A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Adoration of cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 4th 09, 03:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default Adoration of cameras

Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
with the tools than the images they make?
  #3  
Old October 4th 09, 08:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 695
Default Adoration of cameras


wrote in message
...
Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
with the tools than the images they make?


Gee, where did you ever get a crazy idea like that? ;)


  #4  
Old October 4th 09, 11:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Adoration of cameras

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:09:44 -0400, wrote:
: Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
: their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
: with the tools than the images they make?

It's just you.

Bob
  #6  
Old October 6th 09, 03:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:09:44 -0400,
wrote:
: Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
: their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
: with the tools than the images they make?

It's just you.

Bob



Maybe so. Based on the responses, I may be wrong.

I just seem to see many many post about this lens or that
camera or a plastic part used here or there or someone worried that
that this or that camera has 5% more pixels.

Time and ime again, their arguments all tend to be, plastic is
bad, or this or that lens may resolve a couple of additional lines for
1,000. They tend to embrase the science of photography while ignoring
the art of photograhy, the end result.

I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of
photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely
talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better
results than the lesser photographer with the best gear.

I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this
NG is devoted to a specific type of camera.




Pretty much.

But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the
artist playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with
his tools in a very intimate way. The science of the tool in
artistic hands is understood in the terms of the art, not the
science, So discussions tend to be heated, passionate, and very
unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with a little patience, it
becomes clear that two combatants are actually on the same page,
only speaking different language.

Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads.

There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of
photography. And there are some talented artists out there who
really don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very
skilled photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The
difference between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent
is inate. Skill understands the science of why it does what it does.
Talent understands the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill
may be able to express it reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if
you will, while talent is less able to express its reasoning
scientifically. But it can speak to the emotions of what drives it.
Performance differences between skill and talent can be
negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever talent does
inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the art.

And there will usually be more skilled photographers than
talented photographers.

So, the discussions tend to the science.

And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will
be fewer discussions by the talent of the art.

So, again, discussions tend to be of the science.

Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled,
learning the science, pursuing the art.

Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for
the ego. It's one of the things that makes them brilliant.

But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they
tend to take the last word, about the science and the art.


And...yes, plastic is bad.



  #7  
Old October 6th 09, 11:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default Adoration of cameras

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:21:03 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote:

....

I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of
photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely
talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better
results than the lesser photographer with the best gear.

I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this
NG is devoted to a specific type of camera.




Pretty much.

But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the
artist playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with
his tools in a very intimate way. The science of the tool in
artistic hands is understood in the terms of the art, not the
science, So discussions tend to be heated, passionate, and very
unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with a little patience, it
becomes clear that two combatants are actually on the same page,
only speaking different language.

Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads.

There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of
photography. And there are some talented artists out there who
really don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very
skilled photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The
difference between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent
is inate. Skill understands the science of why it does what it does.
Talent understands the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill
may be able to express it reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if
you will, while talent is less able to express its reasoning
scientifically. But it can speak to the emotions of what drives it.
Performance differences between skill and talent can be
negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever talent does
inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the art.

And there will usually be more skilled photographers than
talented photographers.

So, the discussions tend to the science.

And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will
be fewer discussions by the talent of the art.

So, again, discussions tend to be of the science.

Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled,
learning the science, pursuing the art.

Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for
the ego. It's one of the things that makes them brilliant.

But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they
tend to take the last word, about the science and the art.


And...yes, plastic is bad.




I agree. I am also sad to say I am not a talented
photographer. I am fairly well skilled, but most of my skill set goes
back to a different context (I worked with 20X24 to 2¼ equipment) I
and just over snapshoot shooter with modern equipment.
  #8  
Old October 6th 09, 11:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/6/09 17:24 , wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:21:03 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 10/6/09 08:57 ,
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote:

...

I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of
photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely
talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better
results than the lesser photographer with the best gear.

I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this
NG is devoted to a specific type of camera.




Pretty much.

