; Speculation without comment.
>
> - MCC
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mark Cassino Photography
> Kalamazoo, MI
> www.markcassino.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Speculation without comment.
shame on us, i guess.
william robb
ginal Message -
From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
People will listen to the fameous 97% more ofthen than to they will the
knowledgable. Going with the popular opinion is always more profitable.
graywolf
People will listen to the fameous 97% more ofthen than to they will the
knowledgable. Going with the popular opinion is always more profitable.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Just one more reason t
"Me" (jumping up and down waving hands in air), "me", "me"...
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Substandard tools are incapable of producing an exc
At 10:47 AM 11/02/2005 , keith whaley wrote:
>
>I started with a 1.3 MP Epson digital, progressed thru a 4 MP Pentax
>(Optio 4S) and now have an Olympus Camedia C-5050 (5 MP.)
>Quite frankly, when I uploaded the camera's images to my CPU and
>displayed them on my .26 dot pitch 17" monitor, to the
David Zaninovic wrote:
My opinion is that better tools are more fun to use, sure you can get results
with cheaper tools but it requires more work.
Example, you can use extension tubes with SMC-M 50/1.4 on D with manual flash
but then you have to press the green button, you can't
quickly control m
ictures usually equals
better pictures after you select few of them from the
bunch.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> >
> > From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Keith Whaley wrote:
David Mann wrote:
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
He's fulla bat stuff! Anybody who says there's little to no
difference between a 2 and 5 GP and a 5 and 10 GP camera is smoking
something he ought not!
You'd need a really big print, superb lenses and very c
>
> From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/11 Fri AM 01:15:34 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> Ah so I need the best equipment.
That's _my_ argument..
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
&g
David Mann wrote:
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
He's fulla bat stuff! Anybody who says there's little to no difference
between a 2 and 5 GP and a 5 and 10 GP camera is smoking something he
ought not!
You'd need a really big print, superb lenses and very careful technique
to
I thought it was a Nikonos
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 10:18 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Kenneth Waller wrote:
> BTW, please define 'substandard'.
It's the minimum requirement
On 10/2/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>Technically refined, in the context I meant to portray.
>They can still be boring as a blank sheet.
Understood. Thx.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
He's fulla bat stuff! Anybody who says there's little to no difference
between a 2 and 5 GP and a 5 and 10 GP camera is smoking something he
ought not!
You'd need a really big print, superb lenses and very careful technique
to tell the difference
Kenneth Waller wrote:
> BTW, please define 'substandard'.
It's the minimum requirement for undersea exploration...
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
LOL
Thats gotta make it to the '05 quote list.
Dave S
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:03:09 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Taking photographic advice from a web page chosen based on
> popularity is like taking cooking advice from a MacDonalds.
- Original Message -
From: "Kenneth Waller"
Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Ah so I need the best equipment.
It amazes me that this concept is hard to grasp.
William Robb
Ah so I need the best equipment.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 10:04 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/10 Thu PM
Not even close Fnarf.
IIRC, substandard was in regards to equipment.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 7:56 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:43:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00), K
But Frank, they're not substandard...(wait for it), ... for you.
frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:43:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00), Kenneth Waller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, please define 'substandard'.
Easy:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=381188
cheers,
frank
>
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/10 Thu PM 01:18:45 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
>
> > Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:43:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00), Kenneth Waller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, please define 'substandard'.
Easy:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=381188
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
BTW, please define 'substandard'.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 3:50 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
On 10/2/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Substandard tools are incapable of pro
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Hmmm. Define 'excellent'.
Technically refined, in the context I meant to portray.
They can still be boring as a blank sheet.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
However if you are out to make the the best end product wouldn't
it make sense to use the best tools for the job?
If the operator part of the equation is up to the challenge,
certainly.
But
On 10/2/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
Hmmm. Define 'excellent'.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Peter J. Alling mused:
>
> no they find Ken Rockwell, who runs a "Popular" web page.
Taking photographic advice from a web page chosen based on
popularity is like taking cooking advice from a MacDonalds.
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
Exactly so, that was my point.
I submit most of the time the weak link is the photographer,
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
using sub-standard gear.
We tend to forget that...
We concentrate on the tools' properties, instead of the excellenc
Just one more reason to not watch CBS, they're completely lacking in
credibility. How the hell do they do their research,
do they actually talk to any real experts, say someone who knows
something about information theory, or physics, or optics,
no they find Ken Rockwell, who runs a "Popular" w
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:11:24 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
> >A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
>
> Which is usually the operator, in the case of photography ;-)
It certainly is in my case. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
>> Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
>
>A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
Which is usually the operator, in the case of photography ;-)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
David S wrote:
> It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have. A crap
> picture is still crap.
How true.
But is it better to have quality equipment and know how to use it to make
the best of it, whatever your location and light conditions or fire off with
a P & S digital and fix it in Photosh
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David S wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have. A crap picture is still crap.
>
>Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
>A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
>using sub-standard gear.
>From the 2
Oh I agree completely.
For those who are interested in making quality images, the tools used
make quite a difference. But how many snap shooters, buy a camera
solely based on the MP count?, thinking the higher the megapixels the
better the final photos.
That was the sentiment I was agreeing with.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
A really capable photographer can make really good images, even
while
using sub-standard gear.
We tend to fo
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
> A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
> using sub-standard gear.
> We tend to forget that...
> We concentrate on the tools' properties, instead of the excellence of
> the
David S wrote:
I may as well sell all my gear and use the camera in my mobile phone.
My *ist D has 6079520 extra pixels I don't need.
But I do agree with this line;
"Camera manufacturers want you to believe the more megapixels, the
better the picture."
It doesn't matter how many megapixels you ha
I may as well sell all my gear and use the camera in my mobile phone.
My *ist D has 6079520 extra pixels I don't need.
But I do agree with this line;
"Camera manufacturers want you to believe the more megapixels, the
better the picture."
It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have. A crap pic
Derby Chang wrote:
Our favourite smilin' Ken seems have gotten himself on CBS. Did anyone
Stateside see his interview?
http://cbs2.com/consumerpaige/local_story_040194428.html
I went to the above site, and read the following:
"Ken Rockwell, an avid photographer who runs a popular digital
photog
41 matches
Mail list logo
