? This I have to see!!
ASAAR
>> Your analogy doesn't work in the face of real talent, creativity, and
>> expertise--three things with which you are obviously unfamiliar. You're
>> just a point and shoot fry-cook, just like all the point and shoot dslr
>> owners who think it's their camera that makes them a better photographer.
>> If not you would have known better than to reply as you did.
>
> Good for you that you have an opinion. I suppose you don't drive either
> because it would take something away from the trip. And why use a boat when
> you could swim?
>
> Seriously get over yourself man, you are looking like a silly goose.
Never has, never will. You person, err, thing that you replied to
is our anti-DSLR sock-puppet troll.
Paul Furman
Clasp both hands together just right with a piece of film inside..
proper technique can produce a pinhole between the middle fingers. It
takes ninja skills to hold steady for the 2 minute exposure but
masterpieces can be created this way by talented individuals.
ASAAR
>> So without a camera you can still take nice pictures? This I have to see!!
>
> Clasp both hands together just right with a piece of film inside..
> proper technique can produce a pinhole between the middle fingers. It
> takes ninja skills to hold steady for the 2 minute exposure but
> masterpieces can be created this way by talented individuals.
It'll take more than talent. You'll have to hold a sensor instead
of a piece of film if you want to use that digital technique.
Pete D
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:NOOgl.19252$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
Did you know that you can make a pinhole lens for an SLR camera, in fact you
can make a pinhole zoom lens with a couple of cardboard tubes, fun for all
the family. Not sure how many keepers you will get though.
James Colston
wrote:
I read a rather interesting book recently, "Pinhole Photography - From
Historic Technique to Digital Application" by Eric Renner. ISBN:
978-0-240-81047-8
Most of the images in that book would put all of the dslr photos in this
and other newsgroups and forums to shame. It's one of the few photography
books that I've read that actually had some decent photography in it.
The reason that I bring this up is that one technique used by some
individuals was to hold a bit of film in the back of the mouth and then use
their lips to form a pinhole. People were taking self-portraits in mirrors
and other images using this method.
People who think it's the price of their equipment that makes or breaks the
photographer should read this book. They'll probably throw their expensive
dslr over the side of the nearest bridge when they see that it's not the
camera that creates good photography.
A whole book of excellent proof that these equipment-worshipping fools have
been dead wrong all of their sad and sorry lives.
Pete D
"James Colston" <jcol...@someaddress.net> wrote in message
news:s0n7o4p540npmh4lr...@4ax.com...
Not true at all, while a pinhole camera can take some photos well there are
many that simply cannot be taken well using this method and anyone with just
a little common sense will understand this. I expect that your level of
common sense will limit your understanding.
Have a nice rant anyway, no one is actually listening but me. ;-) Nah just
kidding I ain't listening either.
Cheers.
Pete
SteveB
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4983e65d$0$14863$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Actually, and factually, I have taken hundreds of beautiful Ansul Adams
quality photographs using all of the mentioned methods, including one that
involves a zipper, but we won't go into that here.
I also conduct nuclear fusion experiments and brain surgery.
In my spare time from Lawrence Livermore, that is.
Steve
Whoops. Gotta run or I'll be late for basketweaving ................
Frank ess
Can you say, "hyperbole"?
--
Frank ess
ASAAR
>> A whole book of excellent proof that these equipment-worshipping
>> fools have been dead wrong all of their sad and sorry lives.
>
> Can you say, "hyperbole"?
Did you not recognize the CHDK / Photoline 32 / Anti-DSLR
sock-puppet nym-shifting troll that's been infesting this ng for a
couple of years? Here's part of his reply to Roger N. Clark :
> From: BaumBadier <spam...@antispam.org>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc
> Subject: Re: How many shots per year does a typical person use his/her digital camera?
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:45:32 -0500
> Message-ID: <63nm43tdb3sicrt4k...@4ax.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
>
> I agree about saving money. I switched to digital only because I was headed out
> on some lengthy year-long wilderness treks. Where keeping, hauling, and storing
> that much film would have been impossible. (Can you imagine hauling enough film
> for 30,000 shots?) Now I just charge up my camera with some compact folding
> solar-panels, takes about 2 hours per camera. Or I can just plug one in while
> I'm hiking and use the other camera.
> . . .
> Everyone that's seen my photography wonders why I don't sell coffee-table books
> or enter them in galleries or contact Nat. Geo. or something like that. Society
> as a whole would have to prove to me that they deserve to see them. I know now
> that that's never going to happen. I used to sell my photography long long ago.
> But when I saw what kinds of undeserving useless cretins were able to enjoy my
> photography just by handing me their ill-gotten money I decided the best thing
> to do was take all of it off the market and never reveal anything new to the
> general public ever again. Instructions in my will to destroy them all, if I
> don't do it myself first.
