Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 27 Oct 2009 16:06 In article <hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, > where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S. why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that happened to volunteer? > My brother shot a wedding with a Fuji P&S, leaving his 35mm SLR > in the bag. was he actually the official photographer or just a friend or relative helping out? some couples can't afford a good wedding photographer. > It doesn't happen often. But it does happen. i'm sure it happens, but the numbers are *very* few.
From: D. Peter Maus on 27 Oct 2009 16:11 On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote: > In article<hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus > <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, >> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S. > > why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that > happened to volunteer? Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job. > >> My brother shot a wedding with a Fuji P&S, leaving his 35mm SLR >> in the bag. > > was he actually the official photographer or just a friend or relative > helping out? some couples can't afford a good wedding photographer. He was the official photographer. Charged them mid 5 figures for it, too.
From: nospam on 27 Oct 2009 16:13 In article <ockee5p5l2fc3t2kradvl67nb9c08f973e(a)4ax.com>, Curiouser and Curiouser <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > I'm using that as an example of how even a > low-resolution photograph of a worthwhile subject, if rejected, can cause > ignorant stock agency policy-makers like the ones mention to lose a > fortune. photos like that go to news agencies and/or law enforcement, *not* stock agencies.
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 16:30 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:23:22 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >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. No one here believes that. If you want to cite an exception to my statement, provide a reference to a person who really is a professional photographer. You can *say* you are anyone you want, but that doesn't mean we believe you. >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? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 16:35
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:38 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. Yes, I am limiting myself to a single forum. Never claimed otherwise. The people that participate in this newsgroup, and the related newsgroups, who continue to bleat about the marvelous qualities of P&S cameras never seem to enter photographs in the Shoot-In for review by the people of this group. >>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 But non-refutable. You'd be stepping all over yourself furnishing cites if you had examples to the contrary. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |