Digital Camera Success Card

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Info Dude, Jan 1, 2007.

  1. Info Dude

    Info Dude Guest

    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_camera_success_card.html
     
    Info Dude, Jan 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Info Dude

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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_camera_success_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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Info Dude

    Matt Ion Guest

    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_camera_success_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?
     
    Matt Ion, Jan 2, 2007
    #3
  4. Info Dude

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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_camera_success_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?
    >

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 2, 2007
    #4
  5. Info Dude

    Roy G Guest

    Don't Bother

    "Info Dude" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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
     
    Roy G, Jan 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Info Dude

    Justin C Guest

    In article <>,
    Ron Hunter <> 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.
     
    Justin C, Jan 2, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JB
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    699
    Gill Couto
    Jan 18, 2004
  2. Hellenic Mensa
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    John McWilliams
    Aug 30, 2004
  3. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    420
    Larry
    Oct 28, 2004
  4. Info Dude

    Digital Camera Success Card

    Info Dude, Jan 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    285
    RichG
    Jan 1, 2007
  5. Royluo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    717
    Royluo
    Jul 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page