Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
i wonder if the 45 in the other hand had anything to do with it g. Alan Cotty wrote: On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed 3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to hand it all back to her, but she figured feverishly for a couple of minutes and proudly added another dollar to the pile in my hand. I was a little embarrassed for her, but still feeling honest I said sorry too much change I think it should be a buck forty-one total and again tried to hand her the money back. The clerk went back to figuring with furrowed brow, hearing the crowd in line start a murderous murmur, and after much figuring and the people in line about to kill me she added *another* dollar to the growing pile in my hand. Hearing the train wreck of killer customers about to happen I smiled, closed my hand and put the six bucks or so in my pocket, said Perfect, thanks and left the building. Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right change, would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line behind me? She might have just handed you the cash register. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
The problem is that people are never taught the tricks of arithmetic anymore. I worked in a store growing up, and I learned that the correct way to make change is to start with the purchase amount and add up to the amount given, e.g., 8.59, give a penny 8.60, give a dime, 87.0, give a nickel, 8.75, give a quarter, etc. I'm sure any older person who ever worked in a store knows this way to make change and no significant mental arithmetic is needed. Whenever I've simply demonstrated this to a younger person that needs to make change, they pick it up almost instantly. In the age of calculators, however, there's just little point in point in passing many other arithmetic skills on. If you don't practice a skill outside of the classroom you simply forget it. Long division, for example, is dead just like film, which is why you should buy an *istD. Just to get up back on track. . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/17/04 11:51AM On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed 3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to hand it all back to her, but she figured feverishly for a couple of minutes and proudly added another dollar to the pile in my hand. I was a little embarrassed for her, but still feeling honest I said sorry too much change I think it should be a buck forty-one total and again tried to hand her the money back. The clerk went back to figuring with furrowed brow, hearing the crowd in line start a murderous murmur, and after much figuring and the people in line about to kill me she added *another* dollar to the growing pile in my hand. Hearing the train wreck of killer customers about to happen I smiled, closed my hand and put the six bucks or so in my pocket, said Perfect, thanks and left the building. Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right change, would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line behind me? She might have just handed you the cash register. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Does Pentax Photolab make a better job of conversion to TIFF than the camera, or are they equivalent? I use Photoshop 5LE and Elements. Nick -Original Message- From: alex wetmore[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16/02/04 18:51:50 You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. alex
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
On 18 Feb 2004 at 21:25, Nick Clark wrote: Does Pentax Photolab make a better job of conversion to TIFF than the camera, or are they equivalent? I use Photoshop 5LE and Elements. The advantage of post processing the file is that you have greater flexibility and control. IMHO the quality isn't as good as the in camera TIFF, the edges are definitely poorer. However the Photolab program is a dog, point it towards a sub with a couple of hundred RAW images and it'll gag. It's just crap. Unless you have an library program that can understand Pentax RAW files then you are stuck with it for previews however at least the RAW plugin for PS CS now provides a viable alternative for post processing. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] However the Photolab program is a dog, point it towards a sub with a couple of hundred RAW images and it'll gag. It's just crap. Are you referring to batch processing using PhotoLab or previewing with the Pentax Photo Browser? when I batch process I walk away from the computer for a while I have no issues previewing large numbers of RAW images. Christian
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
On 18 Feb 2004 at 17:11, Christian wrote: Are you referring to batch processing using PhotoLab or previewing with the Pentax Photo Browser? Preview. I have set the preferences Folder at start to Last folder used ( which contained 200+ RAW files and have had to kill the process in order to regain control of my system. The bloody thing has to read each and every file (to generate a thumbnail image on the fly) before you can navigate the files. Also if it is viewing a directory where files are being added it also gurgles and froths. I have never used a poorer image management tool. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
I sent several e-mails to Pentax-USA asking when we'd get better RAW software. Funny, they answer my other stupid questions, but this one they won't touch... Christian - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?) On 18 Feb 2004 at 17:11, Christian wrote: Are you referring to batch processing using PhotoLab or previewing with the Pentax Photo Browser? Preview. I have set the preferences Folder at start to Last folder used ( which contained 200+ RAW files and have had to kill the process in order to regain control of my system. The bloody thing has to read each and every file (to generate a thumbnail image on the fly) before you can navigate the files. Also if it is viewing a directory where files are being added it also gurgles and froths. I have never used a poorer image management tool. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
the Photoshop CD file browser is better at this, but it doesn't have a batch convert capability. have to create an action. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?) Preview. I have set the preferences Folder at start to Last folder used ( which contained 200+ RAW files and have had to kill the process in order to regain control of my system. The bloody thing has to read each and every file (to generate a thumbnail image on the fly) before you can navigate the files. Also if it is viewing a directory where files are being added it also gurgles and froths. I have never used a poorer image management tool. :-(
RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Simon King wrote: At big sporting events (Olympics/world cup etc) you see literally thousands of people sitting in stands hundreds of meters away from an arena taking flash photo's with their PSs and SLRs set to auto. Makes me wonder how many thousands of rolls of film were later processed and the disappointing (read black) results shown to the shooters. Similarly a recent long-running advertisement in the UK photo magazines for the Canon 300D showed a football stadium apparently full of 300D owners either busily 'chimping' or flashing away at the distant action on the pitch with their standard zooms and built-in flashguns. I don't know what they were trying to say but the message I got was Canon owners are stupid. Actually I was embarrassed for Canon and I don't even own one! Chris
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
William Robb wrote: [. . .] Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you Romeo and Juliet, eventually. You've been on this group long enough to know THAT's not true, William! g keith
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
he invented grammar and vocabulary that many people imitated afterwards. the language of the day wasn't good enough for him. HCB did that and created a legion of imitators too. Herb... - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, but lets pretend for the sake of argument that he was a master at the craft of playwright. Was he a master because he used a quill pen? Well, no. He was a master because he was well versed in the language of the day. He had learned the theory that he needed to master his craft.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
William Robb opined: Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, You've obviously never read him. What a bizarre notion.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
William Robb wrote: Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, H, actually I have to strongly disagree on that one. Not just 'cos everyone else says so either. His prose may be difficult to the modern ear, but many of his themes are so universally human that they remain true 400 years later. That alone raises him against much of the competition, and that's leaving out the massive, unique contribution he made to the English language. He might have been considered a 'hack' when he was alive, but I doubt he was ever seen as second rate. Chris
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Shakespeare was certainly not considered a hack by the respected critics of his day, although some of his contemporaries disparaged him, perhaps because he was obviously striking out in a new and unique direction. One need only read his peers to realize how significant his achievement was. Read the sonnet sequences of Sydney and Spencer, then read Shakespeare. It's as though someone opened a window and let some light into the stuffy room of English literature. Or read the other Elizabethan playwrites: Marlowe, Kyd, Lyly, Joson. Then read Shakespeare. the plays of the others are generally confused constructs written by men who, although great in their own right, couldn't even approach the human insights, poetic voice, or theatrical innovations that Shakespeare achieved. Yes, every once in a while a third rate critic who hopes to get his name in the paper disparages the bard or even attributes his work to someone else. But among true scholars of English literature, good Will has been revered for four centuries. On Feb 17, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Chris Stoddart wrote: William Robb wrote: Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, H, actually I have to strongly disagree on that one. Not just 'cos everyone else says so either. His prose may be difficult to the modern ear, but many of his themes are so universally human that they remain true 400 years later. That alone raises him against much of the competition, and that's leaving out the massive, unique contribution he made to the English language. He might have been considered a 'hack' when he was alive, but I doubt he was ever seen as second rate. Chris
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: Shakespeare was certainly not considered a hack by the respected critics of his day You're absolutely right, especially as can be seen in the way that his contemporaries banded together to make sure his work was published after his death. By suggesting 'hack' _might_ be an allowable term I was thinking more in terms of the job of being a playwright and actor were pretty much disparaged in Elizabethan times. My intention was merely closing off one avenue of misunderstanding of his words that William Robb might suggest I made :-) I don't think he was a hack. I definitely don't think he was second-rate. Chris (On topic: I've got some pictures of The Globe taken on an LX somewhere!)
