Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 01:45 On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:38:09 -0700, Mike Russell <groupsRE(a)MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > >> Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras. > >Want to know one problem that doesn't exist with DSLR's: *you*. Outing yourself as just another of the many psychotic DSLR-Trolls, are you? Yep. Thought so.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 01:51 On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell <groupsRE(a)MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote: >something resembling a discussion Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related equipment.
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 02:19 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-spam(a)noplace.com> wrote: > >> >>But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have >>with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how >>up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with >>various makes. > >I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of >them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras. > I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both a dslr and a P&S. I know I do. It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 02:42 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Probably just a humanitarian >gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away. You aren't far from wrong. The other larger reason being, I would never post my photographs amongst a collection of beginner's snapshots. Pretty demeaning doing that. I have no need to try to get attention for my photography, as all of you must do try to encourage yourselves to do better. (How can anyone not do better? It's all "up" when you're that low.) I removed all my sites online years ago just because of how many people were stealing them for screen-savers and other unauthorized uses. Even though they were only 640 x 480 images they still found them worthy for their own gains. Resolution means nothing when the images are worth seeing. But if you were any kind of photographer, you'd know that. Want to play the "slam cameras that you know nothing about" game, again? You just outted yourself as nothing more than another useless, pathetic, and insecure DSLR-Troll. I wonder how many more of them that this thread can trap and cause them to out themselves. Should be mildly interesting.
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 02:44
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell ><groupsRE(a)MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote: > >>something resembling a discussion > >Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike >Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related >equipment. I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Curvemeister - who could write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good enough to show us. Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |