Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital Camera Success Card

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital Camera Success Card

 
 
Info Dude
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2007
Digital Camera Success Card

One of the most frustrating aspects of digital cameras is that we
typically don't think about them UNTIL we pull it out of its case and
need to take a picture. Trouble is, at that moment we are under
pressure to get the photo so we're not thinking about the camera's
settings.

Read This Full Report At:
http://www.3min-reports.com/digital_...cess_card.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2007
Info Dude wrote:
> Digital Camera Success Card
>
> One of the most frustrating aspects of digital cameras is that we
> typically don't think about them UNTIL we pull it out of its case and
> need to take a picture. Trouble is, at that moment we are under
> pressure to get the photo so we're not thinking about the camera's
> settings.
>
> Read This Full Report At:
> http://www.3min-reports.com/digital_...cess_card.html


IF he didn't know enough to turn the flash back on, then he should have
set the camera to 'auto' and then the flash would have come on when
inside, and all his pictures would have been usable. This is a case of
a person who bought too much camera for his brain.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Info Dude wrote:
>
>> Digital Camera Success Card
>>
>> One of the most frustrating aspects of digital cameras is that we
>> typically don't think about them UNTIL we pull it out of its case and
>> need to take a picture. Trouble is, at that moment we are under
>> pressure to get the photo so we're not thinking about the camera's
>> settings.
>>
>> Read This Full Report At:
>> http://www.3min-reports.com/digital_...cess_card.html

>
>
> IF he didn't know enough to turn the flash back on, then he should have
> set the camera to 'auto' and then the flash would have come on when
> inside, and all his pictures would have been usable. This is a case of
> a person who bought too much camera for his brain.


The thing about this article is, none of this is "new" to digital cameras. All
these "issues" apply whether it's a sensor or a film frame that's capturing the
image.

"Look, thatís the reason I bought the top of the line Canon/Sony/Kodak or
whatever digital camera because the sales person said it was so sophisticated
that 9 times out of 10 all I would need to do is point-and-shoot."

That's not even specific to cameras. That's a salesdroid that either doesn't
know his products, or doesn't care enough about his customers to sell them what
they actually NEED. This happens whether you're talking cameras, computers,
clock radios, or toasters.

"Or, even if there were no salespersons involved because the camera was
purchased on the Internet the new owner STILL assumes point-and-shoot means just
that. They quickly find out that all is not well in digital camera land."

Once again, strike "digital" from that last sentence, and it still applies.
Strike "camera" for that matter. Or "internet". This is a case of someone just
rushing out and buying something without investing any time to find out exactly
WHAT they're buying.

"While all the outdoor photos were PERFECT, every single indoor photo (group
photos) were terrible. He was sick! "

From the sounds of it, this is a guy who never bothered to actually READ the
instructions for his camera, he just ASSumed. Once again, not a failing of
"digital cameras"... if anything, a failing of the marketing people in
over-selling its abilities, combined with the consumer failing to actually find
out WHAT those abilities really were... or, as you say, to simply set it on AUTO
and let the camera use the flash when IT deemed it necessary: obviously, from
the fact this tool turned off the flash intentionally, he ASSumed he knew what
he was doing, and obviously, he didn't. Toss in all the other idiots who also
merely ASSumed that this guy knew what he was doing, just because he had the
fanciest piece of gear there, and you have a recipe for disaster, stirred up
entirely of the PEOPLE involved, NOT the camera.

"Ok, I admit it, itís pretty basic, but if my friend had used this quick system
to make sure everything was OK he would not have needed to be apologizing to all
those people who stopped taking pictures and were counting on him."

Chances are this checklist wouldn't have helped this "friend" at all, because
once again, he obviously ASSumed he knew more than he really did. As for
apologizing... he has NOTHING to apologize for, it was the other dolts'
ASSumptions that made them stop using their own cameras. ALL these people
should be apologizing to the wedding party.

"Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Huddleston"

Expert? In what?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
Matt Ion wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Info Dude wrote:
>>
>>> Digital Camera Success Card
>>>
>>> One of the most frustrating aspects of digital cameras is that we
>>> typically don't think about them UNTIL we pull it out of its case and
>>> need to take a picture. Trouble is, at that moment we are under
>>> pressure to get the photo so we're not thinking about the camera's
>>> settings.
>>>
>>> Read This Full Report At:
>>> http://www.3min-reports.com/digital_...cess_card.html

>>
>>
>> IF he didn't know enough to turn the flash back on, then he should
>> have set the camera to 'auto' and then the flash would have come on
>> when inside, and all his pictures would have been usable. This is a
>> case of a person who bought too much camera for his brain.

