# "Your camera takes great photos" and other peeves



## iron-t (Nov 20, 2013)

I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."

I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Here's a story that I related some time back…

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871


----------



## iron-t (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



I love it. I will henceforth refer to that story as "The Camera Braggart's Comeuppance."


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871


Neuro, great one as always. My pet peeve is when I'm at events with my gear, people assume I'm the pro that was hired to cover it / the lackey who agreed to do it for free. From, "Would you mind taking my photo" to "You need to go talk to _____ about the stuff he/she wants you to shoot" to having other photographers complain that they were ones hired. It's all pretty funny, and this is usually just me with my 5DIII and 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II, and maybe my 580 EX II. Next time I'm slapping on my 70-200 2.8 IS II and battery grip, or better yet, my 300 2.8 IS II. That should get some reactions ;D


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 20, 2013)

The one I get all the time is "wow, you can still buy film?"


----------



## DSP74 (Nov 20, 2013)

I love this! I hear this often from family members and friends. I too have stopped trying to explain. 

Not too long ago a friend of mine who is not in photography at all said he NEEDS to get a DSLR because his current cameras (iPhone 5 and a Sony point and shoot) do not take nice photos. I tried to explain to him that he does not NEED a DSLR but that he could get great results from his phone and point and shoot. He would not believe me and just wanted to argue, so I simply conceded....Yes you need a DSLR 



iron-t said:


> I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."
> 
> I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."


----------



## DanielW (Nov 20, 2013)

I like this one:

"A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said ‘I love your pictures - they’re wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.’ He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: ‘That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove."
Sam Haskins


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



I would have been impressed if that were the iphone pic. It would be an excellent use of an inferior tool.

But otherwise, nice shot, you must have a nice camera. Were you using the little running man setting?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 20, 2013)

I once had a Nikon CP-990 for sale on craigslist, and I included a photo shot with it. Some jerk sent a email saying the photo was a fake and that the camera couldn't have taken such a good photo. He went on about his two degrees in liberal arts and what a expert he was. 

Later, I noticed the same guy selling his Sony P&S on Craigslist. 

He didn't have a clue as to the part a camera plays versus the care to be in sharp focus, have the lighting right.


Now that we have a ton of cameraphones, I see a lot of really awful photos, with shadows across part of the image, out of focus because the camera was too close, etc. Everyone will, of course, blame the camera and think a expensive DSLR will solve the issues.


----------



## tbrand (Nov 20, 2013)

I'm going to wade in here as I've had some moments where something like this has put my back up. I've heard variations on "You have a great camera" a few hundred times now.

Initially I got my back up and took offence, but I realized something; often the people asking this aren't looking to rib you, they are just trying to break the ice because they want to talk to you. Sure, maybe they are gear nuts but often they are hobbyists, amateurs or enthusiasts who admire what you are doing. Often they are both admirers and gear nuts rolled into one. And that's a good thing. 

I have a playful way of handling that question now while I'm working; I'll feign being hurt a little and say something like "You know, I'd like to think I'm pretty good at what I do... but my ego is quite fragile and you just broke my heart"... followed by a laugh and the assertion that I do love the camera I'm using, but it takes some time to learn to use it well. Sure, if they are trying to engage you in a lengthy chat when you have work to do it can be a small hindrance, but then a polite "I have some things I have to shoot, but if you're around for a bit I'll free up later to chat" works really well.

Form there I might find out that the person teasing me has a Canon Rebel/an old Pentax K-1000/just bought their fist P&S/is thinking about buying their first full framer/iPhone 5S. And you know what? Those are all great cameras. And the fact that that person loves cameras and photography is keeping us employed. Really.

Now, not to say all folk that ask this are benevolent, but most are. As for the occasional jerk, you can usually tell who they are after a few back and forths... I've had a few here and there. I usually tease them too... and then go back to work.


----------



## dstppy (Nov 20, 2013)

Why would this annoy you? I just grin and say "beginner's luck". ;D

Better yet, I'm using primes half the time and you should see people's eyes glaze over as they try to talk gear with me and I try to sell them on giving up zooms. :

--------------------

Want to know my pet peeve? People asking to see the shot (like my wife).

Listen, I know if I got it or not, what is a 3" screen going to tell you?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Listen, I know if I got it or not, what is a 3" screen going to tell you?



