Prev: Tiptoe...Thru the Water...
Next: Web Gallery Software
From: Bruce on 12 Aug 2010 03:40
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:45:26 -0500, C. Werner <none(a)noaddress.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>Your post was unsupported, self-aggrandizing rubbish.
>
>Your posts are self-evident, blatantly insecure, screaming for further
>attention, troll's currency.


Isn't it great when the trolls start hurling personal abuse at each
other? That's entertainment, folks! ;-)

From: Bruce on 12 Aug 2010 03:42
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:38:23 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
<ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>
>I wholly understand that the denizens of these photography groups are
>either: role-playing trolls who have never held a camera, with their only
>value being what stats they can spout from fellow trolls or specs posted
>online; or failed snapshooters, who believe that if they only got a more
>expensive technically-superior camera, then they too will become a famous
>(or at least valued) photographer one day. With that being the vast
>majority, if not the all of the participants (minus one), they have no
>choice but to tout the benefits of "technical superiority". (Even doing
>that full of errors.) It's all they know. All they understand. And
>precisely why they'll always fail.
>
>They know nothing of what entails "valuable content". How can they? In
>order to do so they'd have to understand humanity first. That is far beyond
>the scope of their sheltered and/or self-serving lives. Technical aspects
>they can sometimes grasp, so they run with it, full tilt. Tripping, falling
>and failing--all the way.


Sadly, all true. Your post perfectly sums up these newsgroups.

From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 12 Aug 2010 04:00
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:40:44 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:45:26 -0500, C. Werner <none(a)noaddress.com>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Your post was unsupported, self-aggrandizing rubbish.
>>
>>Your posts are self-evident, blatantly insecure, screaming for further
>>attention, troll's currency.
>
>
>Isn't it great when the trolls start hurling personal abuse at each
>other? That's entertainment, folks! ;-)

Like you just did?

LOL!

From: Bruce on 12 Aug 2010 04:43
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:00:10 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:40:44 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:45:26 -0500, C. Werner <none(a)noaddress.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Your post was unsupported, self-aggrandizing rubbish.
>>>
>>>Your posts are self-evident, blatantly insecure, screaming for further
>>>attention, troll's currency.
>>
>>
>>Isn't it great when the trolls start hurling personal abuse at each
>>other? That's entertainment, folks! ;-)
>
>Like you just did?


Like you always do?

I suppose it's what people do to try to fit in here. ;-)

From: Bowser on 12 Aug 2010 08:00
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:38:23 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
<ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:32:03 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>

>>
>>Remember that cover shot on Time of the Concord going up in flames
>>during takeoff? It was taken by a tourist using a disposable film
>>camera. Technically, it was rubbish. But it was the ONLY shot of its
>>kind! Content trumps technical perfection nearly every time.
>
>No. Not nearly every time. Always.
>
>You could have a technically perfect three-terabyte pixel image of some
>immature flash-in-the-pan pop-star gracing a wall of some famous landmark.
>And alongside it a cell-phone image blown up to the same size, of the very
>first verified contact with visiting alien life from another world. Guess
>which image people will look at and value the most.

In the US, probably the GD pop star.

>
>Images will always be awarded attention based on the value of their
>content, never their technical perfection. Do you think that if Ansel took
>an image of some roadside stop-sign and then applied his darkroom
>techniques on it, that anyone would give a damn about wanting to see his
>"technical perfection" of an image that everyone has seen everyday their
>whole lives? Without worthy content technical perfection has zero value.

One exception may be a series of Ansel Adams shots that aren't really
great compositions, but are so impressive technically, they awe
people. Can't think of any others.

>
>I wholly understand that the denizens of these photography groups are
>either: role-playing trolls who have never held a camera, with their only
>value being what stats they can spout from fellow trolls or specs posted
>online; or failed snapshooters, who believe that if they only got a more
>expensive technically-superior camera, then they too will become a famous
>(or at least valued) photographer one day. With that being the vast
>majority, if not the all of the participants (minus one), they have no
>choice but to tout the benefits of "technical superiority". (Even doing
>that full of errors.) It's all they know. All they understand. And
>precisely why they'll always fail.

Except me, or course.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: Tiptoe...Thru the Water...
Next: Web Gallery Software