Two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk about it.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Jeremy, Apr 14, 2006.

  1. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    Why should this amaze you?
    You and Ken have posted the most broad-brushed insult to basically anyone
    who frequents these forums.
    What is it that convinces you his post is not this same sort of self
    righteous act of the well-worded insult?
    I see little more than a thinly veiled...cleverly constructed insult.
    I don't know where you've been, but there has been less and less of that
    here.
    Most have come to recognise the validity of both methods of light capture,
    and the silly battles have significantly subsided.
    Childish.
     
    Mark², Apr 16, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    Please tell us which type of source is entirely FREE of incrrect
    information.
    Books? No.
    Magazines? Heck no.
    Internet? LOL.
    What? Where? Who?
    Please tell us!
    Oops! Neither you nor Ken can, because there is no source type that is free
    of misinformation.

    Bottom line:
    It has very little to do with the particular avenue through which you obtain
    information...but a LOT to do with the thoughtful (or thoughtless) manner by
    which you assess/value/believe/synthesize the information you obtain.
     
    Mark², Apr 16, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jeremy

    Bandicoot Guest

    No, no, no... There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who
    understand binary, and those who don't.

    :)


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Apr 30, 2006
    #43
  4. Jeremy

    Bandicoot Guest

    As a neighbour used to say -

    X: an unknown quantity; Spurt: a drip under pressure.


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Apr 30, 2006
    #44
  5. Jeremy

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Is this news to anyone?
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 30, 2006
    #45
  6. Jeremy

    Mxsmanic Guest

    The categorization is a bit strong, but it is basically correct. Some
    people just talk about photography; others do it. While most people
    are not entirely in one of the two categories, they are still mostly
    in one category or the other. Those who spend a great deal of time
    talking about photography logically take very few photos--there are
    only so many hours in the day--and vice versa.
    Some newbies might profit from his observations.
    And you prove what he says about most people in most forums spending
    most of their time calling each other stupid.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 30, 2006
    #46
  7. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    Oh? And you know this how?
    That logic falls apart in nearly any field or occupation.
    This NG is very similar to a big room at a convention where people talk to
    each other.
    When you put a bunch of programmers in a room...guess what they talk about?
    -That they talk about programming most certainly does NOT mean or imply that
    they spend little time programming. The notion as a generalization is
    absurd. There are many fine photographers here, and many crappy ones. Most
    fall somewhere in the middle...but the degree to which some find enjoyment
    by posting here is not a good indicator of one's skill or lack of it.

    The assumption that the two are directly tied is just as ridiculous as the
    declaration that all photogs are introverts. Some are. Some aren't. Those
    who like discussion are drawn here. Those who don't may not be...but surely
    nobody believes that one's absense from this forum somehow implies
    photographic expertise. If that were the case, then all the boobs oohing
    and ah-ing over their snapshots in Wal-Mart are clearly experts, since they
    don't show up talking here (!). Those who are willing to claim that
    discussion somehow means a lack of skill are most likely guilty of their
    own brand of ignorance...at least in terms of flawed logic.

    -Mark²
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #47
  8. Jeremy

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Well, there's the part about calling other people stupid. Thank you
    for the illustration.
    One illustration was sufficient. Thanks.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 30, 2006
    #48
  9. Okay, but if you have demonstrated yourself to be an idiot
    by making that particular generalization, why should we
    believe that it is an valid generalization?

    If it isn't valid, does that mean you aren't an idiot, despite
    what you said, after all?

    Hmmm... I just don't think I can generalize that one!
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 30, 2006
    #49
  10. It's useful to the crowd who has to reduce everything to black and
    white, and I'm not talking about film here...

    It's also useful in ensuring that a forum becomes far less populated,
    and thus eliminating any purpose that it was created for in the first
    place.

    Probably, a fairly good barometer for the skills of a poster might
    actually be reviewing their posts for indications of skill, as well as
    noticing how quickly and deeply they're involved in off-topic discussions.

    I, for one, have a hard time applying Rockwell's maxim to groups like
    rec.photo.equipment.large-format and rec.photo.darkroom, but maybe he's not
    comfortable with those forums...

    Cheers!


    - Al.
     
    Al Denelsbeck, Apr 30, 2006
    #50
  11. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    If you think I just called you stupid, you should try reading my post again.

    But on the other hand...I just noticed that you are mxsmanic...who somehow
    managed to find your way out of my kill-file...where you've resided for over
    a year.

    Back you go...
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #51
  12. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    Buy a sense of humor, Floyd.
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #52
  13. That's not the version I know, Peter.

    Ex - something past it, a has been;
    Spurt - a drip under pressure.
    Expert - a has been drip under pressure.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Apr 30, 2006
    #53
  14. I can't buy one for you. You'll have to either get your own or
    continue to miss out. Pity.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 30, 2006
    #54
  15. Jeremy

    uw wayne Guest

    Good Grief! 52,000 per year. Why not try to think and visualize what
    you want to capture? 52,000? 52,000 per year? .... If you shoot 5x7 or
    8x10 neg, you Think. The one shot captured will blow away your five
    years of hitting the shutter button.Photography is intellectualy not
    mechanical.
     
    uw wayne, Apr 30, 2006
    #55
  16. Jeremy

    Frank ess Guest

    Illustrative of Mxsmanic's technique of sleazy argument: he puts out a
    not-quite-defensible, not-quite-generalization opinion, leaves it out
    of his snip when he replies to a contradictory response, and slithers
    into a side-theme only tenuously connected to theoriginal assertion.

    Joining in a discussion with him is like trying to nail Jello™ to the
    wall: a waste of energy, no useful outcome is likely, and you end up
    having to shower to get rid of the lingering stickiness.
    --
    Frank ess
    "One time, I got up the next morning and looked in the mirror
    and there were two of them up in my hair."
    - JEAN LEMEAUX, on the travails of removing those little stickers from
    her
    fruits and vegetables.
     
    Frank ess, Apr 30, 2006
    #56
  17. Jeremy

    Alan Browne Guest

    Best illustration regarding Mxmanic that I've ever read.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 30, 2006
    #57
  18. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    In all seriousness, I consider Mxs to suffer a significant degree of mental
    illness. Normally I would hesitate to say this publicly for fear of hurting
    the person, but in this case, it is clear that his mind is unphased by
    anything anyone ever writes. The recognition of his mental state is one of
    the numerous reasons I feel he and I are both better off with him residing
    in my klink file. Surely it doesn't help him to carry on further, and it
    isn't worth trying to persuade him of anything. The world in his mind
    circles forever around to itself. It's a bit like talking to a computer
    that manages to mimic conversational response without ever reaching a point
    that demonstrates true thought or analysis.
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #58
  19. Jeremy

    Mark² Guest

    Sorry Floyd. It was late...
    :(
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #59
  20. Jeremy

    no_name Guest

    Not really, but it IS kind of ironic, since Rockwell is himself a
    "self-styled expert" ...
     
    no_name, May 1, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.