Now see, if you had a _real_ camera, like a 6D or even a Nikon Coolpix, you could WiFi that image right to the iPad you'd have on hand just in case someone asked.


----------



## iron-t (Nov 20, 2013)

DSP74 said:


> I love this! I hear this often from family members and friends. I too have stopped trying to explain.
> 
> Not too long ago a friend of mine who is not in photography at all said he NEEDS to get a DSLR because his current cameras (iPhone 5 and a Sony point and shoot) do not take nice photos. I tried to explain to him that he does not NEED a DSLR but that he could get great results from his phone and point and shoot. He would not believe me and just wanted to argue, so I simply conceded....Yes you need a DSLR



Ha! Yes indeed. A good friend of mine, accustomed to P&S shooting, wanted advice on a camera to buy for capturing the northern lights on his upcoming trip to Iceland. I'm sure my response was intimidating: gear recommendation was a budget DSLR and tripod, but it came with links to a dozen pages of technique and framing tips for that precise circumstance. Even smart and considerate people often drastically underestimate how much work goes into great photos. I invite them all to pick up DSLRs, get shooting, and see what happens!


----------



## AJ (Nov 20, 2013)

"did you buy that print at IKEA"


----------



## Crapking (Nov 20, 2013)

When shooting with my 100-400, I'll extend the lens while I explain how EXCITED I am that I get paid to do what I love..., and then I will remind them (with a wink) that really, it's not pencil that makes for great handwriting ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Crapking said:


> When shooting with my 100-400, I'll extend the lens while I explain how EXCITED I am that I get paid to do what I love..., and then I will remind them (with a wink)...



Let me get this straight. You tell them you are EXCITED as you extend your big cannon and then you wink at them?!?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 20, 2013)

"You really got lucky"..... 

After scouting the location and showing up morning after morning waiting for the right lighting and clouds, I got lucky... All the preparation had nothing to do with it....


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 20, 2013)

I often go out with a camera in hand. My friends that come out with me say they never have the patience to carry a camera or take pictures but... they will call over to me with excitement and point... take a picture of that, it will look great! Ohhh, take that one too! Look over there that's a great photo. :


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Nov 20, 2013)

I'll have people see my pictures and say "wow, that's a cool picture but you must have edited it huh?" as if to say that it somehow "doesn't count" if I did post processing or that it only looks good because of the computer software.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 20, 2013)

To put this in perspective, was in NYC carrying my 5Diii and stuff in my Retrospective bag. I had the Velcro "silenced" and would bring the camera out when needed / wanted. My wife and I were in a department store and while she was looking at something, a guy with a 1D / 24-70 / on a BR was nearby while his spouse was looking at something. With my camera out of sight, I asked him, "How do you like that Black Rapid?" and pointed to his camera. Turns out he did not speak a word of English and porbably assumed I was telling him he had a nice camera. He just smiled and walked away.

Guess we can be guilty of this also.

When someone says something to me, I just politely agree.


----------



## RC (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871


LOL, great story, too funny!


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Nov 20, 2013)

I was showing my mother in law (who doesn't know anything about photography) some pictures I had taken with my 85 1.2 wide open. She pointed to the beautiful background bokeh and said "Why is it so blurry? I thought you had an expensive camera." All I could think was "I spenT a lot of money on this lens to get it to look "so blurry" ha ha


----------



## zlatko (Nov 20, 2013)

It doesn't bother me. People can compliment your photography in different ways. All compliments are good. So I accept "you have a great camera" and "your camera takes great pictures" as nice compliments. And I usually do have a nice camera, so the compliment is not mistaken in that sense. While I know that the photographer makes the picture, the camera plays an important role too. If my camera gets the compliment, I don't feel slighted.


----------



## viggen61 (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



GREAT Story!


----------



## fugu82 (Nov 20, 2013)

Posted by Ashli of Creve Coeur Camera


----------



## Policar (Nov 20, 2013)

If you could take equally as good pictures with a cheaper camera, why wouldn't you use it?

