Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 15:08 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in ><9r3de5t21s3uvu7ej7jh3hasqbf7h8e9q0(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser >><questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > >>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. > >Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact >digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR >cameras. I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what is uploaded. The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed shot earns a "Nice try!". A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon great shots aren't using P&Ss. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 15:08 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:40:43 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >You'll never see real pros bragging about their gear. Or using P&Ss. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 27 Oct 2009 15:12 In article <k9hee5lgrrrfdk3m6mfanuma6f36advlv3(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:40:43 -0700, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > >You'll never see real pros bragging about their gear. > > Or using P&Ss. in fact, stock photo agencies will often not accept photos from p&s cameras.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 15:23 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:08:16 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >><9r3de5t21s3uvu7ej7jh3hasqbf7h8e9q0(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser >>><questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact >>digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR >>cameras. > >I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting >about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what >is uploaded. > >The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort >of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great >shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed >shot earns a "Nice try!". > >A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious >photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon >great shots aren't using P&Ss. I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years is not out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality. I now use high-end P&S cameras exclusively. Your comment is the psychotic fabrication of an insecure DSLR-Troll. Just as this thread has proved. Many professionals now use P&S cameras, if not their mainstay, then a large majority of their work. Just because you claim the converse to be true doesn't make it so. Now the question remains, to stay on topic, why do you feel the need to fabricate these wild imaginings of yours and not only present them as facts but actually believe these fabrications yourself? Are you just that out of touch with reality? Is it that simple?
From: John Navas on 27 Oct 2009 15:44
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:08:16 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <asgee5te8j9eb6n94ru01i3tshqujgbh16(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact >>digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR >>cameras. > >I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting >about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what >is uploaded. I guess the key word there is "critical", and I think it telling you're limiting yourself to a single forum to make a global pejorative comment. >The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort >of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great >shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed >shot earns a "Nice try!". That's not representative either, of course, and likewise telling. >A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious >photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon >great shots aren't using P&Ss. Childishly pejorative as usual, and simply not true. -- Best 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 |