Paul Furman
Just crinkle a piece of foil over the opening & poke a pin in the middle.
Pete D
ASAAR
>> Funny, years ago I was at my nephews wedding and I took a photo of his
>> brother, when my sister-inlaw saw the photo she made the comment that I
>> must have a really good camera. Nope, nothing about me taking a good
>> photo. I always laugh about that.
>>
>> --
>> Sheilahttp://swdalton.com
>
>
> Yes, as if anyone in the world would become Ansel Adams,
> if given his equipment, right? Right!
If everyone in the world had the same access to Ansel Adams' photo
equipment (or whatever photo gear they preferred) at the time that
he did, it might well have produced several comparably talented
photographers, not necessarily in the same field.
> Check out what a Nikon Coolpix s550 can do (all by itself!) :
It's not cooperating. I've told it countless times to "do your
thing" but there it sits, doing nothing but taking up space on my
table. My Coolpix P60 and Powershot S20 can do that too.
Jeff R.
>> middle.
>>
> How do you zoom that setup?
Just move the foil closer or further away from the sensor.
Focus is automatic. :-)
--
Jeff R.
George Kerby
On 1/31/09 12:18 AM, in article j37d56-...@news.infowest.com, "SteveB"
<old...@depends.com> wrote:
Anus Adams is one of the greatest artists every when it came to zippers.
Sheila
Allen
on the other end. For greater FLs, use a paper towel tube or even one
that small carpets are rolled on. Alternatively, go to Home Depot and
get a 12 foot length of black PVC pipe. Mark your calendar for the day
the you start the exposure and mark a date a few days in the future for
when you should return and end the exposure. Simple and cheap.
Allen
Paul Furman
The widest you can go is about 45mm before the mirror rubs on the foil.
I tested that by letting it brush against the foil a bit (very
gradually) but that could potentially damage the mirror mechanism.
Guaranteed absolutely zero barrel distortion. No complex math in
determining the focal length.
C J Campbell
Indeed. I used to be a Certified Public Accountant before I retired.
And those guys had way more sense of humor than photographers.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
paul ventnor
<no....@spammers.virginiaquilter.allowed.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:46:40 -0600, HowieT <how...@giveitarest.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:04:03 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Y9WdnVfWgvwnYOfU...@pipex.net...
>>>> "C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>>>>
>>>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
>>>
>>>Actually some of my very expensive pots cook the same food a whole lot
>>>better, really the same goes for cameras, while my basic cameras will take
>>>an adequate photo using my better cameras lets me take better photos,
>>>definately more keepers.
>>>
>>
>>A REAL chef can create a culinary masterpiece using nothing but a campfire,
>>rolled-up bark or leaves for cooking pots, a slab of rock for frying, and a
>>mud food-wrap (for oven needs) that would put all of your cooking and
>>expensive cookware to shame.
>>
>>Let me tell you about the golden-browned pizza that I made in the coals of
>>a campfire using an old discarded fry-pan and a piece of tin for a lid. A
>>pizza that friends still talk about because they've never bought anything
>>better. Made the sauce from some wild cherry-tomatoes and red-peppers that
>>were growing in the area too.
>>
>>Your analogy doesn't work in the face of real talent, creativity, and
>>expertise--three things with which you are obviously unfamiliar. You're
>>just a point and shoot fry-cook, just like all the point and shoot dslr
>>owners who think it's their camera that makes them a better photographer.
>>If not you would have known better than to reply as you did.
>
>Food always tastes better camping. Hunger is the greatest condiment.
>I've relished vienna sausages and potted meat on fishing trips, but
>I'd never touch the foul stuff on land.
So what you are saying is ... if someone with a cell-phone camera or
pinhole-camera takes a photo that feeds the hunger of people who are
desperate for good photography, they will be sated?
Yes, this is exactly what you are saying.
I see this proved time and time again in photography forums. The most
mundane photography is being given rave reviews by those who live in their
basements and bedrooms, their only connection to reality being their
keyboards and monitors. That's the only glimpse of the real world that
those sad people will ever have. Take for example the Annika/Helen
phenomenon. Annika takes mundane and poorly done snapshots. Helen is
enthralled with any and all of Annika's photos. She's just that desperate
for any glimpse of the real world so her hunger is abated over the most
meager of morsels. Her shut-in life is fed by Annika's paltry offerings,
and Annika's desperate need for acceptance and attention by anyone is fed
by one sad shut-in's gushing remarks. They both ravenously dine on fetid
scraps, and are happy.
Sad and sadder, all around.
ASAAR
>> It'll take more than talent. You'll have to hold a sensor instead
>> of a piece of film if you want to use that digital technique.
>
> Just think of all the dust you will have one your sensor.
Dust doesn't bother those low-res. sensors. It takes clump of
dust or dirt particles to block a single pixel, and users are
motivated to clean the sensors - they're strawberry flavored . . .