Doesn't the "it's the photographer" argument discredit the talented engineers who made the camera? It's certainly easier to use than it was to engineer. I certainly can't take the some photos with my iPhone I can with my 5D and 70-200; if you can, why don't you?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



My peeve is when I have my 5DIII and the 70-200 f/4 IS and a guy pulls out a 1Dx with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and says: "That's not a camera....THAT'S a camera.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 20, 2013)

I'm not offended/irritated either. 

I've never been an ambassador of "gear doesn't matter", but if I could choose I would prefer something like "wow, you definitely know how to pick the right gear and put it to good use, as well as being clearly proficient in post-processing!"

That's ultimately what taking pictures means, in my opinion.

Guess it would be too long though


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 21, 2013)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a story that I related some time back…
> ...



I'm just waiting for the day when someone does that to me with my 7D+70-300L, so I could pull out my Toyoview 4x5.
(until, of course, someone comes past with their Ebony 8x10, then they'd get their comeuppance in turn from someone with a 20x24, at which point this guy drives past and we all hang our heads in shame.)



Albi86 said:


> I've never been an ambassador of "gear doesn't matter"



I've always been an ambassador of "gear doesn't matter". I've got great gear, and don't take anything worth printing...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> The one I get all the time is "wow, you can still buy film?"



You were shooting a Nikon Df, weren't you? "Retro" - just a fancy way of saying outdated...


----------



## PaulTopol (Nov 21, 2013)

Isn't it great when you are walking around with a 1d* and a white lens and somebody says " taking pictures?" If I say "no" they look very puzzled.

Or people saying "ooh that's a big camera". I normally answer saying "yup but I don't know how to use it". "I use it just to make friends. See we are talking already". Normally gets a smile and we start talking and discussing photography.

Or "That's a nice camera". I say "Yes, thankyou, I am very lucky".

or being at a party and kids come up and ask "how much did it cost?"

we could just answer that bigger is better!


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 21, 2013)

This was years ago, but I remember photographing surfers from a local pier with a 10D and 70-200 f/4L. The 20D had just come out. While I'm shooting some guy walks up with a brand new 20D and some 3rd party zoom (forget which). Asked what I was shooting, then proceeded to spend 15 minutes telling me how I needed to upgrade because the 20D was so much better, it wasn't even worth shooting a 10D any more.

15 minutes. I kept shooting. He kept talking.

"Yeah, I'll have to think about upgrading" and we parted ways. As he walked away I couldn't help but wonder: what's the point of a better camera if you don't ever press the shutter button?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



Would have been good to see a pic from front on, anticipate the moment and all that. Think ahead. Yep front on would deffo have been better. On an iphone, T2i or 1DX. I know it's a gear forum but I can't help but think in pictures first.

But it's a great memory and a great story.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

My dreaded moment is when I'm setting up a shot with a fat or ugly person and they ask 'haha thats a slimming lens isn't it?' 'or you'll make me look beautiful won't you?' and being tempted to say 'Naw, yer a fat/ugly [email protected]@rd, final cut doesn't have a plug-in for that'.

Instead I say something meek like "I'll capture you in all your glory"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> My dreaded moment is when I'm setting up a shot with a fat or ugly person and they ask 'haha thats a slimming lens isn't it?' 'or you'll make me look beautiful won't you?' and being tempted to say 'Naw, yer a fat/ugly [email protected]@rd, final cut doesn't have a plug-in for that'.



For stills, DxO's volume anamorphosis tool helps morph people with excessive volume. I think that sounds better than PS's liquefy tool (but taught gross anatomy, I've used real liquefy tools  ).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Sounds gross.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 21, 2013)

When ugly people ask me, I'm going out beautiful, is not it? Will you let me lean, is not it?
It also annoys me the bad photographers who never studied lighting, and complain that there are still shadows somewhere in the image.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> My dreaded moment is when I'm setting up a shot with a fat or ugly person and they ask 'haha thats a slimming lens isn't it?' 'or you'll make me look beautiful won't you?' and being tempted to say 'Naw, yer a fat/ugly [email protected]@rd, final cut doesn't have a plug-in for that'.
> 
> Instead I say something meek like "I'll capture you in all your glory"



Hi Paul.
Yes but that will get you about as far as "no dear your bum looks big in everything!" 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 21, 2013)

"Does that camera do instagram filters?"

Do I win?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > My dreaded moment is when I'm setting up a shot with a fat or ugly person and they ask 'haha thats a slimming lens isn't it?' 'or you'll make me look beautiful won't you?' and being tempted to say 'Naw, yer a fat/ugly [email protected]@rd, final cut doesn't have a plug-in for that'.
> ...



Haha!

"Does my bum look big in this?"

"yes, you have a big bum!"

Love it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 21, 2013)

Perhaps most annoying is, shoot using techniques such as splash, multiple exposure, super long exposure, etc., and people tell me: Wow! You are very good at Photoshop ...


----------



## RichM (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



Awesome! I can relate.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 21, 2013)

The gods against arrogance and hubris were with you that day. Savor it!

I hope you didn't give him the cr url.

sek



neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871


----------



## sdsr (Nov 21, 2013)

Policar said:


> If you could take equally as good pictures with a cheaper camera, why wouldn't you use it?
> 
> Doesn't the "it's the photographer" argument discredit the talented engineers who made the camera? It's certainly easier to use than it was to engineer. I certainly can't take the some photos with my iPhone I can with my 5D and 70-200; if you can, why don't you?



You certainly have a point - it's amusing to read such complaints in a forum where most posts are about recommending expensive equipment in order to achieve what's often a marginal difference. We all know perfectly well that the equipment matters; and I suspect that many "great camera" comments are made by people who know perfectly well that the user matters more. 

I may be lucky, but I seldom get reactions that I find annoying. I've had people smile and point at my 70-300L and say "great lens" (which it is); point at my Olympus OMD EM5 and either say "beautiful camera" or "is that a film camera?"; point at my 70-200 2.8 and say (my favorite ) "that's cheating!" or, on a different occasion, ask a question that led to a rather lengthy and interesting conversation with an unlikely-looking complete stranger.

The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....


----------



## TAF (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Listen, I know if I got it or not, what is a 3" screen going to tell you?
> ...



No, if you have a REAL camera, they'll have to wait until you process the film before they can see the image.

Digital is a passing fad.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

sdsr said:


> The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....



This happened to me on Sunday, I was at Calenish on Lewis, Scotland and because I was using a tripod (or the only other person there) a group of foreign students asked me to take a picture of their group 'you look like a serious photographer'. Yeah they were trying to flatter me to win me over so I'd take a photo of their group, but hey, I'll take it when I can get it.

It was a Samsung compact, one of the android ones with a HUUUUGE screen, took the pic they wanted, asked them to stand whilst I took the pic I wanted (on their camera) 

Either way, they're happy, I'm happy. 

I ALWAYS offer to take pictures for a couple or family or group. I'm not suggesting that I'm all that good, just that it's nice for a group to all be in the pic. It may be a crap pic in crap light, on a crap camera, They may not even know my camera isn't full-frame, they may even know, but rightly consider "full frame of what?, where does that leave medium or large format users?" But it's nice to be nice.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but that will get you about as far as "no dear your bum looks big in everything!"
> ...


My Brazilian friend would take that as a compliment 

cue the yearly "Miss BumBum" competition held there.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

At the risk of being incredibly sexist, the brazillian ladies who take part in miss bumbum may have big assess, but they also have big chests and small waists, and pretty faces.

I'm talking about the kind of fat asses that look like somebody stuffed a waterbed into a pair of denims. 
© OTIS LEE CRENSHAW / RICH HALL


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 21, 2013)

Not a peeve or anything, but along the line "you look like a pro, take our photo"

Just recently was on a mountain trip, and at this lookout point was a good place for some group shots with some friends. 
It was night time and even with the ambient light I naturally had to put the shutter speed down, go F/1.4 and ISO 3200, my 5DII can handle the image ok, but this couple that was also there wanted me to take their photo as well.
And with the guys camera, a Rebel T4i with the kit lens, no way it would make a clear and exposed photo, and I knew it would struggle even at 3200 and I wouldn't go past that.
But lucky how everyone's Canon around here, I just slapped my 35mm on his camera and got at least the extra 3-stops necessary to get a shot, and I've never met a more pleased couple of people for taking their photo. They kept telling me how I was an amazing pro and what not, felt pretty good 

Especially as I wasn't very inspired that day and the rest of the photos weren't great.
Otherwise, I've gotten used to the "wow nice camera" part and just play along with agreeing that it's nice, and say what I like about it and what it can do, after all I do like my gear for what it can do


----------



## gbchriste (Nov 21, 2013)

Actually, we might take this as an opportunity to start weeding out some of the fauxtographers that are flooding the streets. How about a reply along the lines of, "Yes I do. I have $XXXXXXXX invested in my gear and anyone else wanting to take comparable photos to mine will need to spend as much."

