«

it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
loners

doopydoo wrote:
>
> it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
> loners

and? Apart from it being *******s what difference would it make?
--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:46:16 +0000, doopydoo wrote:

> it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
> loners
Only while they are taking pictures.
--
Neil
Delete l to reply

doopydoo <> wrote:
: it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
: loners

You may be right to a point. Many of us do tend to enjoy our hobby while
alone where we don't have to be so conciderate of the companion's
frustration while we spend 10 min setting up the perfect shot, for the
3rd thime that hour. In our non-hobby time we can be as welcoming of
company as anyone else. I know that when I am with companions I tend to
shoot more "snapshots" if anything. But when I am alone I may take upwards
of half an hour walking around to find the exact right angle, and wait for
the clouds to be in the right place, and the sun is highlighting the right
feature. And at the same time I am fiddling with settings to hopefully
catch the image I see in my mind. I may even take a dozen images, each
with a slightly different set of settings and/or camera orientation. I've
even spent 10 to 15 min shooting multiple images that will be later
stitched into a massive image. Such things are hard to do when you have
one or more other people standing around, tapping their feet, complaining
about the heat/cold/hunger/getting late/etc.

There are many hobbies that this "loner" tag can be put on. Think of the
inventor or the model railroader, or for the clothing maker, or even the
scrapbooker. All of these hobbies generally are enjoyed alone. The
finished product will be shown off to others, but the actual
manufacturing time is often spent quietly alone.

So, yes I tend to be a loner when I am indulging in the more extreme forms
of my hobby, but this alone state does not have to encompass all my life.


Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

In article <Xns9825DD79A654Cdoopydoocom@65.115.167.4>, doopydoo says...
> it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
> loners

While they are photographing they need to focus on photography, which is
why other people accompanying them just disturb. My wife always
complains that when she travels with me, she has to wait for me taking
photos. Also photography opportunities pop up unexpectedly, so it's not
good if somebody is with you.

Having written this I've noticed that many good photographers are also
skilled technicians/scientists, one might say "geeks", who tend to be
more lone than gregarious.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> doopydoo <> wrote:
>> it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers
>> are loners
>
> You may be right to a point. Many of us do tend to enjoy our hobby
> while alone where we don't have to be so conciderate of the
> companion's frustration while we spend 10 min setting up the perfect
> shot, for the 3rd thime that hour. In our non-hobby time we can be
> as welcoming of company as anyone else. I know that when I am with
> companions I tend to shoot more "snapshots" if anything. But when I
> am alone I may take upwards of half an hour walking around to find
> the exact right angle, and wait for the clouds to be in the right
> place, and the sun is highlighting the right feature. And at the same
> time I am fiddling with settings to hopefully catch the image I see
> in my mind. I may even take a dozen images, each with a slightly
> different set of settings and/or camera orientation. I've even spent
> 10 to 15 min shooting multiple images that will be later stitched
> into a massive image. Such things are hard to do when you have one or
> more other people standing around, tapping their feet, complaining
> about the heat/cold/hunger/getting late/etc.
>
> There are many hobbies that this "loner" tag can be put on. Think of
> the inventor or the model railroader, or for the clothing maker, or
> even the scrapbooker. All of these hobbies generally are enjoyed
> alone. The finished product will be shown off to others, but the
> actual manufacturing time is often spent quietly alone.
>
> So, yes I tend to be a loner when I am indulging in the more extreme
> forms of my hobby, but this alone state does not have to encompass
> all my life.

This was a very good answer, Randy, and a good description in that it casts
an accurate light on the needs/habits/tendencies of certain hobbies that are
easily misunderstood or misinterpreted.

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <Xns9825DD79A654Cdoopydoocom@65.115.167.4>, doopydoo says...
> > it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
> > loners
>
> While they are photographing they need to focus on photography, which is
> why other people accompanying them just disturb. My wife always
> complains that when she travels with me, she has to wait for me taking
> photos. Also photography opportunities pop up unexpectedly, so it's not
> good if somebody is with you.
>
> Having written this I've noticed that many good photographers are also
> skilled technicians/scientists, one might say "geeks", who tend to be
> more lone than gregarious.
> --
>
Is anyone waiting for our friend to reply? :O)


--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On 21 Aug 2006 04:46:16 GMT, doopydoo dood wroote:

> it's just an observation but i see a majority die hard photographers are
> loners

I suggest that you check out another observation. Namely, that the
majority of doopy, immature trollers are attention seeking loners.

If the photos of those kind enough to publish their photos on their
personal websites are any indication, (and if this justifies calling
them "die hard" photographers), they disprove your assertion.

Waiting for some more doo to drop . . .

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 06:54:38 GMT, Paul Heslop wrote:

>> Having written this I've noticed that many good photographers are also
>> skilled technicians/scientists, one might say "geeks", who tend to be
>> more lone than gregarious.
>> --
>
> Is anyone waiting for our friend to reply? :O)

"Only the lonely" -- Roy Orbison

Alfred Molon wrote:

> While they are photographing they need to focus on photography, which is
> why other people accompanying them just disturb. My wife always
> complains that when she travels with me, she has to wait for me taking
> photos. Also photography opportunities pop up unexpectedly, so it's not
> good if somebody is with you.
>

I mostly photograph animals, and my favorite place to go is a wildlife
park about an hour away. I know that if I go with most people, I will
not have an ideal day. The worst is my sister. No patience whatsoever.
A couple of my friends, who are 20 years older than me, and know I want
to do photos, are very patient with me, though I do compromise a bit.
One was very kind and took her grandson to the gift shop, because she
knew I was waiting for the cougars to become active, and they never do
if there is activity in the viewing area. I usually take several shots
duringa wait of 2-3 hours, but the best shots are after a long wait.

One buddy I love to take with me is my nephew. he is 19 years old now,
but he was with me when he was 13 years old, and we waited 3 hours with
the cougars. We saw them lay around doing nothing as people came
through and left again. But we had several play sessions while nobody
else was around. I got a shot toward the end of the female in midair as
she was pouncing on the male, paws outstetched. I got a series of the
female racing around and jumping over logs. A nice one of the male
swatting the female in the butt. My nephew loves to be an assistant but
won't use a camera himself. And he is just as crazy about animals
(especially cats) as I am. So, he loves to spend 3 hours watching
cougars. He complains when the park closes. And he is great for giving
me commentary. If we are expecting a pounce, I usually track the victim
since that will be where the action is, so I can't always see the
hunter. So, he will tell me if the pounce is imminent, or if it is
cancelled.

> Having written this I've noticed that many good photographers are also
> skilled technicians/scientists, one might say "geeks", who tend to be
> more lone than gregarious.
> --

Yep. I was actually jealous of my sister for many years because she was
great at drawing, and wasn't using her talent. I was horrible and
wanted so badly to be able to draw a horse or cat well. Then I
discovered photography. It's still art, something I thought I hated
since I was horrible at it. But it is technical too. You have to have
the right settings to get the right shot. And sometimes, it's a real
challenge with the equipment you have, so you have to know your
limitations and what you need to do. It was something I could master
with study and experimentation.

I learned that while I cannot create beauty, I can capture it, and I
love being able to do that.