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Quoting Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Looks like I'm gonna have to subscribe: PREVIOUS MONTH'S COLUMNS Let's Make Test Tube Babies! May, 1979 Let's Make a Solar System! June, 1979 Let's Make an Economic Recession! July, 1979 Let's Make an Anti-Gravity Machine! August, 1979 Let's Make Contact with an Alien Race! September, 1979 The source of this is the Journal of Irreproducible Results. It has recently been compiled into a best-of book. I have seen it at Amazon.com. In my study days, I sometimes spent enjoyable evenings at the university library reading the original issues. Cheers, Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you Romeo and Juliet, eventually. You've been on this group long enough to know THAT's not true, William! g I figure it will happen eventually. We may need more monkeys though. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
We'll try again with my own opinion of the Bard and his work left out. Lets see if anyone gets the point of the post this time (other than Shel). - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? It's the wishful thinking of the masters of an arcane craft that the pcitures created by photographers who have started since the early 80's are inferior to older photographers. This is like saying that Shakespeare wrote as well as he did because he used a quill pen. Was he a master because he used a quill pen? Well, no. He was a master because he was well versed in the language of the day. He had learned the theory that he needed to master his craft. One could surmise that I am as good a writer as the Bard. While I haven't mastered the English language, I do have a spell checker on my computer. Oh, I hear the rabble saying Robbs gone off his nut again, now he has pretensions of knowing how to put two words together in a cohesive way. Don't worry, I will never stand accused of that. However, the person who takes the interest to learn the fundamentals of any craft will do a much better job of it than someone who is depending more on technology and blind luck than knowledge. Knowledge isn't just the nuts and bolts of light and colour either. It's about knowing what you are shooting. Wanna shoot birds in flight? It might help a bit if you knew something about what goes on in the bird's universe. Sort of to help you predict what they are going to do next. Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you Romeo and Juliet, eventually. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
This is my system. All of my photos go into one of two piles, those containing bears and those not containing bears. Although after following this thread for several days I am thinking about starting a new category for pictures containing bagels. Lot of work to re-sort, though . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/16/04 11:49PM Earlier Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a few things about various software Shel The PS Raw plug in is great, the only drawback is you need Photoshop CS, and CS requires Windows XP or one of the later Mac versions. I can't remember which. Good excuse to upgrade though. Asset Manager is the latest buzz word for categorizing programs. If you think of your images as assets, it actually make sense. Imatch is one of the more versatile programs in it's price range. I categorize each photo with the location, date taken, recognizable people, general subject, and a few other things. Sounds like it's a lot of work, but it's not. Imatch is set up in a way to make category assignment very quick. It has features that will pull categories from the EXIF data automatically. I've never tried that but it sounds promising. Anyway, the power comes in when you start to use the virtual categories You could make a category called Optio S images from 2004 not taken in Wyoming or All nature photos not containing bears . It all depends on how you categorized the stuff. See you later, gs
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I can't get my Kodak Portra 160NC, into the small opening of my new *ist D. Since it is a professional film, I thought it would work, but perhaps the *ist D is not professional? The manual doesn't even explain how to get a film into the camera. On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 18:58, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I still fail to see something here, don't I? Well, yes, but not surprising. Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but all we are doing is re-enforcing what we do, and what we know. I have had experience in this that most people haven't had. I have, for the past 2 decades, been on the front lines, so to speak, of the photo processing industry. The mini lab took me from my nice factory job to actually having to deal directly with customers as part of the job. Most of the people on this list, and I am sure everywhere, communicate with people who share their interests, and generally ignore those who do not. I don't have that luxury. I get to communicate with people who know what they are doing, or want to learn on this list and at the various camera clubs and professional organizations that I take part in, but I also have to deal with a completely different group of people as part of my employment. You mentioned how easy it is to operate most other consumer devises. You mentioned cars. I submit that if you checked to see how many people per day in the world are killed or maimed by automobiles, you might change your mind about how easy they are to operate. For an easy to use product, a lot of damage is caused by operator incompetance. I think a good parallel can be drawn from the automobile to the camera. I read somewhere, a while back, I think it was Car and Driver Magazine, that every time a new safety device has been introduced to the automobile, the rate of car accidents has increased, and the rate of injuries has increased as well. This dates right back to the late 1950's and the introduction of the seat belt to independant suspension, radial tires, 5 MPH bumbers, anti lock brakes and air bags. This seems odd. The car is safer, yet it causes more harm. In cameras, I have noted much the same thing. As they add more features to make them work better, faster, easier, more bad photographs get churned out. More of the photographic equivalent of the car wreck, if you like. Technology is both a blessing and a curse, you see. While making it easier to do something by building in a knowledge base of sorts, the product doesn't require the user to know anything, or to really pay much attention to what they are doing. We see it every day, on the freeways and streets. People talking on cell phones while drinking coffee, and trying to navigate a couple of thousand pounds of steel and plastic down the road. Apparently, using a cell phone while driving causes a person to be impaired, very similar to driving while drunk. And we wonder why there are so many car accidents? I have 2 cars. One is power everything, and sits quite high off the ground. The other is a small econobox, with manual everything. Interestingly, I can use my cell phone while driving my 4x4 truck easily. I tried once while driving the Toyota Tercel, and decided quite quickly that I was begging disaster by doing so. Having to think about shifting gears, and having to keep both hands free to operate the vehicle causes me to have to pay attention to what I am doing, and forces me to be a better driver. Using an auto everthing camera doesn't force the user to think so much about what they are doing. You don't have to spend any time looking through the viewfinder setting light meter readings or focussing. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder, in fact. If you are brave, you can set the self timer, throw the camera in the air, and get a perfectly exposed and focused picture. A lot of what I process in a day looks like this is just what the user has done too. Obviously no thought has gone into the composition, exposures are all over the place, and often, the camera has automatically focused on something other than the subject. But it's my fault, the camera is automatic, and they just pushed the button, therefore someone else must have screwed up. Since it wasn't the photographer, it must have been the lab. It doesn't occur to the bulk of them to consider that the technology they bought into and trust so thoroughly has face planted itself, and they get rather angry and defensive when it is pointed out to them that we just process the crap, they are the ones that put whatever junk images they get onto the film. Digital is even worse. We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat like greedy kittens. They are bringing files
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Maybe. But I think it is more likely that anyone that would have bene good with a Spotmatic is also good with an *ist (the film one). After a few rolls, you figure out you need to learn something about photography or your pics are good enough or you put it in a closet. I don't think that membership in these categories have changed much over time. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/16/04 05:28PM No... that wasn't what I was trying to say. My point was that I don't believe that (in general) photographers who learned their craft back in the days before automated cameras have lost their appreciation of light, form and composition, and that in my opinion a more interesting issue is what the effect of automation on new photographers is. As regards your argument, I think that *you* have confused *artist* with photographer. :-) My personal opinion is that a good photographer is a good artist *and* a good technician, and that someone who has to hire assistants to handle the technical details is merely an artist. But this is a semantic discussion, and as such is unlikely to go anywhere. ;-) S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've confused technician/camera operator with photographer. Photographers make visually compelling images. Many full time working photographers just have enough technical knowledge to get what they want. (Many of them don't even have that and hire assistants/camera operators to handle the technical details). I know first hand of photographers that still do things all manual and it's not because they think that manual is better, but because they aren't interested or are intimidated by modern auto cameras. So, if you think that getting a properly exposed, in focus image recorded makes you a great photographer, it doesn't; it makes you a competent technician. BR From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah now, the *real* question is whether or not the availability of smarter cameras increases or decreases the number of people who want to learn how to become good photographers. :-)
RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