This is a double edge sword to the uninitiated photographer-want-to-be. On the one hand, the price tag might discourage him enough to give up and go away. On the other hand, he might be just stupid enough to sell his Rebel and go out and drop $10,000 on a 1DX and a couple of L lenses. At which point the joke is on him because he'll be completely befuddled as to why he's still not taking great pictures.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

+1 Haha!

Absolutely.

I'm all about the picture. I think anybody doing photography should be.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Not a peeve or anything, but along the line "you look like a pro, take our photo"
> 
> Just recently was on a mountain trip, and at this lookout point was a good place for some group shots with some friends.
> It was night time and even with the ambient light I naturally had to put the shutter speed down, go F/1.4 and ISO 3200, my 5DII can handle the image ok, but this couple that was also there wanted me to take their photo as well.
> ...



It's nice that they asked you and nice that you were able to help the paupers with your L lens. The Rebel t4i does however have a built in flash. A bit of M mode juggling and minus flash compensation and I'm sure you could have got their ISO down a fair bit. A bit more contrast. Maybe even a catchlight.


----------



## Pi (Nov 21, 2013)

Nobody told me that! What's wrong with my camera???


----------



## Famateur (Nov 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> "You really got lucky".....
> 
> After scouting the location and showing up morning after morning waiting for the right lighting and clouds, I got lucky... All the preparation had nothing to do with it....



As Louis Pasteur was quoted to say, "Chance favors the prepared mind."

With that perspective, you were VERY lucky.


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Policar said:


> If you could take equally as good pictures with a cheaper camera, why wouldn't you use it?
> 
> Doesn't the "it's the photographer" argument discredit the talented engineers who made the camera? It's certainly easier to use than it was to engineer. I certainly can't take the some photos with my iPhone I can with my 5D and 70-200; if you can, why don't you?



You certainly can't take the same good pictures with a (significantly) cheaper camera. For example, you can't do fancy droplets without an expensive timing rig, you won't do much wildlife without a big zoom, you can't do nice bokeh with a kit lens or a cellphone, ...
But, if you have skill, you can take pictures of good quality with a cheaper camera. In contrast, if you don't know how to take good pictures, you won't take good pictures regardless of the camera you use. I started with a cheap point and shoot about ten years ago and have been steadily improving my gear up to a 6D and some L glass. Some of my most popular pictures on flickr were taken with the cheap point and shoot. I'm not a professional by any means but I take better pictures than anybody in my circle of friends and colleagues. Some appreciate my skill and pay me to take their holiday pictures, pregnant pictures, weddings, etc and some tell me "you should do our family picture this year because you have a nice camera". To the latter I feel like responding "how about I give you my camera for a day and you do them yourself".


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 21, 2013)

sdsr said:


> The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....



This happened to me a lot in Santorini (very picturesque Greek island) when wandering around with my DSLR on a tripod. I always responded "I'll take your picture with your camera, if I can first take your picture with _my_ camera"! I collected several nice portraits of people I never knew this way.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Policar said:


> If you could take equally as good pictures with a cheaper camera, why wouldn't you use it?
> 
> Doesn't the "it's the photographer" argument discredit the talented engineers who made the camera? It's certainly easier to use than it was to engineer. I certainly can't take the some photos with my iPhone I can with my 5D and 70-200; if you can, why don't you?



The best camera you have is that one in your hand at that moment. 

If we contrive to acheive good photography, as I often do, then I'll have my TPE app, my met office app, my tripod fitted with stills head, a couple of lenses with appropriate filters and adaptors.

I'm grateful to the engineers for their efforts. I've studied the physics at a basic level. I couldn't build a lens. I couldn't design an AF system, I couldn't design a tripod leg clamp.

But all that gear would be in the cupboard, unless I chose it for a shoot. The light wouldn't work unless I knew when to face east, when to face west.

