Q. for Ken Rockwell

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone will
    also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone will
    > also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    > somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?
    >


    You are an ass Brett.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Frank ess Guest

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >> Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone
    >> will
    >> also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    >> somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?
    >>

    >
    > You are an ass Brett.


    I wonder if TTV realizes what a rigid, hysterical character he
    portrays from within that glass house. Between him and the Jeremies,
    they seem to have that market cornered.

    --
    Frank ess
    " ... and the horse you rode in on."
     
    Frank ess, Dec 1, 2006
    #3
  4. "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone will
    >also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    >somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?


    I was suckered into buying this worthless Nikon. It won't even
    make telephone calls, and I bet your silly Canon is no better!

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Bill Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone
    > will
    > also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    > somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?


    A friend has a Sony camera phone with a 2mp sensor. It takes pretty
    decent photos, within its limitations of course. But given that these
    limitations are not important to Rockwell, your question is quite
    valid.

    In fact, why have a camera at all? My girlfriend is a pretty decent
    sketcher, and she can draw a scene in a couple of minutes. Isn't that
    good enough?

    :)
     
    Bill, Dec 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Frank ess <> wrote:
    > Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >> Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >>> Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone
    >>> will
    >>> also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    >>> somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?
    >>>

    >>
    >> You are an ass Brett.

    >
    > I wonder if TTV realizes what a rigid, hysterical character he
    > portrays from within that glass house. Between him and the Jeremies,
    > they seem to have that market cornered.
    >


    Well, considering Annika1980 (sounds like a woman's name by the way) posted
    that message solely to bust balls ... it is a well worth the response I gave.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 1, 2006
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:22:48 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <> wrote:

    >Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >> Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone will
    >> also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    >> somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?
    >>

    >
    >You are an ass Brett.


    Well, at least partially.
    But then, we all are, partially.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:49:02 -0500
    "Bill" <> wrote:

    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone
    > > will
    > > also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    > > somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?

    >
    > A friend has a Sony camera phone with a 2mp sensor. It takes pretty
    > decent photos, within its limitations of course. But given that these
    > limitations are not important to Rockwell, your question is quite
    > valid.
    >
    > In fact, why have a camera at all? My girlfriend is a pretty decent
    > sketcher, and she can draw a scene in a couple of minutes. Isn't that
    > good enough?


    Indeed. My wife and I went on a Burke Museum sponsored tour of old
    Haida village sites in the Queen Charlotte Islands back in July.
    There were a bunch of cameras on the boat. My brand-new FZ30, several
    big Nikon dSLR's, the skipper's Canon with a big heavy hunk of glass
    on the front. One of the women on the boat sat and sketched or painted
    on all of our excursions ashore. She brought all of her images to the
    get-together we had last month, and darned if she didn't "shoot" some
    of the same scenes I did and I like her rendition better.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Dec 1, 2006
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Stewy Guest

    In article <nP_bh.3192$>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> wrote:

    > Frank ess <> wrote:
    > > Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    > >> Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > >>> Q. Why would anyone waste $150 on a P&S camera when a cellphone
    > >>> will
    > >>> also take pics just as well? I mean, unless you're Ansel Adams or
    > >>> somethin, you aren't gonna notice any difference, right?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> You are an ass Brett.

    > >
    > > I wonder if TTV realizes what a rigid, hysterical character he
    > > portrays from within that glass house. Between him and the Jeremies,
    > > they seem to have that market cornered.
    > >

    >
    > Well, considering Annika1980 (sounds like a woman's name by the way) posted
    > that message solely to bust balls ... it is a well worth the response I gave.


    I think if you gave Adams a cellphone and told him to get on with it,
    he'd come back with better pictures than most of us even with our latest
    piece of flashy technology from Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon...
     
    Stewy, Dec 1, 2006
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Stewy wrote:
    >>

    > I think if you gave Adams a cellphone and told him to get on with it,
    > he'd come back with better pictures than most of us even with our latest
    > piece of flashy technology from Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon...


    Only after spending many hours in his digital darkroom.
    Ansel's big secret weapon was his darkroom skills. That's where the
    magic happens.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:41:26 -0800, Paul Allen wrote:

    > Indeed. My wife and I went on a Burke Museum sponsored tour of old
    > Haida village sites in the Queen Charlotte Islands back in July.
    > There were a bunch of cameras on the boat. My brand-new FZ30, several
    > big Nikon dSLR's, the skipper's Canon with a big heavy hunk of glass
    > on the front. One of the women on the boat sat and sketched or painted
    > on all of our excursions ashore. She brought all of her images to the
    > get-together we had last month, and darned if she didn't "shoot" some
    > of the same scenes I did and I like her rendition better.


    Too bad you couldn't have had a pro on the boat to show what
    really could be done with sketches and paintings. You can only get
    limited quality from a paint and shooter.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    > Stewy wrote:
    >>>

    >> I think if you gave Adams a cellphone and told him to get on with it,
    >> he'd come back with better pictures than most of us even with our latest
    >> piece of flashy technology from Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon...

    >
    > Only after spending many hours in his digital darkroom.
    > Ansel's big secret weapon was his darkroom skills. That's where the
    > magic happens.
    >


    His big secret was that he knew how to make a photographic composition, soup
    to nuts.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Dec 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    Stewy wrote:
    > I think if you gave Adams a cellphone and told him to get on with

    it,
    > he'd come back with better pictures than most of us even with our latest
    > piece of flashy technology from Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon...


    I think if you tried to give Adams a cellphone camera he would have
    told you to shove it where the light does not shine. Adams was a
    founding member of the Group f/64, not a group that is going to try and
    use a point and shoot camera.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 2, 2006
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Mike Russell Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Stewy wrote:
    > > I think if you gave Adams a cellphone and told him to get on with

    > it,
    >> he'd come back with better pictures than most of us even with our latest
    >> piece of flashy technology from Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon...

