Hi William,
Since I'm new here, and 2 yrs new to photography, let me "spill my
beans". I ORIGINALLY bought my first slr, zx-50 for one reason; to produce
sharper,better point-and-shoot photos of my kids. It Worked. I captured some
of the best moments of my life on film, and they look TONS better than the
Canon sure-shots my friends use. Once I started seeing things through the
viewfinder, I somehow caught this "photography disease" that we all seem to
have. So what did I do? Learned as much as I could from talented people like
yourselves, put the thing in MANUAL mode, threw it on a tripod and learned
how to take photographs by burning film. And, in the process, when I Did NOT
know what the heck I was doing, I still was able to use the camera and get
good shots WHEN capturing a moment to look back on was my main objective. I
would have missed so much if I had only had a 100% manual camera. Sure, I
would have possibly been forced to learn things SOMEWHAT quicker, but at
what cost? I do have the dicipline and desire to put the thing on manual to
learn. I am listening to you guys and understanding that that's the best way
to learn photography. I'm a balanced man and appreciate everyones opinion
also.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it :)
-Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Frank van Riper
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Francis"
> Subject: RE: Frank van Riper
>
>
>
> > We all have prejudices - it's human nature. Axioms, if you
> prefer.
> >
> > The article argues against the conveniences of modern cameras
> based
> > on the belief that these conveniences do nothing to teach the
> user
> > to take better photographs. So far, so good. But there is
> the
> > implicit assumption that using an old-fashioned manual camera
> will
> > do a better job. This is presented as an axiomatic truth,
> and
> > it's where my own set of prejudices lead me to a different
> position.
>
> John, the photographs you take will definitely be improved by
> using fast automation. Do you think they would be as good if you
> didn't know squat about photographic theory? If I did what you
> do (motorsports) I would be using a AF camera, and the fastest
> one I could find. My subjects tend to sit pretty still under non
> changing lighting conditions. The technology is lost on me, and
> I know it.
> >
> > There's also the analogy with Stephen King. Interesting how a
> > certain level of technology (a typewriter, or simple word
> processor)
> > is seen as acceptable today - I'm sure there were similar
> criticisms
> > levelled at those technologies when they were first
> introduced.
> > In fact you made this exact point yourself in your anecdote
> about
> > 'filmstrip photographers'
>
> This is one of those strawman arguments that we see from time to
> time. Why not just scratch some characters onto a piece of bark
> with a charcoal stick? is the extreme version of this one.
> The reason it is a strawman is because the technology of getting
> the words to paper isn't at all germane. What does matter to the
> story teller is language theory. The word processor vs. quill
> and ink argument sidesteps this fact, then tries to score points
> off the supposed anti technology argument.
> If you want to see a good example of this, read any story by
> Stephen King, Then any story by Peter Straub.
> Or, any story by Mordechai Richler, and any story by a grade 4
> student about how I spent my summer vacation.
> You will quickly see that Straub and Richler have much in
> common, as does King and the grade 4 student.
>
> To me, it is not the degree of automation, but the level of
> knowledge that the user has. My experience developing pictures
> for a living is that most people starting out with full auto
> cameras tend to park them on automatic, and never learn
> photographic theory. These same people tend to blame the lab
> (that would be me) for their failed pictures.
> This is why I am a wee bit sensitive on the subject of
> automation, and why I occasionally get the old soapbox out and
> decry the use of unnecessary technology.
> Of course, there is also the argument that the camera can be put
> into PHD mode for those fast grab shots, and used otherwise when
> appropriate. I think this is a load of horse droppings. I will
> lay odds that the cameras out there that offer full program
> autofocused exposure are used just that way over 90% of the
> time.
> If anyone wants me to shut up now, just tell me.
> William Robb
>
>
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