It's team effort. A crap photographer with the best of gear will get crap pictures. A good photographer with the best of gear will get even better pictures. The best of gear without a photographer won't get anything.

I see a lot of great work from folk with all sorts of cameras. I see a lot of 5h1t work from 5h1t photographers with all sorts of cameras. It is true in my experience that some people confuse gearspend with quality of images. Some of the worst photography I've seen has been shot with the very best gear.


----------



## dcm (Nov 21, 2013)

When on the trail or at a vista point (particularly in national parks) I sometimes defuse the situation and ask if they'd all like to be in the picture while they are lining up. Usually only takes a minute and they get at least one photo with all of them. Since I use a cell phone and P&S camera myself it isn't difficult to operate their camera and the camera owner is often overly helpful with the settings anyway. A little composition and a steady hand usually produces a good shot for them. Sometimes I get handed several cameras though.

In certain situations I could see the equipment wasn't up to the situation, the snap looked awful (who can tell on the little screens anyway), or they were just a fun group so I offered to take a pic with my gear and email it to them when I got back. I get a little practice and hopefully they get a memorable photo.

I don't mind since it's only a hobby. On a job it would be different.


----------



## Policar (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Some of the worst photography I've seen has been shot with the very best gear.



It's a double-edged sword: virtually every time I see a print I love in a gallery I learn that it's shot on 4x5 or 8x10; and yet many of the worst photographs I've taken have been on 4x5 (lots of photos of dark slides, yet more missed exposures and screwed up focus). 

A good camera is harder to use well, but more powerful when used properly, so of course you will get both the best and the worst from it. And my local lab let me in on a little secret... even the best photographers bracket and turn in dark slide photos of their own. 

But let's be honest for a second... taking a good (as in substantially better than most snapshooters) photograph is REALLY easy. The basics of aperture/shutter speed/ISO take about a day to learn and basic composition equally as long; from there you're just answering to yourself why something is bad... too dark, leading lines don't work, too busy, whatever. Taking a much better than average photograph is easy. Designing a camera or lens is incredibly hard.

Your camera did more work than you did. It has more potential than you do.


----------



## Zv (Nov 21, 2013)

Coming in late to this thread but yeah I don't particularly like when people compliment the camera - "your camera is awesome, I want one like that", "how much was you camera", "your pics are great what camera do you use?" Etc. 

I think they're just trying to be nice and pay me a compliment in a round-about way. However to me It's kinda like they're saying - "hey, well done for being able to spend large amounts of cash on your equipment. You must be doing well to be able to waste your money on fancy gadgets! Of course your pictures are good, they ought to be for that price!"



But then again there plenty of rich fools who think they need a 1DX and 200-400 f/4L 1.4x to take pictures of their cat! I guess for some it's a status symbol. Porsche? Check! Butler? Check! Most expensive camera in the world? Check! 

So naturally normal people associate these things with Luxury and excellence. 

Pretty sure Michael Schumacher in a reasonably priced car could run rings around me in a F1 car any day! Not that I'm the Schumacher of photography or anything! Haha! 

Separate rant - people who hand you their camera and expect something to happen magically like you know how to operate every camera ever made. Can't even change the white balance on a Nikon for $h1t!!


----------



## Menace (Nov 21, 2013)

I get confused when i get handed a P&S camera by some total stranger to take their photo - but not as puzzled as them when I ask if they'd mind turning off the automatic flash for me as I don't know how! Thats when they look hard at my 1D III or 5D III gripped with a 70-200 hanging around my neck and wonder what is wrong with this bloke!


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 21, 2013)

Menace said:


> I get confused when i get handed a P&S camera by some total stranger to take their photo - but not as puzzled as them when I ask if they'd mind turning off the automatic flash for me as I don't know how!



I actually get mildly offended when they feel the need to point "this one is the shutter button". OK, I may also have trouble turning off their flash depending on what menu it's hidden under, but I think I can work out where the shutter is...


----------



## duydaniel (Nov 21, 2013)

I was at Target looking at some cameras.
A sale man in Target red uniform came and told me the Nikon D3100 was a better camera than the Nikon D5100.
I don't remember exactly what he said but I felt bad for the guy if he'd do the same thing for the next knowledgeable customer


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Nov 21, 2013)

"You don't even need that gear" (No, not my mother, actually)


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Nov 21, 2013)

Just fixed my kitchen sink.
Now its ok.
Must have nice tools.

