If it isnt SLR, it isnt photography, but picture taking!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 12, 2004.

  1. *shakes head*

    You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    subject keeps popping up.

    There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    for photos.

    I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    to him prattle on about it.

    he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    is not.
    I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    and down.
    The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    all the same...

    I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    part they are not very impressive.

    I thought I would pose this question here.
    It has been some time since I posted here however.

    Thanks for reading.
    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Charles Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:28:57 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
    <> wrote:

    >*shakes head*
    >
    >You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    >subject keeps popping up.
    >
    >There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    >I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    >for photos.
    >
    >I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    >300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    >This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    >Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    >to him prattle on about it.
    >
    >he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    >knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    >is not.
    >I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    >am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    >different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    >and down.
    >The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    >all the same...
    >
    >I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    >blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    >part they are not very impressive.
    >
    >I thought I would pose this question here.
    >It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    >Thanks for reading.
    >



    If it bothers you, then he is winning.

    the MF and LF people don't have a lot of respect for 35 snapshot
    shooters. How does he manage swings and tilts with the SLR?


    --

    - Charles
    -
    -does not play well with others
    Charles, Jan 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:28:57 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >*shakes head*
    > >
    > >You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > >subject keeps popping up.
    > >
    > >There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every

    shot
    > >I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR

    camera
    > >for photos.
    > >
    > >I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    (aka
    > >300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > >This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > >Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to

    listen
    > >to him prattle on about it.
    > >
    > >he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that

    he
    > >knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and

    mine
    > >is not.
    > >I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth

    however. I
    > >am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > >different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving

    up
    > >and down.
    > >The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc)

    are
    > >all the same...
    > >
    > >I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > >blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the

    most
    > >part they are not very impressive.
    > >
    > >I thought I would pose this question here.
    > >It has been some time since I posted here however.
    > >
    > >Thanks for reading.
    > >

    >
    >
    > If it bothers you, then he is winning.
    >
    > the MF and LF people don't have a lot of respect for 35 snapshot
    > shooters. How does he manage swings and tilts with the SLR?
    >
    >


    He DOESNT.
    He generally shoots landscapes or other things which require endless
    setup's. he considers the photos technically perfect, and he says there are
    no mistakes on the shots, because he can simply not allow for them to
    happen.
    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 12, 2004
    #3
  4. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Paul Heslop Guest

    "Steven C (Doktersteve)" wrote:

    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.


    Plain and simple snobbery.



    --
    Paul.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    to look at
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Jan 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <JDnMb.9090$n44.3112@clgrps13>,
    says...
    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    > to him prattle on about it.
    >
    > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    > is not.
    > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    > and down.
    > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    > all the same...
    >
    > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    > part they are not very impressive.
    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.
    >
    >
    >


    Sounds like a guy who wont notice that he is in a forest
    because he wants to take a picture of a tree.

    Good photographers can create art with a shoebox, a pin-
    hole and a chunk of film.

    Snobs prattle on about what equipment to use for which
    job.

    Keep in mind that his beloved SLR is only 35mm and a
    great preponderance of the greatest photos ever taken
    were NOT shot on SLRs OR on 35mm.



    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Lynch, Jan 12, 2004
    #5
  6. "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <JDnMb.9090$n44.3112@clgrps13>,
    > says...
    > > *shakes head*
    > >
    > > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup,

    this
    > > subject keeps popping up.
    > >
    > > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every

    shot
    > > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR

    camera
    > > for photos.
    > >
    > > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    (aka
    > > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to

    listen
    > > to him prattle on about it.
    > >
    > > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that

    he
    > > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and

    mine
    > > is not.
    > > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth

    however. I
    > > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving

    up
    > > and down.
    > > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc)

    are
    > > all the same...
    > >
    > > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the

    most
    > > part they are not very impressive.
    > >
    > > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    > >
    > > Thanks for reading.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Sounds like a guy who wont notice that he is in a forest
    > because he wants to take a picture of a tree.
    >
    > Good photographers can create art with a shoebox, a pin-
    > hole and a chunk of film.
    >
    > Snobs prattle on about what equipment to use for which
    > job.
    >
    > Keep in mind that his beloved SLR is only 35mm and a
    > great preponderance of the greatest photos ever taken
    > were NOT shot on SLRs OR on 35mm.
    >


    Agreed.
    He claims to shoot MF and with a field camera as well, but from what I have
    seen, it is still not very good:

    http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose is the webpage where some of his pics can
    be found.
    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 12, 2004
    #6
  7. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I guess I better throw out my Cartier-Bresson, Capa, and Eisnestadt books. A
    Bobo is a Bobo - the best thing to to is ignore the Bobo.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <> wrote in message
    news:JDnMb.9090$n44.3112@clgrps13...
    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every

    shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    (aka
    > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    > to him prattle on about it.
    >
    > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and

    mine
    > is not.
    > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however.