No, the *istD is only semi-professional - you need to use Kodak Gold or Shops own brand films only. -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 February 2004 15:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I can't get my Kodak Portra 160NC, into the small opening of my new *ist D. Since it is a professional film, I thought it would work, but perhaps the *ist D is not professional? The manual doesn't even explain how to get a film into the camera. On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 18:58, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I still fail to see something here, don't I? Well, yes, but not surprising. Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but all we are doing is re-enforcing what we do, and what we know. I have had experience in this that most people haven't had. I have, for the past 2 decades, been on the front lines, so to speak, of the photo processing industry. The mini lab took me from my nice factory job to actually having to deal directly with customers as part of the job. Most of the people on this list, and I am sure everywhere, communicate with people who share their interests, and generally ignore those who do not. I don't have that luxury. I get to communicate with people who know what they are doing, or want to learn on this list and at the various camera clubs and professional organizations that I take part in, but I also have to deal with a completely different group of people as part of my employment. You mentioned how easy it is to operate most other consumer devises. You mentioned cars. I submit that if you checked to see how many people per day in the world are killed or maimed by automobiles, you might change your mind about how easy they are to operate. For an easy to use product, a lot of damage is caused by operator incompetance. I think a good parallel can be drawn from the automobile to the camera. I read somewhere, a while back, I think it was Car and Driver Magazine, that every time a new safety device has been introduced to the automobile, the rate of car accidents has increased, and the rate of injuries has increased as well. This dates right back to the late 1950's and the introduction of the seat belt to independant suspension, radial tires, 5 MPH bumbers, anti lock brakes and air bags. This seems odd. The car is safer, yet it causes more harm. In cameras, I have noted much the same thing. As they add more features to make them work better, faster, easier, more bad photographs get churned out. More of the photographic equivalent of the car wreck, if you like. Technology is both a blessing and a curse, you see. While making it easier to do something by building in a knowledge base of sorts, the product doesn't require the user to know anything, or to really pay much attention to what they are doing. We see it every day, on the freeways and streets. People talking on cell phones while drinking coffee, and trying to navigate a couple of thousand pounds of steel and plastic down the road. Apparently, using a cell phone while driving causes a person to be impaired, very similar to driving while drunk. And we wonder why there are so many car accidents? I have 2 cars. One is power everything, and sits quite high off the ground. The other is a small econobox, with manual everything. Interestingly, I can use my cell phone while driving my 4x4 truck easily. I tried once while driving the Toyota Tercel, and decided quite quickly that I was begging disaster by doing so. Having to think about shifting gears, and having to keep both hands free to operate the vehicle causes me to have to pay attention to what I am doing, and forces me to be a better driver. Using an auto everthing camera doesn't force the user to think so much about what they are doing. You don't have to spend any time looking through the viewfinder setting light meter readings or focussing. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder, in fact. If you are brave, you can set the self timer, throw the camera in the air, and get a perfectly exposed and focused picture. A lot of what I process in a day looks like this is just what the user has done too. Obviously no thought has gone into the composition, exposures are all over the place, and often, the camera has automatically focused on something other than the subject. But it's my fault, the camera is automatic, and they just pushed the button, therefore someone else must have screwed up. Since it wasn't the photographer, it must have been the lab. It doesn't occur to the bulk of them to consider
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On the Pentax Digress Mailing List? HAA! The nest step in this thread will be that the Bard was Un-American because he didn't belong to the NRA, and smart bombs took the thrill out of war. BR From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll try again with my own opinion of the Bard and his work left out. Lets see if anyone gets the point of the post this time (other than Shel).
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Actually, one may say that they have, indeed, contributed to taking the thrill out of war. Speak to almost any veteran of WWII or the Korean war and they will tell you that they've never felt so alive as when they were in combat and dangerous situations. Smart bombs distance the danger substantially, remove the operators from life threatening situations, and reduce the whole experience to something more than watching TV, but quite a bit less than the danger inherent in close combat. Of course, the next argument as rebuttal will be that in the middle ages men engaged in hand to hand combat, and the wars of the 20th century couldn't compare for thrills and excitement. That may be true ... and that also implies that the march of technology has diminished the war experience. pfft! shel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The nest step in this thread will be that the Bard was Un-American because he didn't belong to the NRA, and smart bombs took the thrill out of war.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. I can sew - any help? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed 3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to hand it all back to her, but she figured feverishly for a couple of minutes and proudly added another dollar to the pile in my hand. I was a little embarrassed for her, but still feeling honest I said sorry too much change I think it should be a buck forty-one total and again tried to hand her the money back. The clerk went back to figuring with furrowed brow, hearing the crowd in line start a murderous murmur, and after much figuring and the people in line about to kill me she added *another* dollar to the growing pile in my hand. Hearing the train wreck of killer customers about to happen I smiled, closed my hand and put the six bucks or so in my pocket, said Perfect, thanks and left the building. Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right change, would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line behind me? She might have just handed you the cash register. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Having read most of his plays, I can say reading them is easier after you have done 4 or 5 for practice. However, Shakespeare's stuff is not meant to be read but to be listened to. It is truely bardic prose when heard done properly. As for adults understanding it better, I find that true of many classics. Louis Carroll's stuff especially. For kids it is full of silly things, as an adult I recognized all those characters as caricatures of types of people I knew. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/17/2004 5:08:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, every once in a while a third rate critic who hopes to get his name in the paper disparages the bard or even attributes his work to someone else. But among true scholars of English literature, good Will has been revered for four centuries. It took me a long, long time to get Shakespeare. Only in rereading stuff as an older adult, did I finally realize how poetic his language was. Not always, but often. Sheer poetry -- unbelievable. It's a shame kids are forced to read him in high school (US) -- turns them right off. Or maybe if they picked better plays, or just concentrated on one play. The difficulty of the archaic language makes it very hard to understand for teenagers. So most completely miss the poetry. (And sure, some of the plot contrivances are a bit hackneyed, mainly in the comedies). One of these days I will sit down and read as many plays as I can. Or find a Shakespeare reading group. Or start one. Marnie aka Doe :-) Still sort of a Shakespeare ignoramus, but now I understand (much, much later in life) why his plays have endured. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I thought we had enough monkeys. At 09:53 AM 2/17/04, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you Romeo and Juliet, eventually. You've been on this group long enough to know THAT's not true, William! g I figure it will happen eventually. We may need more monkeys though. William Robb I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Do smarter quills make better hacks? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, It took me a long, long time to get Shakespeare. [...] One of these days I will sit down and read as many plays as I can. Or find a Shakespeare reading group. Or start one. If you're really interested in Shakespeare you might find him more approachable if you see one or 2 of the plays first. Or possibly join a dramatic society and play one of the parts. Not surprisingly the plays are often more accessible for the seeing. Taming of the Shrew, Romeo and Juliet, Midsummer Night's Dream and Macbeth are all very watchable and easy to follow. At my school we had readings every evening from the King James Bible. I think the way the great writers of that time used the language has never been surpassed. On the subject of quills: At the weekend I went to an exhibition of work, and book signing, by the illustrator Quentin Blake. In one cabinet was a series of sketches he'd made of creatures using their own quills, including a duck, a swan, a porcupine and a vulture. Very interesting to see the differences (as well as the sizes of the quills). -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, I thought we had enough monkeys. you can never have enough monkeys. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Oh, a wise guy, huh! How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly. I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge, wasn't there? You, Bill, and me. The three stoodges do surgery. LOL. -- Cotty wrote: On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. I can sew - any help? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, H, actually I have to strongly disagree on that one. Not just 'cos everyone else says so either. His prose may be difficult to the modern ear, but many of his themes are so universally human that they remain true 400 years later. That alone raises him against much of the competition, and that's leaving out the massive, unique contribution he made to the English language. He might have been considered a 'hack' when he was alive, but I doubt he was ever seen as second rate. one of his contemporaries described him as an 'upstart crow'. -- Cheers, Bob p.s. he didn't write prose.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Joe (or Curly-Joe) At 02:32 PM 2/17/04, you wrote: Oh, a wise guy, huh! How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly. I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge, wasn't there? You, Bill, and me. The three stoodges do surgery. LOL. -- Cotty wrote: On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. I can sew - any help? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Cotty wrote: Oh, a wise guy, huh! How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly. I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge, wasn't there? Maybe you're thinking of the lady who named her kids Eeney, Miney and Jack? When asked why, she said We didn't want no Mo. keith
On the Uncertainties of Small Change (was Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Israel I think you would find yourself surrounded by few so called mathematicians who would explain to her, probably all at the same time, what the right amount for the change should be. My wife suggested that each of these men and/or women would arrive to their own solution of this complex equation. LOL Sounds akin to the concept of Bistromathics. http://www.connix.com/~akricci/hgttg/guide_details_Bistromathics.html And of course, the subsequent elaboration; the Markov Indecision Processes: http://www.jmlg.org/papers/bovik03.pdf Don't panic. Cheers, Zaphod B.