Despite all the intelligent sentences you here showing up in public with bit bigger gear: sometimes its nice when they grant you the best place only showing a grown up body with a white one attached.
Or a monopod. its like the sign of "he knows what he is doing".

Silly phrases: yes, I hear them. Most of the time causes me a grin.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."
> 
> I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."


It is annoying at times, but I've learned that it actually works in my favor ... I do quite a bit of video for my company and I constantly get comments like "your camera takes good pictures/ video" etc ... although irritating at first (that they are taking away my "glory time") I've used it to "sell" my camera gear much before I decide to sell it ... I now have over 9 colleagues who regularly buy my used cameras / lenses in the office, because my "camera takes great pictures" ;D ... but I also provide 1 hour free workshops every month for all my "customers-in-the-office", sharing whatever little I know about photography ... in the last 5 years I've sold Canon 400D, 450D, 500D, 60D, 7D, EF 17-40, 50 f/1.8(2 of them), 100-400 L, EF-S 17-55, 430EX II, Sigma 10-22, 17-50, 18-250, 50-500, 150mm, 500DG Super (2 of them), Tamron 17-50, 90mm, 28-300, Tokina 11-16, Nikon D70, D90, D7000, 10-24, 18-300, SB 600 (2 of them), Marumi ring light flash, Slick Tripod, Velbon Tripods (2 of them), Monopod, LowePro camera bags (3 of them), Yongnuo YN 560 flash (2 of them), flash triggers etc to my colleagues (6 of them are repeat customers, other 3 left the company) ... if I do decide to sell some of my current gear, I'm pretty sure I have at least a few potential customers without having to put out adverts in local websites or going to ebay etc ... plus the customers trust and value the gear I'm selling and I don't have to deal with some "difficult" people ... I've seen some really rude and nasty people who've tried to buy my used camera gear, so I much rather sell it it people I know than some wackjobs I've encountered over the years. Another advantage of selling it to people who I work with is that I can borrow their lens or camera once in a while and I in turn lend some of my camera gear ... so I now look forward to people in the office saying good things about my camera gear. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871


 ;D Good one!


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 21, 2013)

sdsr said:


> The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....



Happened to me last month while I was taking lots of photos of the Golden Gate bridge in SF with my 5D3 and 70-200Lii with some other lenses in my bag. Beautiful day and lots of people there. A group of 5 or 6 young adults came up to me and said "you must be a good photographer; could you take our photo?" and handed me a smartphone. I've never owned or used a smartphone so I had to ask them how to focus it and where is the shutter? Then they wanted me to shoot the photo when they jumped in the air together in front of the bridge in the background. I knew that there is some lag with smartphones, so I said 1,2,3 jump as I tried to time the shot. They all looked at the result and one girl said disappointingly "my feet are still on the ground". So I tried several more times with the same result. They said thanks and left. Later, I thought I could have nailed it with my 5D3 or 7D and continuous fast shutter bursts.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....
> ...


How true ... just because we carry a "fancy" camera, people automatically assume that we will be able to take a good image with a point and shoot or a smartphone ... people don't realize that knowing the camera controls/limitations and editing the photo are also very important for a good image.


----------



## Zlyden (Nov 21, 2013)

Well, I actually felt somewhat embarrassed and flattered in past few years when someone commented my old and battered 400D as a "good camera". Mostly when I tried to shoot pictures of booths and equipment at some printing exhibitions.

400D was small and outdated comparing to what someone else in the crowd may carry on neckstrap, it had no big white lens attached. It looked like the commenter is either kidding, or used such camera in the past himself (and remembers it as "good"), or 580EX and relatively big blend in front of 10-22 did the trick (made it appear more "good" and "professional")...


----------



## bainsybike (Nov 21, 2013)

This thread reminds me of a story about the great violinist Jascha Heifetz.

After a concert someone came up to him and said "what a wonderful sound your violin makes". Heifetz held the instrument up to his ear and listened intently, then said "that's odd, I can't hear anything."


