If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 2011.01.10 21:19 , shiva das wrote:
In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would find a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small fraction of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier, and it cost half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked the letter K, wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and wanted a word that was unique and easily remembered. Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak came loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs. Then the owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who returned it with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the camera. George Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business. One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it could handle what had always been a very complicated technology [wet collodion or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is universally regarded as one of the greatest slogans in advertising history: ³You press the button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was a sensation, and George Eastman became fabulously rich. A good take on the origins. However, in a sense we have to thank George for his endeavours and vision. It helped start photography down a very affordable path that led to the first 35mm cameras. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 1/9/2011 5:35 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the stove, the cookware or such, it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I have the recipe?" Not on TV. On some shows, for example on Bravo, product placement is very, very obvious. Doug McDonald |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more. Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs, YMMV. Stephe |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 1/11/2011 5:29 AM Alan Browne spake thus:
On 2011.01.10 21:19 , shiva das wrote: In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would find a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small fraction of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier, and it cost half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked the letter K, wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and wanted a word that was unique and easily remembered. Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak came loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs. Then the owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who returned it with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the camera. George Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business. One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it could handle what had always been a very complicated technology [wet collodion or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is universally regarded as one of the greatest slogans in advertising history: ³You press the button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was a sensation, and George Eastman became fabulously rich. A good take on the origins. However, in a sense we have to thank George for his endeavours and vision. It helped start photography down a very affordable path that led to the first 35mm cameras. Well, I guess. I certainly agree with your first statement. However, I think that in no way was (or even is, perhaps) 35mm the /sine qua non/ of photography that you (implicitly) make it out to be. I'd guess, maybe even bet, that *far* more images were taken on other formats than 35mm, certainly up to, say, the 1960s: 116, 120, etc. You know, the formats that the great unwashed public used. "Miniature" cameras (35mm) were pretty much a novelty or a speciality for a long, long time after Mr. Eastman popularized photography. -- Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet: To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign that he is not going to hear any rebuttals. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 2011.01.11 10:31 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 1/9/2011 5:35 PM, Alan Browne wrote: One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the stove, the cookware or such, it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I have the recipe?" Not on TV. On some shows, for example on Bravo, product placement is very, very obvious. I'm sure you're right. But, the context of the paragraph was people's reactions to particular photos, or above, cooking. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 1/11/2011 4:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote: On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote: Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more. Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs, Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing. Above, I was replying to your statement: " Actually you can see this very thing with some of the 'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums, especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. " That is something not worth worrying about. Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or even read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate this crap was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers spew out. On the kodak example, what they did WAS ground breaking compared to the wet plate and other types of early photography. I don't see that as being hype like what I was talking about. Stephey |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 2011.01.12 6:15 , wrote:
On 1/11/2011 4:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote: On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote: On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote: Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more. Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs, Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing. Above, I was replying to your statement: " Actually you can see this very thing with some of the 'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums, especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. " That is something not worth worrying about. Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or even read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate this crap was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers spew out. Your language remains emotional. Waste. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
No need to know anything..
On 1/12/2011 5:16 AM Alan Browne spake thus:
On 2011.01.12 6:15 , wrote: On 1/11/2011 4:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote: On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote: On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote: Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more. Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs, Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing. Above, I was replying to your statement: " Actually you can see this very thing with some of the 'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums, especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. " That is something not worth worrying about. Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or even read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate this crap was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers spew out. Your language remains emotional. Waste. You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And probably a waste as well? -- Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet: To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign that he is not going to hear any rebuttals. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|