Fewer newbie postings?
 

Perhaps it is my imagination, but there does seem to be many fewer postings on this NG
than at this time in recent years, from people who got digicams as gifts and who ask
rather basic questions. If I'm right, it is a sign that the use of digicams has become as
routine for the average person as film photography.

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

Marvin wrote:
> Perhaps it is my imagination, but there does seem to be many fewer
> postings on this NG than at this time in recent years, from people
> who got digicams as gifts and who ask rather basic questions. If I'm
> right, it is a sign that the use of digicams has become as routine
> for the average person as film photography.

It might also be due to:

- people jumping on questioners with unhelpful responses like "RTFM, you
fool"

- posters jumping on those who try and help, with responses telling them
to "f*** off".

Sadly, rudeness seems common in the rec.photo.digital groups, and reasoned
discussion with certain posters is next to impossible.

David

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

"Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:11snjhc7dr7imaa@corp.supernews.com...
> Perhaps it is my imagination, but there does seem to be many fewer
> postings on this NG than at this time in recent years, from people who got
> digicams as gifts and who ask rather basic questions. If I'm right, it is
> a sign that the use of digicams has become as routine for the average
> person as film photography.

Some of us are still here.......just lurking and trying to learn from
others' experiences.

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

Those are the stupidest suggestions yet! Does your mother know you are
wasting peoples' bandwidth? Or does she just lock you in your room with a
computer while she entertains your "uncles"?

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:0dQyf.2079$wl.360@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Marvin wrote:
>> Perhaps it is my imagination, but there does seem to be many fewer
>> postings on this NG than at this time in recent years, from people
>> who got digicams as gifts and who ask rather basic questions. If I'm
>> right, it is a sign that the use of digicams has become as routine
>> for the average person as film photography.
>
> It might also be due to:
>
> - people jumping on questioners with unhelpful responses like "RTFM, you
> fool"
>
> - posters jumping on those who try and help, with responses telling them
> to "f*** off".
>
> Sadly, rudeness seems common in the rec.photo.digital groups, and reasoned
> discussion with certain posters is next to impossible.
>
> David
>

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> Those are the stupidest suggestions yet! Does your mother know you are
> wasting peoples' bandwidth? Or does she just lock you in your room
> with a computer while she entertains your "uncles"?

<G>

David

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

nope, perhaps simply snapping photos, dropping them off in a lab, and
picking up prints, is easier for some folks(over 65, no $ for a
computer, etc.)
Cheaper also to shoot film as an entry-level film SLR could be bought
for $200-$300, but an digital SLR goes for $600-$999.
unless you shoot hundreds of photos, a film P&S could do just fine.

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

"Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137431935.886397.47290@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> nope, perhaps simply snapping photos, dropping them off in a lab, and
> picking up prints, is easier for some folks(over 65, no $ for a
> computer, etc.)
> Cheaper also to shoot film as an entry-level film SLR could be bought
> for $200-$300, but an digital SLR goes for $600-$999.
> unless you shoot hundreds of photos, a film P&S could do just fine.


Lots of folks still happy with their film point & shoot cameras. My wife is
one of them. She's completely uninterested in "moving up" to a digicam.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

Marvin wrote:

> Perhaps it is my imagination, but there does seem to be many fewer postings on this NG
> than at this time in recent years, from people who got digicams as gifts and who ask
> rather basic questions. If I'm right, it is a sign that the use of digicams has become as
> routine for the average person as film photography.

The market could be reaching saturation. Computers and digicams
have been dropping in price steadily. Both are pretty affordable
now.

Everyone who would want a digital camera might currently have one :)
People purchasing digital cameras now will be on their second+ unit.
This could explain why there aren't that many 'new' users.

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

Those who are happy with film could just as easily get a digital camera
and use it like a film camera, shooting until the memory card is full
and then dropping off the memory card into a processing shop. Perhaps
the reason they don't do that is that, at least in the UK, it is still
slightly more expensive to do that with digital media than with film.
Probably nothing to do with the shops' costs, but the marketing people
think digital camera users can afford to pay more for their prints, so
they charge more. The day has yet to arrive when one of them dares to
lower their costs and the rest will follow.

Re: Fewer newbie postings?
 

Marvin wrote:
> Perhaps it is my imagination, but there does seem to be many fewer
> postings on this NG than at this time in recent years, from people
> who got digicams as gifts and who ask rather basic questions. If I'm
> right, it is a sign that the use of digicams has become as routine
> for the average person as film photography.

Not quite. But it's moving in that direction.

As with most tech newsgroups, this one attracts some posters who are
obsessed with the pure technology, and like to show off their know-how.
However, good photographs are the product of the guy or gal behind the lens,
not the camera, the sensor, or any amount of money spent on equipment. Most
of the truly great photographers used pretty modest equipment, but had that
wonderful ability to "see" a photograph.

Digital is no different to film photography in this respect, just more
convenient. In the hands of a Cartier-Bresson, a point-and-shoot digital
camera would produce more great shots than the finest DSLR with a multitude
of lenses.

There is no harm in wanting to discover all the finer technical details of
the technology so long as we remember that it is the end product that
counts, not the means to that end.

I despair of the practice of photographic clubs and societies who insist on
having a "digital section", as though the people who use digital cameras are
a seperate branch of the human race, definitely "not like us". If I shoot
pictures on my beloved Leica, develop the negatives, then scan these into my
PC and produce prints, using Photoshop to manipulate the end result, am I a
digital photographer? Should I re-assemble the expensive enlarger which lies
in my garage and turn the second bathroom into a darkroom in order to prove
that I am a "real" photographer?

Digital photography has eneabled many people, who never had much luck with a
film camera during their lifetime, to produce truly wonderful portraits and
landscapes, with no help from the processing labs. Long may it continue. Let
the techies play around with their expensive toys, the future lies with
good, simple, user-friendly point-and-shoot cameras.

Now what did I do with my D70? Must have put it down somewhere!

Dennis.