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
No wonder it didn't work for me, 50 pounds is not 110kg. It is more like 110 pounds is 50 kg. Now I have to start all over again. On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 00:35, Jostein wrote: And then this: http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html Enjoy. :-) Jostein -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I believe Curly replaced Shemp. Seems Shemp did not like doing movies. -- Cotty wrote: Oh, a wise guy, huh! How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly. I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge, wasn't there? You, Bill, and me. The three stoodges do surgery. LOL. -- Cotty wrote: On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. I can sew - any help? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:21:40 -0500, graywolf wrote: I believe Curly replaced Shemp. Seems Shemp did not like doing movies. Chronologically, I believe it was ... Curly - Shemp - Curly - Curly Joe Curly Howard had a stroke and Shemp took over his role. At some point, Shemp dropped out, but I don't recall why. Curly took over for a handful of shorts, but his disability was too great to continue. At that point, Curly Joe came on board and stayed to the end. I believe that Shemp was also a Howard, but maybe not a brother. I don't recall what, if any, relation Curly Joe was. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. I can sew - any help? Depends. If you are good at it then no. WW
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Of course, the next argument as rebuttal will be that in the middle ages men engaged in hand to hand combat, and the wars of the 20th century couldn't compare for thrills and excitement. That may be true ... and that also implies that the march of technology has diminished the war experience. What the march of technology has done is made it too easy for some to wage war on others. If you are sending your boys out to die, you will think harder about it than if you are sending them out to play Nintendo. In the middle ages, the leaders were often on the front lines risking their own lives. The times have changed for sure. William Robb
RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
With the greatest of respect, Frank, there are only two sorts of photographers - those who categorise photographers, and those that don't. Simon -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? With the greatest of respect, John, (That's code for I disagree very strongly with your statement vbg - as if you didn't already know) Your camera user categories are so generalized, and overlap so much, that they are absolutely meaningless. An art photographer doesn't or can't want a technically perfect photograph, or desire to get the best possible capture of a particular scene or moment? Is a snapshooter unable to want either art or technical perfection? It seems to me that you belittle both artists and snapshooters. I consider myself both. Maybe more of a snapshooter. Yet I try to get the best possible capture of what I'm shooting. It's just that sometimes my vision of how to capture that moment may not be ultimate sharpness or conventional framing. Or it may be some sharp parts, and some not so sharp. Or it may look like a 3 year old took it. How many people do you think own cameras around the world? 500 million? A billion? That's how many types of photographers there are. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip THere are three sorts of people who use camera. One group who regard the image as art, one group who see a challenge in getting the best possible capture of a particular scene or moment. Both of these groups are represented here. But in the real world the largest group by far are those for whom neither the technical skills nor the artistic vision are important - what they want is a memento. (Some folks here refer to these as 'snapshooters'). Lamenting that a snapshooter has never learned the photographic skills is like lamenting that your pig has never learned to sing. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoi n.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
It's funny cuz it's true... :) chris On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the Pentax Digress Mailing List?
RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Simon, Didn't you mean With all due respect? g -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:46:14 +0800 With the greatest of respect, Frank, there are only two sorts of photographers - those who categorise photographers, and those that don't. Simon _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:00 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? This topic comes up from time to time on the list, and there always seems to be polarization between people who say you can learn the fundamentals on a wunderplastic camera and those who say that you probably won't. I fall into the latter category because that is what I see happening.
OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
From: William M Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Otis, I know this is getting a bit off topic, but I need to step up on the soap box here: Yes, the school system is churning out many students who can't do what is described below, and I will be the first to admit that. However, what you described is not just a matter of learning the three R's . . . it goes well beyond that . . . it is called work ethic. Now a work ethic can be started to be taught in school, but it is one of those things that is reinforced if not totally taught at home. If parents and communities don't stand up and help the school system teach this, the USA will continue on the same trend it's on. We can't stand up at the polls and demand no child left behind, but then turn around the next day and complain that the taxes are too high, and we need to cut school funding. . . . we also can't place total blame on the school systems. Look at the leading countries (academically) cultures and you'll see that the learned behaviors we seek are not taught in toto in the schools. Otis, I hope you do not think I am attempting to flame you. I'm just trying to vent some steam and perhaps share some of my understanding with the general public. IL Bill Our problem is a cascading one and point-directed fixes are only band-aids at best. Yes, children are not learning a good work ethic. Yes, NEA union power is protecting a bad system. Yes, parents are uninvolved. Yes, bad school boards put in poor curriculums. Yes, teachers, even the best ones, began with a bad paradigm for education (Dewey/Mann). There's so much to fix. But throwing money at it has been a major contributor. The cries (whines) are far too familiar. Either its: We're not able to do enough, so give us more money or We're doing a good job so everyone needs a reward. For this their PR gets a gold star. And that should be enough. That's all the kids got. :) CRB
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:29:49 +1300, you wrote: The only question is whether there is, among that number, a photographer who would bother to go through the effort of learning how to do things the hard way, and who would then be able to produce better photographs. IIRC, the wildlife photographer and photo seminar leader Arthur Morris once claimed he never took his Canon off auto exposure, because it nailed the exposure more reliably than his own efforts at manual exposure or exposure compensation. This was a couple of years ago. Maybe he has changed his tune since then. I see he is now selling The Pocket Field Guide to Evaluative Metering. http://www.birdsasart.com/#The%20Pocket%20Field%20Guide%20to%20Evaluative%20Metering Might not be a bad self-improvement project - assess and identify, then commit to writing the metering or compensation for our common photo situations. Sort of like the Kodak film box suggestions, but in more depth, and specific to our own camera(s) and style. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
An aisde: Stylistically, I think that use of font and color in an article is ridiculous. It's a piece of prose, not a deodorant ad. Steve the Teacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/14/04 08:14PM http://www.cameraquest.com/photog.htm A not so tongue-in-cheek commentary by Stephen Gandy
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I think the folks that would have done well 30-50 years ago will still do well with automatic cameras, whereas folks that used to get instamatics can now buy a Rebel. Most of us learn when to turn off the automation. I have found that I trust AE but have increasingly gone to MF. When I do use AF, it's because the camera is faster than me and I have a better chance of getting the shot. And, of course, the argument in the article is dumb. To really make the point, you should compare yourself with a comparable photographer form 35 years ago, not one of the great masters. Of course, for some of us, that comparable photographer would be ourselves. ;-) Oddly enough, I do agree with one point, however. The only real level of automation I enjoy would be AV preferred for film cameras. For digital, I would add iso and white balance. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
no. people who don't want to learn won't. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
