«

"nobody has cigarette lighters anymore....this is a good replacement."

atleast it's healthier - less smokers in the audience

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:08:49 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<> wrote:

>This goes way back in my life, to over half a century ago before
>even the flash cube had been invented, and taking a flash picture
>required deliberate setting up and using accessories that only the
>relatively well-off owned -- yet I watched people trying to take
>flash pictures, from the Canadian side of course, of the illumination
>in color of Niagara Falls.

Just as strange are those who try to take pictures of something on
television, using a flash.

Still, I think the answer to your one is that there are many compact
cameras that either don't give the option to turn the flash off, or
that option requires reading of the operator's manual. Most people
just don't care that much.

JJD

"Anthony Buckland" <> wrote in message
news:XOWdnfntiZ-qEZvcRVn-...
> Watching the Democratic Convention yesterday, I watched the usual
> scattering of flashes from people hoping to catch a candlelit scene
> with flash photography. But I have to admit this was nothing to the
> _thousands_ of flashes at nightime Olympic celebrations.
>

To my surprise Preddy has not responded to say that his wonderful Sigma SD10
has a flash range of 500 yards.

OK, good to know that I'm not the only person who has noticed how stupid
people are when they try to take a picture of an object that is possibly 100
yards away at night with flash. I always think to myself "Wow that person is
going to be disappointed when he/she gets his/her film developed." I end up
thinking that several times a minute, as there seem to be so many clueless
people out there. I rarely use flash, even if the object is in close enough
distance. I like to take pictures that capture what the object looked like
with the lighting in its environment. If I add my camera's flash to that,
then the resulting picture looks totally different.

"JJD" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:08:49 -0700, Anthony Buckland
> <> wrote:
>
> >This goes way back in my life, to over half a century ago before
> >even the flash cube had been invented, and taking a flash picture
> >required deliberate setting up and using accessories that only the
> >relatively well-off owned -- yet I watched people trying to take
> >flash pictures, from the Canadian side of course, of the illumination
> >in color of Niagara Falls.
>
> Just as strange are those who try to take pictures of something on
> television, using a flash.

Even stranger: People who keep trying it and failing, year after year after
year.....

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:08:49 -0700, Anthony Buckland <>,
wrote the following in rec.photo.digital:

> But I have to admit this was nothing to the _thousands_ of flashes at
> nightime Olympic celebrations.

As an aside...

Some events (professional wrestling comes to mind, but it's not alone)
actually employ small, electronic "flash bulbs" around the arena, and
trigger then (not all simultaneously, of course) at certain peak times.
This illusion of hundreds of flash bulbs going off causes the tv audience
to see things as being especially exciting.

Perhaps the Olympics are set up this way. I honestly don't know. But I
wouldn't be surprised.

It's not completely unlike the use of canned laughter to make tv audiences
regard things as being especially funny.

I've also seen tv shows where a photographer is taking pictures, using a
35mm camera (generally, a Nikon, but with the name blacked out - something
that's always struck me as ridiculous) without a motor drive or any kind
and without any sort of flash. Yes the sound of a motor drive is added, as
is a flash of light for every picture. Because viewers have come to
associate these signals with photography. (I first noticed this practice
in an episode of the tv show "Lou Grant," where "Animal" was taking
pictures using what must have been an invisible flash and motor drive.
That was a couple of decades ago; these days, nearly all SLRs have
built-in motor drives, so the invisible motor drive is seldom an issue
anymore. Although the invisible flash endures.)

> What is it with people?

What it is, is that you are at least a slightly knowledgeable
photographer. The overwhelming majority of people are not. So they do
things which to you seem obviously stupid, but which it doesn't even occur
to them to question.

To a non-photographer, if the camera's flash automatically pops up or
turns on or what have you, that settles the matter. The camera knows what
it's doing.

It's not just a photography thing, either. I'm an avid amateur astronomer.
When I hear non-astronomers talk about the night sky, or NASA's latest
mission, or a telescope, or somesuch, I'm almost in pain at the degree of
ignorance they evidence. Yet to you (assuming your hobby isn't astronomy),
they probably sound perfectly reasonable.

A good friend of mine has degrees in environmental science and economics.
I've seen him literally cringe at some statements and policies regarding
"saving the wilderness" or "reducing pollution," which to me seemed
entirely rational and well considered. Clearly, flaws and inconsistencies
which I don't notice, are in effect giant neon signs to him.

> But people who lay out hundreds of dollars to attend an event and more
> hundreds on expensive cameras presumably have a few functioning
> neurons

Such people may have a few functioning neurons, or they may not, but let's
be generous and assume that they're at least 5% brighter than the average
tv realty show viewer.

The thing is, they don't think about picture-taking in any serious way,
because it doesn't interest them. Which is fine. If someone wants to spend
a few hundred bucks on tickets to a football game, there may be some
reason to assume that perhaps he's interested in football. There's little
reason to assume that he's interested in photography. And if he brings a
camera to the game, that still doesn't mean he's interested in
photography. Not even if the camera cost him another few hundred dollars.

What, you think everyone buying $1100 sets of pots and pans at William
Sonoma is a gourmet chef? My guess is that most of those people seldom
cook anything more demanding than frozen pizza. There's a world of
difference between owning some hardware, and caring about the process.
--
Michael

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:31:44 -0400, wrote:

>OK, good to know that I'm not the only person who has noticed how stupid
>people are when they try to take a picture of an object that is possibly 100
>yards away at night with flash. I always think to myself "Wow that person is
>going to be disappointed when he/she gets his/her film developed." I end up
>thinking that several times a minute, as there seem to be so many clueless
>people out there. I rarely use flash, even if the object is in close enough
>distance. I like to take pictures that capture what the object looked like
>with the lighting in its environment. If I add my camera's flash to that,
>then the resulting picture looks totally different.

Even more stupid is Canon in their magazine ad for the 300D. The
sports stadium (football?) showing lots of spectators with the flash
going off.

MJ

In article <XywNc.1336$>,
says...
> I'm sure was totally correct when he said that most casual
> picture takers were lucky if 3 out of 24 exposures was worth printing.

That's a better ratio than some pros!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:08:49 -0700, Anthony Buckland
<> wrote:

>Watching the Democratic Convention yesterday,
>snip

what do you expect? they are democrats. they are barely able to tie
their shoes without the help of govt let alone work a camera.

In article <>,
says...
> what do you expect? they are democrats. they are barely able to tie
> their shoes without the help of govt let alone work a camera.

Do you want a "megaditto" there, Rush?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/