    I
    > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving

    up
    > and down.
    > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc)

    are
    > all the same...
    >
    > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the

    most
    > part they are not very impressive.
    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Jan 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    George Guest

    Ansel Adams, Alfred Eisenstadt, and Edward Weston didn't use SLRs...and that
    is only three photographers whose work puts nearly all other photographers'
    work to shame.

    There are photographers who do not care to know the technical details of the
    process and those who do. Personally, I believe one stands the best chance
    of getting great results if one understands the process as well as being
    artistically talented (composition, lighting, tone, design).

    I think the technical understanding is the easiest to master...it is the
    artistic aspects that one works on for a lifetime.

    Just keep learning, shooting, and enjoying!

    George

    "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <> wrote in message
    news:JDnMb.9090$n44.3112@clgrps13...
    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every

    shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    (aka
    > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    > to him prattle on about it.
    >
    > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and

    mine
    > is not.
    > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however.

    I
    > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving

    up
    > and down.
    > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc)

    are
    > all the same...
    >
    > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the

    most
    > part they are not very impressive.
    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.
    >
    >
    George, Jan 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    George Guest

    Even though I am on your side on this one, Cambo (Calumet) DOES sell
    something that does allow swings and tilts for a 35mm SLR...their current ad
    is showing it with a Canon.

    "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:28:57 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >*shakes head*
    > >
    > >You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > >subject keeps popping up.
    > >
    > >There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every

    shot
    > >I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR

    camera
    > >for photos.
    > >
    > >I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    (aka
    > >300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > >This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > >Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to

    listen
    > >to him prattle on about it.
    > >
    > >he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that

    he
    > >knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and

    mine
    > >is not.
    > >I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth

    however. I
    > >am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > >different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving

    up
    > >and down.
    > >The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc)

    are
    > >all the same...
    > >
    > >I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > >blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the

    most
    > >part they are not very impressive.
    > >
    > >I thought I would pose this question here.
    > >It has been some time since I posted here however.
    > >
    > >Thanks for reading.
    > >

    >
    >
    > If it bothers you, then he is winning.
    >
    > the MF and LF people don't have a lot of respect for 35 snapshot
    > shooters. How does he manage swings and tilts with the SLR?
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > - Charles
    > -
    > -does not play well with others
    George, Jan 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    George Guest

    I tend to agree with you. One of the worst is the fellow playing the
    violin...he's blown out the highlights and blocked up the shadows at the
    same time...it looks like what you get if you accidentally develop b&w film
    in Dektol. The one of the river rocks also has blasted out highlights.
    OTOH, if you've checked out his "grades" link, he appears to be quite
    honest! Looks like (photographically) he could stand to learn about what
    tonal range is reproducible using whatever technology he is using and how to
    compress it if he needs to. Also, a level on the tripod would help keep
    those horizons straight.

    "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <> wrote in message
    news:QNoMb.9209$n44.8085@clgrps13...
    >
    > "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <JDnMb.9090$n44.3112@clgrps13>,
    > > says...
    > > > *shakes head*
    > > >
    > > > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup,

    > this
    > > > subject keeps popping up.
    > > >
    > > > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that

    every
    > shot
    > > > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR

    > camera
    > > > for photos.
    > > >
    > > > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    > (aka
    > > > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > > > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > > > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to

    > listen
    > > > to him prattle on about it.
    > > >
    > > > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact

    that
    > he
    > > > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based,

    and
    > mine
    > > > is not.
    > > > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth

    > however. I
    > > > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually,

    no
    > > > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror

    moving
    > up
    > > > and down.
    > > > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters,

    etc)
    > are
    > > > all the same...
    > > >
    > > > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he

    is
    > > > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for

    the
    > most
    > > > part they are not very impressive.
    > > >
    > > > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > > > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    > > >
    > > > Thanks for reading.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > Sounds like a guy who wont notice that he is in a forest
    > > because he wants to take a picture of a tree.
    > >
    > > Good photographers can create art with a shoebox, a pin-
    > > hole and a chunk of film.
    > >
    > > Snobs prattle on about what equipment to use for which
    > > job.
    > >
    > > Keep in mind that his beloved SLR is only 35mm and a
    > > great preponderance of the greatest photos ever taken
    > > were NOT shot on SLRs OR on 35mm.
    > >

    >
    > Agreed.
    > He claims to shoot MF and with a field camera as well, but from what I

    have
    > seen, it is still not very good:
    >
    > http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose is the webpage where some of his pics

    can
    > be found.
    >
    >
    George, Jan 12, 2004
    #10
  11. So ignore the blowhard and keep photographing - which is exactly what
    you are doing - and eventually he'll find another whipping boy or
    girl. People tend to be too restrictive with definitions and terms.
    Pick up any camera, find a place to point it and trip the shutter -
    congratulations, you've just become a photographer. Those who cannot
    set themselves apart with talent must then do so by exclusion.

    Michael

    "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <> wrote in message news:<JDnMb.9090$n44.3112@clgrps13>...
    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    > to him prattle on about it.
    >
    > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    > is not.
    > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    > and down.
    > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    > all the same...
    >
    > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    > part they are not very impressive.
    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.
    street shooter, Jan 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Charlie Self Guest

    Steve C asks:

    >I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    >300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    >This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    >Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    >to him prattle on about it.
    >
    >he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    >knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    >is not.
    >I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    >am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    >different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    >and down.
    >The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    >all the same...
    >
    >I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    >blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    >part they are not very impressive.


    Ask your idiot buddy what he has to say about photographers like Ansel Adams
    adn Edward Weston.

    Charlie Self
    If God had wanted me to touch my toes he would have put them higher on my body.

    http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
    Charlie Self, Jan 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote:

    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    > to him prattle on about it.
    >
    > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    > is not.
    > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    > and down.
    > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    > all the same...
    >
    > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    > part they are not very impressive.
    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.
    >
    >

    He is a 'camera snob'. Smile, and relax. The equipment doesn't define
    the quality of a picture, only imposes some limits. Few would ever
    approach the limits of your F717, let alone need to exceed them. Unless
    you are a studio professional, the F717 is probably as good for your
    uses as any SLR.
    SLRs aren't magic. In fact, they have many failings, and disadvantages
    due to the extra mechanical aspects. They just allow viewing the photo
    through the lens, which your F717 does, but in a different way.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote:

    > "Charles" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    >
    >>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:28:57 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>*shakes head*
    >>>
    >>>You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    >>>subject keeps popping up.
    >>>
    >>>There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every

    >
    > shot
    >
    >>>I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR

    >
    > camera
    >
    >>>for photos.
    >>>
    >>>I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel

    >
    > (aka
    >
    >>>300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    >>>This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    >>>Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to

    >
    > listen
    >
    >>>to him prattle on about it.
    >>>
    >>>he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that

    >
    > he
    >
    >>>knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and

    >
    > mine
    >
    >>>is not.
    >>>I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth

    >
    > however. I
    >
    >>>am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    >>>different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving

    >
    > up
    >
    >>>and down.
    >>>The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc)

    >
    > are
    >
    >>>all the same...
    >>>
    >>>I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    >>>blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the

    >
    > most
    >
    >>>part they are not very impressive.
    >>>
    >>>I thought I would pose this question here.
    >>>It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks for reading.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>If it bothers you, then he is winning.
    >>
    >>the MF and LF people don't have a lot of respect for 35 snapshot
    >>shooters. How does he manage swings and tilts with the SLR?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > He DOESNT.
    > He generally shoots landscapes or other things which require endless
    > setup's. he considers the photos technically perfect, and he says there are
    > no mistakes on the shots, because he can simply not allow for them to
    > happen.
    >
    >
    >

    He probably doesn't believe his feces had an odor, either. Ignore him.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Guest

    "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <> wrote:

    >he says there are
    >no mistakes on the shots, because he can simply not allow for them to
    >happen.


    So why waste your time paying attention to anything he says?
    , Jan 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:28:57 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"


    > <> wrote:

    SNIP.........