In part, just my point. There's no longer any need to learn anything for some people. The newer cameras feed right into that mindset. ergo, one needn't know anything about photography, light, exposure, dof, etc., to make a photograph these days. Of course, that's not true of anyone on this list, who are all dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras, and have spent a reasonable time learning the fundamentals. Herb Chong wrote: no. people who don't want to learn won't. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I think the folks that would have done well 30-50 years ago will still do well with automatic cameras, whereas folks that used to get instamatics can now buy a Rebel. The reason those folks did well 30-50 years ago was because they were given no choice. They either had to learn something, or fail. Now, they can (and do) just go out and buy the wunderplastic and on the surface, appear to succeed. Don't underestimate the desire of people to take the easy way out, it is very strong in most people. Read Bill Kane's rant from one of the other threads that is ongoing. People who used to buy instamatics can still buy cheap as dirt cameras that, surprisingly enough, take even worse pictures than what the instamatics were taking 30-50 years ago. Progress is a wonderful thing. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Shel ... I shot a roll of BW in the PZ-1 yesterday,not a cloud in the sky and my main subject were trees against the blinding white snow. I could not tell what the inside was doing,my glasses were blacked right out by the brightness.I just set the camera on the hand meter and shot.I;'ll see how i did Wednesday when i develop it.LOL Dave(snow blind)Brooks One of the things I HATE about many new cameras is the lights that flash when the camera program says I'm using the camera at too slow a shutter speed. Well, off to get some tea ... shel
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
This topic comes up from time to time on the list, and there always seems to be polarization between people who say you can learn the fundamentals on a wunderplastic camera and those who say that you probably won't. I fall into the latter category because that is what I see happening. But that's not the dichotomy. I'm sure most here would agree with you that many (possibly even most) purchasers of SLRs use them as larger point-and-shoot cameras, quite often never even removing the 28-80 zoom that comes in the kit. So the only benefit they get is, perhaps, a slightly better lens (and even that is debatable). The question is whether these users would, if given a manual camera, ever bother to learn how to use it. I believe most of them would just not use the camera because it was perceived as too complicated (three whole things to screw up). Many of those who did use it would just set it on 1/30 at f5.6, because that seems to work most of the time. THere are three sorts of people who use camera. One group who regard the image as art, one group who see a challenge in getting the best possible capture of a particular scene or moment. Both of these groups are represented here. But in the real world the largest group by far are those for whom neither the technical skills nor the artistic vision are important - what they want is a memento. (Some folks here refer to these as 'snapshooters'). Lamenting that a snapshooter has never learned the photographic skills is like lamenting that your pig has never learned to sing.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
No 'ergo' about it. Even if you accept Herb's claim that the number of people interested in learning is falling (rather than just being swamped by the increase in numbers of people without much motivation) there's still no proof of a causal relationship - just a correlation. Perhaps people got dumber (or less interested) for other reasons, but instead of giving up photography entirely they just leave the camera on automatic. In the absence of proper double-blind studies all we have is people forcing their own interpretation on questionable statistics - soapbox oratory rather than hard science. ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I'd suggest that there are a lot of snapshooters on this list. There are about 600 list members, but only a handful that frequently participate in discussions/arguments. What kind of photography do those other 500 or so people do? As for singing pigs, well, I'd like to suggest Ricky Jay's book, Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women LOL John Francis wrote: THere are three sorts of people who use camera. One group who regard the image as art, one group who see a challenge in getting the best possible capture of a particular scene or moment. Both of these groups are represented here. But in the real world the largest group by far are those for whom neither the technical skills nor the artistic vision are important - what they want is a memento. (Some folks here refer to these as 'snapshooters'). Lamenting that a snapshooter has never learned the photographic skills is like lamenting that your pig has never learned to sing.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I still fail to see something here, don't I? Well, yes, but not surprising. Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but all we are doing is re-enforcing what we do, and what we know. I have had experience in this that most people haven't had. I have, for the past 2 decades, been on the front lines, so to speak, of the photo processing industry. The mini lab took me from my nice factory job to actually having to deal directly with customers as part of the job. Most of the people on this list, and I am sure everywhere, communicate with people who share their interests, and generally ignore those who do not. I don't have that luxury. I get to communicate with people who know what they are doing, or want to learn on this list and at the various camera clubs and professional organizations that I take part in, but I also have to deal with a completely different group of people as part of my employment. You mentioned how easy it is to operate most other consumer devises. You mentioned cars. I submit that if you checked to see how many people per day in the world are killed or maimed by automobiles, you might change your mind about how easy they are to operate. For an easy to use product, a lot of damage is caused by operator incompetance. I think a good parallel can be drawn from the automobile to the camera. I read somewhere, a while back, I think it was Car and Driver Magazine, that every time a new safety device has been introduced to the automobile, the rate of car accidents has increased, and the rate of injuries has increased as well. This dates right back to the late 1950's and the introduction of the seat belt to independant suspension, radial tires, 5 MPH bumbers, anti lock brakes and air bags. This seems odd. The car is safer, yet it causes more harm. In cameras, I have noted much the same thing. As they add more features to make them work better, faster, easier, more bad photographs get churned out. More of the photographic equivalent of the car wreck, if you like. Technology is both a blessing and a curse, you see. While making it easier to do something by building in a knowledge base of sorts, the product doesn't require the user to know anything, or to really pay much attention to what they are doing. We see it every day, on the freeways and streets. People talking on cell phones while drinking coffee, and trying to navigate a couple of thousand pounds of steel and plastic down the road. Apparently, using a cell phone while driving causes a person to be impaired, very similar to driving while drunk. And we wonder why there are so many car accidents? I have 2 cars. One is power everything, and sits quite high off the ground. The other is a small econobox, with manual everything. Interestingly, I can use my cell phone while driving my 4x4 truck easily. I tried once while driving the Toyota Tercel, and decided quite quickly that I was begging disaster by doing so. Having to think about shifting gears, and having to keep both hands free to operate the vehicle causes me to have to pay attention to what I am doing, and forces me to be a better driver. Using an auto everthing camera doesn't force the user to think so much about what they are doing. You don't have to spend any time looking through the viewfinder setting light meter readings or focussing. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder, in fact. If you are brave, you can set the self timer, throw the camera in the air, and get a perfectly exposed and focused picture. A lot of what I process in a day looks like this is just what the user has done too. Obviously no thought has gone into the composition, exposures are all over the place, and often, the camera has automatically focused on something other than the subject. But it's my fault, the camera is automatic, and they just pushed the button, therefore someone else must have screwed up. Since it wasn't the photographer, it must have been the lab. It doesn't occur to the bulk of them to consider that the technology they bought into and trust so thoroughly has face planted itself, and they get rather angry and defensive when it is pointed out to them that we just process the crap, they are the ones that put whatever junk images they get onto the film. Digital is even worse. We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat like greedy kittens. They are bringing files in that are too small to print, are too over compressed to print without artifacts, have imbedded profiles that my machine doesn't recognize, and have been over sharpened, over saturated and badly exposed. What do you tell a person that has 128 files on an 8mb card that he wants prints from? What do you tell a person who has saved his files as 256 colour gifs? What do you tell a person who has his