But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the
artist playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with
his tools in a very intimate way. The science of the tool in
artistic hands is understood in the terms of the art, not the
science, So discussions tend to be heated, passionate, and very
unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with a little patience, it
becomes clear that two combatants are actually on the same page,
only speaking different language.

Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads.

There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of
photography. And there are some talented artists out there who
really don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very
skilled photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The
difference between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent
is inate. Skill understands the science of why it does what it does.
Talent understands the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill
may be able to express it reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if
you will, while talent is less able to express its reasoning
scientifically. But it can speak to the emotions of what drives it.
Performance differences between skill and talent can be
negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever talent does
inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the art.

And there will usually be more skilled photographers than
talented photographers.

So, the discussions tend to the science.

And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will
be fewer discussions by the talent of the art.

So, again, discussions tend to be of the science.

Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled,
learning the science, pursuing the art.

Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for
the ego. It's one of the things that makes them brilliant.

But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they
tend to take the last word, about the science and the art.


And...yes, plastic is bad.




I agree. I am also sad to say I am not a talented
photographer. I am fairly well skilled, but most of my skill set goes
back to a different context (I worked with 20X24 to 2¼ equipment) I
and just over snapshoot shooter with modern equipment.




In reality, it doesn't matter your level of performance. If
you're getting the results you want, and you're enjoying the
process, you'll improve to the level you wish to pursue.


  #9  
Old October 7th 09, 12:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/6/09 17:44 , Rich wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:09 am, wrote:
Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
with the tools than the images they make?


It's not you. Too many are pathetically and emotionally tied to their
equipment. Just look at the reaction when anyone criticizes a brand.
If they could convert neurosis into picture-taking talent, they'd all
be publishable.





I was on a pro bono shoot South Bend, this July, for Pediatric Brain
Tumor Foundation. D300, D700, and an assortment of glass. It was a lot
of fun. At one point someone stepped up to me and asked what I was
shooting....before I could answer, he's looked down at the camera at my
side and said, "Let's see, EOS......."

I looked at him and took a step back, "ExCUSE ME?!!"

By that time, he'd caught the "Nikon" on my neck strap, and jumped
back looking like he'd just called Mr T a racial epithet.

"Oh, God, man...I'm so sorry. Sorry, man...Sorry." And he backed away.

I laughed about that all the way back to Chicago.

It really is more of a religion than it is about a brand.

And, if taken in the proper perspective, very amusing.




  #10  
Old October 7th 09, 12:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Adoration of cameras


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 17:44 , Rich wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:09 am, wrote:
Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
with the tools than the images they make?


It's not you. Too many are pathetically and emotionally tied to their
equipment. Just look at the reaction when anyone criticizes a brand.
If they could convert neurosis into picture-taking talent, they'd all
be publishable.





I was on a pro bono shoot South Bend, this July, for Pediatric Brain
Tumor Foundation. D300, D700, and an assortment of glass. It was a lot of
fun. At one point someone stepped up to me and asked what I was
shooting....before I could answer, he's looked down at the camera at my
side and said, "Let's see, EOS......."

I looked at him and took a step back, "ExCUSE ME?!!"

By that time, he'd caught the "Nikon" on my neck strap, and jumped back
looking like he'd just called Mr T a racial epithet.

"Oh, God, man...I'm so sorry. Sorry, man...Sorry." And he backed away.

I laughed about that all the way back to Chicago.

It really is more of a religion than it is about a brand.

And, if taken in the proper perspective, very amusing.


guffaw!

That's probably true.

On the other hand, of course, there really are only two kinds of people in
the world: Nikon owners and the ones who wish they were Nikon owners. (And I
am saying that with perfect objectivity, not a shred of personal bias.)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of their cameras? Paul D. Sullivan Digital Photography 20 August 5th 07 09:03 PM
Best site for buyers of Digital cameras!!! over 200 cameras reviews :) [email protected] Digital Photography 4 August 7th 06 01:23 AM
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More Walmart General Equipment For Sale 0 December 17th 04 12:52 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? [email protected] Film & Labs 20 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.