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, that’s 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, it’s 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?