    >
    > I think if you tried to give Adams a cellphone camera he would have
    > told you to shove it where the light does not shine. Adams was a
    > founding member of the Group f/64, not a group that is going to try and
    > use a point and shoot camera.


    Adams was a very inclusive personality, and seldom uttered a discouraging
    word to anyone. In the charter for f/64 the point is made that, although
    they favored a certain way of making images, this was not meant to imply
    that other ways of using photography were invalid or inferior in any way.

    Adams was not the meticulous technologist that many make him out to be - far
    from it. Adams was a long time user of 35mm film for casual people shots,
    and he experimented with Polaroid images. As a teacher he always emphasized
    individual preference over any hard and fast technique. I don't think he'd
    go off and reshoot half dome with a cell phone camera, but he would
    certainly spend a pleasant afternoon or two with what would have been a
    marvelous toy. I suspect that, after discovering a good quality digital
    camera together with Photoshop, he would have scarcely set foot in the
    darkroom again.
    --

    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
     
    Mike Russell, Dec 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Stewy wrote:

    > I think if you gave Adams a cellphone and told him to get on with it,
    > he'd come back with better pictures than most of us even with our latest
    > piece of flashy technology from Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon...


    I nominate this post for the most effacing hyperbole this Fall.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 2, 2006
    #15
  16. In article <SC6ch.17118$>,
    Mike Russell <-MOVE> wrote:
    >but he would
    >certainly spend a pleasant afternoon or two with what would have been a
    >marvelous toy. I suspect that, after discovering a good quality digital
    >camera together with Photoshop, he would have scarcely set foot in the
    >darkroom again.


    That sounds like good advice. Have a pleasant afternoon or two with a
    digital toy (camera phone or cheap P&S) and then move on to a good quality
    digital camera for real photography :)


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 2, 2006
    #16
  17. On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 13:45:56 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
    wrote:


    >That sounds like good advice. Have a pleasant afternoon or two with a
    >digital toy (camera phone or cheap P&S) and then move on to a good quality
    >digital camera for real photography :)



    Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
    expensive camera? Surely you jest.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Dec 2, 2006
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    Raphael Bustin <> wrote:
    >>That sounds like good advice. Have a pleasant afternoon or two with a
    >>digital toy (camera phone or cheap P&S) and then move on to a good quality
    >>digital camera for real photography :)

    >
    >Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
    >expensive camera? Surely you jest.


    No, I think it is a complete waste of time setting up for a good shot
    and then the limiting technical quality by using sub-standard equipment.

    It is different if nothing else is available. But this is about
    what equipment you prefer to use.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 2, 2006
    #18
  19. On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:53:11 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Raphael Bustin <> wrote:


    >>Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
    >>expensive camera? Surely you jest.

    >
    >No, I think it is a complete waste of time setting up for a good shot
    >and then the limiting technical quality by using sub-standard equipment.
    >
    >It is different if nothing else is available. But this is about
    >what equipment you prefer to use.



    You miss the point. For some people -- including myself,
    at times, photography isn't the main event. The camera
    is there as a recording device, no more and no less.

    Your choice of words is interesting. Most folks don't
    "set up" for a shot. They point and they shoot. For their
    purposes, that's good enough.

    When my dad died a few years back, I inherited thousands
    of negatives and slides and prints. You know which ones
    matter? Not the artsy stuff. The ones that mean the most
    to me are the people and the events. Some are poorly
    composed, poorly lit, out of focus. Doesn't matter. Those
    are the ones that *didn't* get trashed.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Dec 2, 2006
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    Raphael Bustin <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:53:11 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >>Raphael Bustin <> wrote:

    >
    >>>Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
    >>>expensive camera? Surely you jest.

    >>
    >>No, I think it is a complete waste of time setting up for a good shot
    >>and then the limiting technical quality by using sub-standard equipment.
    >>
    >>It is different if nothing else is available. But this is about
    >>what equipment you prefer to use.

    >
    >You miss the point. For some people -- including myself,
    >at times, photography isn't the main event. The camera
    >is there as a recording device, no more and no less.


    This sub-thread is about what AA would do.

    >Your choice of words is interesting. Most folks don't
    >"set up" for a shot. They point and they shoot. For their
    >purposes, that's good enough.


    Even in that case, you don't want sub-standard equipment. However,
    some of the trade-offs will be different.

    >When my dad died a few years back, I inherited thousands
    >of negatives and slides and prints. You know which ones
    >matter? Not the artsy stuff. The ones that mean the most
    >to me are the people and the events. Some are poorly
    >composed, poorly lit, out of focus. Doesn't matter. Those
    >are the ones that *didn't* get trashed.


    It doesn't have anything to do with 'artsy' or not. For people shots I
    still want good images. It may have been different 50 years ago, but these
    days there tend to be so many images, that it is better to focus on getting
    some good ones.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 2, 2006
    #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. Bill

    Ken Rockwell is a liar

    Bill, Dec 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    2,874
    John Turco
    Dec 11, 2006
  2. Annika1980

    ANNI's Tribute to Ken Rockwell !

    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    655
    Not Disclosed
    Dec 3, 2006
  3. Annika1980

    Ken Rockwell: Advice from The Master

    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    838
    John Turco
    Dec 5, 2006
  4. Cynicor

    Ken Rockwell

    Cynicor, Dec 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,276
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    Dec 4, 2006
  5. Yoshi

    Ken Rockwell

    Yoshi, Mar 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    390
    Neil Harrington
    Mar 29, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page