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Ah now, the *real* question is whether or not the availability of smarter cameras increases or decreases the number of people who want to learn how to become good photographers. :-) S Herb Chong wrote: no. people who don't want to learn won't. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D. Because with a K or M lens, it's exactly that: a manual camera with a center weighted meter. You turn your aperture wheel the old fashioned way, by hand. You push a button to stop down and get your shutter speed (kind of like a spotmatic on that count). The camera will change the speed for you (okay, so that's one concession to modernity), but you can pick another shutter speed with a wheel, just as you would on that spotmatic, an MX or an M3. The wheel just happens to be in a different place, and it doesn't have numbers on it. Finally, you focus or refocus and shoot. You can leave the camera set on manual all the time if you use only the classic glass. Hell, you can leave it on manual with new glass as well and just chuck the instruction book g. And of course you don't HAVE TO use the meter, you can just guesstimate shutter speed and ap if so inclined. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: Boris ... Of course, to a point, everyone is right in this discussion. I was actually being a little facetious when I made the comment about everyone here being ... dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. While that may be true for many people who actively participate in these discussions, there are, I know, quite a number of people on this list who do not have such dedication. Quite a few have said at one time or another that, for them, good enough is good enough. And for those people it's quite possible that these smarter cameras do have a dumbing effect. I'll let you in on a little secret: the reason I prefer manual cameras is because I'm lazy. I know that if I had a camera with too much automation, I'd rely on it more than I'd like. At least in my case, Bill Robb's correct ... it's easy to fall into poor habits. So I have to make myself think. And when I don't, the quality of my work suffers. I cannot believe that I am unique in this regard. I'm also too lazy to sit down and read a 200 page manual that tells me how to do what I already know electronically, through menus and interfaces and print outs and with directions given to me by flashing lights and the occasional beeping voice of a camera that thinks I should do it its way. One of the things I HATE about many new cameras is the lights that flash when the camera program says I'm using the camera at too slow a shutter speed. Well, off to get some tea ... shel Boris Liberman wrote: Shel, you're right, up to the point. I really cannot judge it like Bill Robb can as I have no such experience like his. It is a matter of offer and demand. I doubt that more than 1% of people who buy PS (now digi PS) cameras would ever use it for anything but family album snap shooting. They might be photogs by dictionary definition of a word, but I don't think you referred to them. It is enough for them to feel very good for themselves just because they had this little nifty gadget with them at the time when their grandchild jumped three stairs down for the first time. I have two PS cameras, one of which is on indefinitely long loan to a former classmate whose only wish is to take snaps of his son. And Fuji Discovery 38-90 is ideal for the given demand. As you said however, the people on this list and similar folk are all dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. None of them will not be made dumber by a smarter camera. Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. As Bill Robb mentioned, and as has been mentioned on other threads, it appears that average level of average shooter gets lower. It probably *should* be the case, because photography becomes more and more accessible, more and more automatic, more and more for the dumb. But let them be. It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC and it will not bluescreen at me. Why not? For some of the things, you'd like to be able to turn auto wunder button off, and thankfully you can. For some other things you chose not to. I still fail to see something here, don't I? Boris
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
But John, that doesn't make you dumb. It shows clearly that you're a leader and an innovator ... To which lens are you referring? John Francis wrote: Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hmmm very interesting As you may gather from all the questions I've asked about the camera, it does interest me. The idea of a manual DSLR sounds great. Having used a digicam for a year or so, I've come to enjoy the instant gratification of being able to sit down and immediately work on making prints. And I did like the size and feel of the camera when I played around with John's. Thanks, Paul ... BTW, can I turn off all the flashing lights LOL Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D. Because with a K or M lens, it's exactly that: a manual camera with a center weighted meter. You turn your aperture wheel the old fashioned way, by hand. You push a button to stop down and get your shutter speed (kind of like a spotmatic on that count). The camera will change the speed for you (okay, so that's one concession to modernity), but you can pick another shutter speed with a wheel, just as you would on that spotmatic, an MX or an M3. The wheel just happens to be in a different place, and it doesn't have numbers on it. Finally, you focus or refocus and shoot. You can leave the camera set on manual all the time if you use only the classic glass. Hell, you can leave it on manual with new glass as well and just chuck the instruction book g. And of course you don't HAVE TO use the meter, you can just guesstimate shutter speed and ap if so inclined. Paul
istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? shel Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Or maybe.. dumber cameras make for fewer (brighter) photogs. :-P I like to the auto features. I run auto when it gets or should get me the results I want. I run manual when auto isn't going to cut it. Some days I run auto most of the day, some days the camera just stays in manual. Depends on the environment, subject, and the desired result. Otis Belinkoff wrote: ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Boris ... Of course, to a point, everyone is right in this discussion. I was actually being a little facetious when I made the comment about everyone here being ... dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. While that may be true for many people who actively participate in these discussions, there are, I know, quite a number of people on this list who do not have such dedication. Quite a few have said at one time or another that, for them, good enough is good enough. And for those people it's quite possible that these smarter cameras do have a dumbing effect. I'll let you in on a little secret: the reason I prefer manual cameras is because I'm lazy. I know that if I had a camera with too much automation, I'd rely on it more than I'd like. At least in my case, Bill Robb's correct ... it's easy to fall into poor habits. So I have to make myself think. And when I don't, the quality of my work suffers. I cannot believe that I am unique in this regard. I'm also too lazy to sit down and read a 200 page manual that tells me how to do what I already know electronically, through menus and interfaces and print outs and with directions given to me by flashing lights and the occasional beeping voice of a camera that thinks I should do it its way. One of the things I HATE about many new cameras is the lights that flash when the camera program says I'm using the camera at too slow a shutter speed. Well, off to get some tea ... shel Boris Liberman wrote: Shel, you're right, up to the point. I really cannot judge it like Bill Robb can as I have no such experience like his. It is a matter of offer and demand. I doubt that more than 1% of people who buy PS (now digi PS) cameras would ever use it for anything but family album snap shooting. They might be photogs by dictionary definition of a word, but I don't think you referred to them. It is enough for them to feel very good for themselves just because they had this little nifty gadget with them at the time when their grandchild jumped three stairs down for the first time. I have two PS cameras, one of which is on indefinitely long loan to a former classmate whose only wish is to take snaps of his son. And Fuji Discovery 38-90 is ideal for the given demand. As you said however, the people on this list and similar folk are all dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. None of them will not be made dumber by a smarter camera. Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. As Bill Robb mentioned, and as has been mentioned on other threads, it appears that average level of average shooter gets lower. It probably *should* be the case, because photography becomes more and more accessible, more and more automatic, more and more for the dumb. But let them be. It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC and it will not bluescreen at me. Why not? For some of the things, you'd like to be able to turn auto wunder button off, and thankfully you can. For some other things you chose not to. I still fail to see something here, don't I? Boris
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. alex
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
I hear you ... thks! alex wetmore wrote: Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right?
