How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: Peter on 6 Jul 2010 20:04 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:i0ud9d01lvm(a)news7.newsguy.com... > On 7/6/2010 12:07 AM, Mike Russell wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:43:51 -0500, Die Wahrheit wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:30:38 -0500, Allen<allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Naturally, the subject rapidly turned to equipment, which may or may >>>> not >>>> identify amateur vs. pro. >>>> The best way to tell is this: the amateur is the one who is smiling and >>>> appears to be enjoying him/herself. >>>> Allen >>> >>> The amateur just does it more often. The fool, all the time. The true >>> Pro >>> only when it really matters to the art of photography. Their joy now >>> being >>> 100-fold that of the amateur or fool. Greater views for greater >>> enjoyment >>> require more challenging climbs. >> >> Or a helicopter. > > The true pro doesn't give a hoot in Hell about art, he's in it for the > money. > I don't know how many pros you know. I know at least a dozen fine are & fashion photographers. Every one of them takes great pride in their art. I only know two fine art photographers who do really well. (Income over 7 digits not counting decimals.) Most I know are not in that business for the money. They do it for the self fulfillment an artist gets. -- Peter
From: Peter on 6 Jul 2010 20:10 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4c327598$0$5514$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >> news:RfmdnU_hiNm_yK_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >> >>> Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits >>> easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise, >>> anything up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It >>> would be ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every >>> imaginable control, a P&S. >> >> I own an 8800, which I have always referred to as a P&S. Yes, it does >> have a lot of controls. I converted it to infra red and still use it. >> >> >> This whole conversation is ridiculous. >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter > > There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are quite > happy! I own both and have no problem with the term. > Imagine someone worrying about being politically correct when referring to a camera. -- Peter
From: Peter on 6 Jul 2010 20:31 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:nke6365auqrka4ut9385fagk0t1svfmqqa(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 18:44:36 -0400, in > <4c32607f$0$5549$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>news:050720100934157149%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>> In article <9s0436hjo7s7rrnp6or68uc7988k4p901t(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Point and shoot as used here is pejorative, as I'm sure you know. >>> >>> nope. >>> >>>> Canon does not use "point and shoot" for its high-end models, only its >>>> lower models. Likewise Olympus. >>> >>> wrong. olympus does: >>> >>> <http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital.asp?section=sp> >>> >>> b&h calls them point and shoot and so does keh, as do a lot of people. >>> >>> only in your mind is it considered to be derogatory. >>> >>> you're threatened. it's clear. >> >>Oh pulese! How can Mr. never be wrong feel threatened. > > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' > Well! We are waiting for your proof. Until then, Bye -- Peter Sorry he first posted that here.
From: Peter on 6 Jul 2010 20:34 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:3te636lv4fmjmbvfpq5k0k2ogqpik9stts(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:07:19 -0500, in > <gie436dqgdo3vfor0co497mqgm1stucum9(a)4ax.com>, Joel Connor > <myemail(a)myserver.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:34:21 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >>>b&h photo, one of the largest if not *the* largest worldwide seller of >>>photo equipment, classifies digital cameras into three categories, >>>point & shoot, slr and mirrorless system cameras for the latest large >>>sensor compacts, a category that didn't exist until recently. >> >>And many multinational drug companies, far wealthier than B&H, who are now >>getting class-action lawsuits advertised on TV to try to find all those >>who >>were injured or killed by their products will call deadly medications as >>"Safe and Effective". >> >>Your point? >> >>Do you always let advertising define your reality for you? >> >>You have some serious problems if so. > > Side note: It's almost certainly a wild mischaracterization to claim B&H > is "one of the largest if not *the* largest worldwide seller of photo > equipment" -- even with annual sales of $100M+* my guess(tm) is that > it's not even close to mass retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, Costco. > > * > <http://www.safenet-inc.com/About_SafeNet/Customer_Success/Customer_Success_Items/B_H_Photo_Selects_SafeNet_for_PCI_Compliance.aspx> And you proof of sales of camera equipment by Wal-Mart and Best Buy is? -- Peter
From: nospam on 6 Jul 2010 21:25
In article <4c33cb1c$0$5505$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message > news:nke6365auqrka4ut9385fagk0t1svfmqqa(a)4ax.com... > > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, > > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' > > > Well! > We are waiting for your proof. Until then, you'll be waiting a long time. |