    > the MF and LF people don't have a lot of respect for 35 snapshot
    > shooters. How does he manage swings and tilts with the SLR?


    It can be done with the right lens. Since 1973, Canon has produced
    "Tilt/Shift" lenses for their SLR's, currently three in the EOS EF mount.
    Other camera companies offer their own version, most with Shift only,
    although Nikon has one T/S type available.
    Joe Arnold
    PhotoMan, Jan 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    The Wogster Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:28:57 +0000, Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote:

    > *shakes head*
    >
    > You know, somehow in a completely non photography related newsgroup, this
    > subject keeps popping up.
    >
    > There is myself, and another individual who keeps telling me that every shot
    > I take is automatically garbage, simply because I do not use an SLR camera
    > for photos.
    >
    > I own an old pentax SLR, and I am saving towards a canon digital rebel (aka
    > 300D), however currently I am using a sony F717.
    > This doesn't greatly effect my shots, and I am always improving.
    > Some of my work is getting quite good, but it is very irritating to listen
    > to him prattle on about it.
    >
    > he claims that EVERY shot it takes is superior because of the fact that he
    > knows "the process" of photo taking, because his gear is SLR based, and mine
    > is not.
    > I understand every term and principle behind photography in depth however. I
    > am not using an automatic camera, and am setting everything manually, no
    > different from an SLR aside from the fact that there is no mirror moving up
    > and down.
    > The basics (aperture, shutter speed, exposure value, light meters, etc) are
    > all the same...
    >
    > I do not believe what he is saying, however I believe alot of what he is
    > blowing out is hot air. I have seen some shots he has made, and for the most
    > part they are not very impressive.


    Knowing the process of photo taking doesn't require an SLR, heck it
    doesn't even require a camera, it requires some knowledge. The question
    becomes, does that knowledge make you a better photographer? Not always,
    it's like saying owning a stick shift makes you a better driver.

    There are people who are technically excellent photographers, every shot
    is perfectly exposed, perfectly lit, perfectly focused, but there is
    something missing from their photographs, the photos all look dull and
    uninteresting. There are other photographers where most shots are
    imperfectly exposed, the lighting is crap and the focus is off half the
    time, but the photos are themselves works of art.

    Knowing the rules doesn't make you good at anything, it's knowing how to
    break those rules, to get the shot you want. So look at it this way, SLR
    cameras allow composition with the taking lens, this is critical if the
    subject is less then 3m away, however beyond that distance paralax is less
    important at more then 15m it means really nothing. A small camera that
    allows manual adjustments and has a decent zoom range, can have an
    advantage over 15kg of SLR and lots of lenses and other accessory crap.
    Especially if your subject is a 15km hike into rocky terrain.

    W

























    >
    > I thought I would pose this question here.
    > It has been some time since I posted here however.
    >
    > Thanks for reading.
    The Wogster, Jan 12, 2004
    #17
  18. So all the work I did with Mamiya C220, Mamiya C330, Leica M4-2, 4x5 and
    8x10 view cameras isn't photography???
    Darrell Larose, Jan 12, 2004
    #18
  19. "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <> wrote in message
    news:QNoMb.9209$n44.8085@clgrps13...
    >

    [snip]

    >
    > http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose is the webpage where some of his pics

    can
    > be found.
    >


    If you read his journal, the boy has some issues. Just ignore him and move
    on.

    - jz
    Jeff Zawrotny, Jan 12, 2004
    #19
  20. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/12/04 10:20 AM, in article
    LPzMb.113506$, "Darrell
    Larose" <> wrote:

    > So all the work I did with Mamiya C220, Mamiya C330, Leica M4-2, 4x5 and
    > 8x10 view cameras isn't photography???
    >
    >

    The C220! My first Reflex. Trouble was that when you wanted another lens,
    you had to buy em 2 at a time. Otherwise great piece of equpment, bellows
    and all.


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Jan 12, 2004
    #20
    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. firemarsh
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    438
    firemarsh
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. Fanta
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,581
    Fanta
    Aug 31, 2003
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    736
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. asdf
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    975
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Nov 19, 2003
  5. Rajinder Nijjhar

    picture boxes with a x but no picture

    Rajinder Nijjhar, Jul 27, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    638
    Rajinder Nijjhar
    Jul 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page