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, you can't blame the camera for this. A smart photographer (no insult intended for your father) would have learnt the limitations of their gear. yes, I agree. I wasn't moaning about automation, I was giving a counterexample to this claim: And, to repeat, by the time one bought a ttl metering SLR, they probably knew what they were doing anyway. But did they know what the meter was doing? Someone who knew what he was doing, as far as estimating exposure was concerned, was actually hindered by not understanding the automation, which had been oversold. If anybody had troubled to explain to him how reflected light meters work I'm sure he'd have been fine. But if you don't know what you have to learn, you're a bit stuck! -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
The DA 16-45. With the current pricing incentives a *ist-D + 16-45 outfit can be purchased for somewhere around $1500, I believe. But John, that doesn't make you dumb. It shows clearly that you're a leader and an innovator ... To which lens are you referring? John Francis wrote: Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well.
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Hello Alex, What might be considered the next best implementation of raw convertor? I don't want to spend the money on Photoshop CS just yet. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 16, 2004, 10:51:50 AM, you wrote: aw On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? aw Yes. aw TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though aw (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs aw 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. aw You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to aw have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax aw photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. aw alex
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
For those who want to eliminate most in-camera processing, I now have a small utility that will extract the image bits from a RAW file and perform only the simplest Bayer interpolation. (No sharpening - you have to do all that yourself). I hear you ... thks! alex wetmore wrote: Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right?
Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, Toast exposure compensation? my toaster has a button marked 'bagels'. A light comes on when you press it. I did some experiments. A bagel was placed inside the cold toaster. The toaster was switched on and the 'bagels' button was activated manually. Time passed. The toasted bagel was expelled from the toaster. The experimentalist noted the state and condition of the bagel in respect of tone, crispiness and mouth appeal. The toaster was allowed to cool over a period of 24 Earth hours. The experiment was repeated with a second bagel from the same pack. In the intervening period the bagel had been sealed in a plastic bag and tied with a twisty wire thing. The experimenter's subjective freshness assessment suggested that no significant freshness deterioration had occurred over the 24-hour period. On this occasion the 'bagels' button was not pressed. In the fullness of time the 2nd bagel was extoasterated. The experimenter noted the state and condition of the 2nd bagel in respect of the same qualities as the 1st. No difference was detected. As a control the experiment was repeated several times with bakery products of different religious persuasions and national origins, including Turkish pitta bread, Indian naan bread, French croissants and English bloomers. In none of these experiments was the 'bagels' button seen to make a difference. Conclusion: The 'bagels' button is a device for informing bakers via wireless internet connections when people are toasting bagels. This helps with their just-in-time replenishment baking. As such it is of no direct benefit to the bagel consumer. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Hello John, With that utility, sharpening, color correction and what else would be typical to be done? What is your normal workflow with this utility? Thanks, Bruce Monday, February 16, 2004, 11:34:07 AM, you wrote: JF For those who want to eliminate most in-camera processing, JF I now have a small utility that will extract the image bits JF from a RAW file and perform only the simplest Bayer interpolation. JF (No sharpening - you have to do all that yourself). I hear you ... thks! alex wetmore wrote: Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right?
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
You've confused technician/camera operator with photographer. Photographers make visually compelling images. Many full time working photographers just have enough technical knowledge to get what they want. (Many of them don't even have that and hire assistants/camera operators to handle the technical details). I know first hand of photographers that still do things all manual and it's not because they think that manual is better, but because they aren't interested or are intimidated by modern auto cameras. So, if you think that getting a properly exposed, in focus image recorded makes you a great photographer, it doesn't; it makes you a competent technician. BR From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah now, the *real* question is whether or not the availability of smarter cameras increases or decreases the number of people who want to learn how to become good photographers. :-)
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I had a customer last week bring me her fifth blank film in a row. I guess she didn't learn anything from the first 4, and probably didn't learn anything from the most recent one either. It's sad, because I know she drives a car. You know when you drive down to the food supermarket, and negotiate the zillions of people bumping and banging around with there food shopping trolleys, thoughtlessly leaving them at odd angles so you can't get past, taking the skin off your ankles when they run into you, and basically being completely ignorant of what's going on around them? Point: they all have a car in the car park. That really frightens me. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat like greedy kittens. Oh boy, is that a keeper. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Yes, it will save as jpeg (three quality levels), tiff, or RAW. I've been saving as raw, using the Pentax software to convert to tiff without any tweaks. Then I do the final in PhotoShop 6. I'm going to upgrde to CS when I can, because it has a great RAW converter that allows resizing at the RAW stage and features a lot of other nice tools. But you can get by without it. I have the CS upgrade, but I need a clean copy of PS7. My PS6 is a site license version, which is not upgradeable. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? shel Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
you see the emperor's new clothes. the fact that the average photographer these days knows less about photography isn't making their pictures worse and arguably could be improving them. Herb... - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC and it will not bluescreen at me. Why not? For some of the things, you'd like to be able to turn auto wunder button off, and thankfully you can. For some other things you chose not to. I still fail to see something here, don't I?
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability? Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I'd suggest that there are a lot of snapshooters on this list. There are about 600 list members, but only a handful that frequently participate in discussions/arguments. What kind of photography do those other 500 or so people do?
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
LOL Bob W wrote: Conclusion: The 'bagels' button is a device for informing bakers via wireless internet connections when people are toasting bagels. This helps with their just-in-time replenishment baking. As such it is of no direct benefit to the bagel consumer. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Since a week ago Thurday at 7:45pm. Herb Chong wrote: since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability?
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Bill Owens wrote: I'll try and duplicate this experiment to confirm the hypothesis. However, the bagel button on my toasting device appears to turn off one side of each of the containers which hold the bagel for toasting. I assume that if my experiment confirms yours, we must have all the results published in a scientific publication to make it official. Here's one variation, alledgedly a mix of real life and, well...: Do smarter bombs make dumber terrorists? Read this first: http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JFN4ZRQAAAVDHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/20/wbin120.xmlsSheet=/news/2001/11/20/ixhome.html And then this: http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html Enjoy. :-) Jostein
Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
The change should have been $84.00+ but I was given $64.00+ shortchanged by $20.00. Bringing this to the attention of the cashier, I was told the amount of change I received was correct. That's what the computer in the register said. I asked her to do the math, to subtract $85.00 from $100.00. She looked at me like I was from outer space, and insisted that the computer was right. I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed 3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to hand it all back to her, but she figured feverishly for a couple of minutes and proudly added another dollar to the pile in my hand. I was a little embarrassed for her, but still feeling honest I said sorry too much change I think it should be a buck forty-one total and again tried to hand her the money back. The clerk went back to figuring with furrowed brow, hearing the crowd in line start a murderous murmur, and after much figuring and the people in line about to kill me she added *another* dollar to the growing pile in my hand. Hearing the train wreck of killer customers about to happen I smiled, closed my hand and put the six bucks or so in my pocket, said Perfect, thanks and left the building. Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right change, would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line behind me? -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
IOW, since you got to decide what constitutes photographic ability. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Since a week ago Thurday at 7:45pm. Herb Chong wrote: since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability?