>
> The thing about this article is, none of this is "new" to digital
> cameras. All these "issues" apply whether it's a sensor or a film frame
> that's capturing the image.
>
> "Look, thatís the reason I bought the top of the line Canon/Sony/Kodak
> or whatever digital camera because the sales person said it was so
> sophisticated that 9 times out of 10 all I would need to do is
> point-and-shoot."
>
> That's not even specific to cameras. That's a salesdroid that either
> doesn't know his products, or doesn't care enough about his customers to
> sell them what they actually NEED. This happens whether you're talking
> cameras, computers, clock radios, or toasters.
>
> "Or, even if there were no salespersons involved because the camera was
> purchased on the Internet the new owner STILL assumes point-and-shoot
> means just that. They quickly find out that all is not well in digital
> camera land."
>
> Once again, strike "digital" from that last sentence, and it still
> applies. Strike "camera" for that matter. Or "internet". This is a
> case of someone just rushing out and buying something without investing
> any time to find out exactly WHAT they're buying.
>
> "While all the outdoor photos were PERFECT, every single indoor photo
> (group photos) were terrible. He was sick! "
>
> From the sounds of it, this is a guy who never bothered to actually
> READ the instructions for his camera, he just ASSumed. Once again, not
> a failing of "digital cameras"... if anything, a failing of the
> marketing people in over-selling its abilities, combined with the
> consumer failing to actually find out WHAT those abilities really
> were... or, as you say, to simply set it on AUTO and let the camera use
> the flash when IT deemed it necessary: obviously, from the fact this
> tool turned off the flash intentionally, he ASSumed he knew what he was
> doing, and obviously, he didn't. Toss in all the other idiots who also
> merely ASSumed that this guy knew what he was doing, just because he had
> the fanciest piece of gear there, and you have a recipe for disaster,
> stirred up entirely of the PEOPLE involved, NOT the camera.
>
> "Ok, I admit it, itís pretty basic, but if my friend had used this quick
> system to make sure everything was OK he would not have needed to be
> apologizing to all those people who stopped taking pictures and were
> counting on him."
>
> Chances are this checklist wouldn't have helped this "friend" at all,
> because once again, he obviously ASSumed he knew more than he really
> did. As for apologizing... he has NOTHING to apologize for, it was the
> other dolts' ASSumptions that made them stop using their own cameras.
> ALL these people should be apologizing to the wedding party.
>
> "Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Huddleston"
>
> Expert? In what?
>

The fact remains, that had the user NOT taken it upon himself to do the
unnecessary step of turning off the flash (which the camera would have
done automatically), then when he went back inside, the camera would
have turned the flash back on. The salesman was right, the user just
didn't follow instructions. That is why making things idiot-proof is so
difficult, because idiots WON'T follow instructions, and the WON'T leave
well enough alone.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roy G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007

"Info Dude" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> Digital Camera Success Card
>
> One of the most frustrating aspects of digital cameras is that we
> typically don't think about them UNTIL we pull it out of its case and
> need to take a picture. Trouble is, at that moment we are under
> pressure to get the photo so we're not thinking about the camera's
> settings.
>
>


What a load of shite.!

It is only there to try to get "Paid for Click" on one of the Ads.

Roy G



 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin C
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Matt Ion wrote:
> > Ron Hunter wrote:
> >> Info Dude wrote:
> >>
> >>> Digital Camera Success Card
> >>>


[snip]

I can't believe you're following up on a spam post. That article is
complete fiction and here you are replying to it. Info Dude is a
spammer, he makes money from clicks on links on his web-site. He's
written 'non-articles' on a whole bunch of subjects. Here are just a few
of the newsgroups he regularly spams with links to his web-site:
alt.photography
uk.rec.photo.misc
alt.support.diets
alt.abortion
misc.fitness.weights
alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
alt.sailing
alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys
alt.windows-xp
rec.skiing.backcountry
alt.biz.misc
alt.treasure.hunting
alt.wedding

The list is *huge*. And all articles contain "Read This Full Report At:
<munge>3min-report</munge>"[1]. You can guarantee he doesn't read the
groups to which he posts, he has no interest in the subjects on which he
posts either, otherwise the articles would be of more interest for any
but those who know nothing about the subject. The articles are pure
gloss, anyone could read any newsgroup and, within a week, have gleaned
enough information to write a 3min-report of that standard.

As you can see, he winds me up! I think I'm going to have a lie down
now, in a dark room.


[1] I'm not promoting him further!

--
Justin C, by the sea.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital camera batteries, battery of digital camera and Camcorder shop online Royluo Digital Photography 0 07-28-2007 01:32 AM
Digital Camera Success Card Info Dude Digital Photography 2 01-01-2007 03:38 PM
Fastest 5 mp Digital Camera ? Fastest 4 mp Digital Camera? photoguysept102004@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 10-28-2004 11:33 AM
Digital Video camera - zoom pics VS Digital photo camera - zoom pics. Hellenic Mensa Digital Photography 1 08-30-2004 03:44 PM
Uploading Digital Photos to Digital Camera via Flash Card JB Digital Photography 13 01-18-2004 05:44 PM



Advertisments