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, Alan, I'm sure it's worth knowing how to use, if one has a camera that has it. The newest camera in my stable is my LX. So, knowing how to use it is somewhat irrelevent to me. And, no, I wasn't having you on. Not having a body with that feature, I have no current need to know. But, it's nice to know what it is. So if I'm at a dinner party or something, and someone starts talking about AE L, I can blurt out things like, AE Lock? I don't need no stinking AE Lock! - and I'll actually know what I mean (a rare situation, I'll admit! g). thanks, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Alan Kerr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:24:02 +1300 Frank, AEL-auto exposure lock. I don't know if youin are having me on or not but a feature well worth learning to use _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Hello John, With that utility, sharpening, color correction and what else would be typical to be done? What is your normal workflow with this utility? Thanks, I've just realised that at present it's hard-wired to daylight white balance - there's still a little more I need to do here :-( I don't really have a workflow with it, yet - it's basically my test harness for looking at different interpolation algorithms. For a real workflow tool I'd like to preserve the EXIF data, too; I haven't done that, either. All it does, really, is read out the pixel data, apply white balance (and scaling) to sRGB (another control that's needed), and perform the simplest basic Bayer interpolation scheme. I've got some rather better interpolation code that I'm testing, but there's a little extra work to be done there, too. Then it writes out the data (currently as a 24-bit PNG) so that I can look at it. No sharpening or additional colour correction.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Earlier Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... Shel - I don't have an alternative is you want to upgrade Photoshop CS, but I'm pretty sure you don't need to make the upgrade. My bargain photo software suite is made up of three packages. Picture Window Pro is $90, from Digital Light and Color http://www.dl-c.com Imatch is $50 from Photools http://www.photools.com Vuescan is $60 from Ed Hamrick http://www.hamrick.com I think you already have Picture Window Pro. For those that don't know if it, Picture Window Pro is an excellent Image editor for a very reasonable cost. It also is very easy on the computing resources. Imatch is an asset manager. That's where you keep track of all of your images. The most recent upgrade added Pentax Raw to the list of formats it handles. It's another bargain from a small company. Vuescan is primarily intended as a replacement for the TWAIN software that normally comes with a scanner. As such it works very well, but has a bit of quirky user interface. It also reads Pentax Raw files. Of course, the three are not integrated, but they do co-exist and compliment each other. Actually, with these three, I don't think I would really need anything else. Now, want, that's another issue. See you later, gs
RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course. At big sporting events (Olympics/world cup etc) you see literally thousands of people sitting in stands hundreds of meters away from an arena taking flash photo's with their PSs and SLRs set to auto. Makes me wonder how many thousands of rolls of film were later processed and the disappointing (read black) results shown to the shooters. Thing is, it just keeps happening... Simon -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 16 February 2004 8:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Automation has nothing to do with light, form and composition, and everything to do with being a photographer. If anything, automation has permitted photographers to concentrate more on light, form and composition rather than technical minutiae. The strength of an image is what counts and the average viewer couldn't care less whether it was done with an 8x10 view camera or an auto everything PS. Photographers get paid to create images and not twirl dials. It's the wishful thinking of the masters of an arcane craft that the pcitures created by photographers who have started since the early 80's are inferior to older photographers. This is like saying that Shakespeare wrote as well as he did because he used a quill pen. BR From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] No... that wasn't what I was trying to say. My point was that I don't believe that (in general) photographers who learned their craft back in the days before automated cameras have lost their appreciation of light, form and composition, and that in my opinion a more interesting issue is what the effect of automation on new photographers is.
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: I'll try and duplicate this experiment to confirm the hypothesis. However, the bagel button on my toasting device appears to turn off one side of each of the containers which hold the bagel for toasting. I assume that if my experiment confirms yours, we must have all the results published in a scientific publication to make it official. Here's one variation, alledgedly a mix of real life and, well...: Do smarter bombs make dumber terrorists? Read this first: http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JFN4ZRQAAAVDHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/20/wbin120.xmlsSheet=/news/2001/11/20/ixhome.html And then this: http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html Looks like I'm gonna have to subscribe: PREVIOUS MONTH'S COLUMNS Let's Make Test Tube Babies! May, 1979 Let's Make a Solar System! June, 1979 Let's Make an Economic Recession! July, 1979 Let's Make an Anti-Gravity Machine! August, 1979 Let's Make Contact with an Alien Race! September, 1979 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
in those venues, it wouldn't be black though. horrible grainy mess, but not black. as i said in another post, if these photographers can identify which venue and which event, then it was a lousy, but successful photograph for them. you and i would junk such a photo if we took it, after trying to figure out why it didn't meet our expectations, whether equipment failure or stupidity. our expectations are way above what the average photographer expects. holding the average public to the standards of artistic photography is stupid and a waste of time since they don't care about art and and don't need to care. a photograph with identifiable content is a good photograph. Herb - Original Message - From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? At big sporting events (Olympics/world cup etc) you see literally thousands of people sitting in stands hundreds of meters away from an arena taking flash photo's with their PSs and SLRs set to auto. Makes me wonder how many thousands of rolls of film were later processed and the disappointing (read black) results shown to the shooters.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Well, I'll tell ya, William, I would NOT enter a doctor's office whose sign outside said, MEDICAL PARCTICE. Sorry. . . keith mbg William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Herb Chong wrote: holding the average public to the standards of artistic photography is stupid and a waste of time since they don't care about art and and don't need to care. a photograph with identifiable content is a good photograph. This is exactly why digital zoom range sells video cams :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Things change fast in the digital world... At 01:08 PM 2/16/04, you wrote: Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? It's the wishful thinking of the masters of an arcane craft that the pcitures created by photographers who have started since the early 80's are inferior to older photographers. This is like saying that Shakespeare wrote as well as he did because he used a quill pen. Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, but lets pretend for the sake of argument that he was a master at the craft of playwright. Was he a master because he used a quill pen? Well, no. He was a master because he was well versed in the language of the day. He had learned the theory that he needed to master his craft. One could surmise that I am as good a writer as the Bard. While I haven't mastered the English language, I do have a spell checker on my computer. Oh, I hear the rabble saying Robbs gone off his nut again, now he has pretensions of knowing how to put two words together in a cohesive way. Don't worry, I will never stand accused of that. However, the person who takes the interest to learn the fundamentals of any craft will do a much better job of it than someone who is depending more on technology and blind luck than knowledge. Knowledge isn't just the nuts and bolts of light and colour either. It's about knowing what you are shooting. Wanna shoot birds in flight? It might help a bit if you knew something about what goes on in the bird's universe. Sort of to help you predict what they are going to do next. Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you Romeo and Juliet, eventually. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Earlier Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a few things about various software Shel The PS Raw plug in is great, the only drawback is you need Photoshop CS, and CS requires Windows XP or one of the later Mac versions. I can't remember which. Good excuse to upgrade though. Asset Manager is the latest buzz word for categorizing programs. If you think of your images as assets, it actually make sense. Imatch is one of the more versatile programs in it's price range. I categorize each photo with the location, date taken, recognizable people, general subject, and a few other things. Sounds like it's a lot of work, but it's not. Imatch is set up in a way to make category assignment very quick. It has features that will pull categories from the EXIF data automatically. I've never tried that but it sounds promising. Anyway, the power comes in when you start to use the virtual categories You could make a category called Optio S images from 2004 not taken in Wyoming or All nature photos not containing bears . It all depends on how you categorized the stuff. See you later, gs
Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: John Mustarde Subject: Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right change, would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line behind me? Yes. They wanted in on the lottery before the clerk had emptied the till. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? But, it's nice to know what it is. So if I'm at a dinner party or something, and someone starts talking about AE L, I can blurt out things like, AE Lock? I don't need no stinking AE Lock! - Good thing you don't need it too, what with an LX and all. WW
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On Feb 17, 2004, at 09:32, Cotty wrote: You know when you drive down to the food supermarket, and negotiate the zillions of people bumping and banging around with there food shopping trolleys, thoughtlessly leaving them at odd angles so you can't get past, taking the skin off your ankles when they run into you, and basically being completely ignorant of what's going on around them? Point: they all have a car in the car park. That really frightens me. I can just imagine the next supermarket craze: SUV shopping trolleys... being used to buy a loaf of bread and a tin of cat food. In the express lane. - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