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 21, 2013)

Hi Paul. 
I always offer too, but when someone offers to take group pics using my camera, I often look at them and wonder if they have good or bad intentions towards it, like running with it especially if they are taking their pics with a phone. I know others have had the same thoughts towards me although why they think I would run at all confuses me! 
Reasons to run, think natural disaster, life in peril! ;D

Cheers Graham.



paul13walnut5 said:


> I ALWAYS offer to take pictures for a couple or family or group. I'm not suggesting that I'm all that good, just that it's nice for a group to all be in the pic. It may be a crap pic in crap light, on a crap camera, They may not even know my camera isn't full-frame, they may even know, but rightly consider "full frame of what?, where does that leave medium or large format users?" But it's nice to be nice.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 21, 2013)

Hi Paul.
ROTFL LMAO
You forgot the boob tube with the muffin top over the jeans.

Cheers Graham.



paul13walnut5 said:


> At the risk of being incredibly sexist, the brazillian ladies who take part in miss bumbum may have big assess, but they also have big chests and small waists, and pretty faces.
> 
> I'm talking about the kind of fat asses that look like somebody stuffed a waterbed into a pair of denims.
> © OTIS LEE CRENSHAW / RICH HALL


----------



## shutterwideshut (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a story that I related some time back…
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10915.msg195871#msg195871



LOL!!!! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Kwanon (Nov 21, 2013)

Why does this subject have to be so controversial??

All the confusion seem to come from either low income or poor skill. There is an EASY answer with common sense..

The photographer points the camera sets the settings and presses the shutter and makes ALL the decisions artistically.
The camera records the image..

So the better the photographer is the better the image is artistically..
and the better the camera is the higher quality photos you are able to record....

Why is this so hard to grasp?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Policar said:


> A good camera is harder to use well, but more powerful when used properly, so of course you will get both the best and the worst from it.
> But let's be honest for a second... taking a good (as in substantially better than most snapshooters) photograph is REALLY easy.



I disagree on both counts i'm afraid.

You can use a 1d series and change virtually every essential setting with the camera at your eye. On the lower canons theres much more up and down up and down and mussed shots.

Things like focus limiters and ai servo tracking behaviours make life massively easier,

In ghe video realm my ENG cameras look very complex to novices, but I know where every switch and setting is. I barely have to go into the menus. Lots of external controls, in a consistent place, be it dony, panasonic, jvc, grass valley, ikegami make ENG cameras far easier to use than say an XHA1, which I'd need half an hour with before being confident its set up properly, or an EX3, which is totally different again, both much more menu driven.

The difference is experience. A novice would find a 1dx as frustrating as I find my sx230.

It might be easy to take an in focus image, correctly exposed, and with an accurate colour temperature, but thats only 'good' technically.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."
> 
> I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."



I agree with you. A lot of people saw my work at an exhibit recently, and they were either speechless, or would tell me I had a very artistic eye, or that it was very impressive (most of this was not done with fantastic cameras, either...mostly my 50D and little Sigma DP2, which I've sold a while back). The "your camera takes good pitchers" has been thrown my way a lot in the past, usually when it's shots of those specific people, or their family. But people don't inspire me as a photographer, and nature does. I kind of feel guilty about that, but it just feels right for me. I am not much of a portrait photographer, but sometimes I can do ok. However, it's really hard to become a successful or well-known nature photographer these days, and in my opinion easier to make money (and make a name for yourself) shooting people.

One of the ladies who looked at my work at the exhibit, said she would mention my work to her husband, because he liked landscapes. Then she said he owned and was exhibiting two original Ansel Adams prints...thankfully in another museum 45 minutes away!


----------



## cid (Nov 21, 2013)

Kwanon said:


> Why does this subject have to be so controversial??
> 
> All the confusion seem to come from either low income or poor skill. There is an EASY answer with common sense..
> 
> ...



Well because people are used to think that money are answer for everything.

You have expensive camera and even more expensive lens? Well it HAS TO do great shots, they simply think you are paying for convenience. I am already used to situation where people do not understand why I always carry DSLR when their shots done with compacts are (sometimes) very similar and compacts are much smaller much lighter and of course easier to use. They also don't understand why ALL the shots are not superb and why I always do a selection before uploading them, so they can download them. Of course I'm still learning how to use camera well in lot of situations and of course even the best camera sometimes misses focus.

Once I was on a trip and friend of mine was very interested in my camera ... well until the moment she discovered that with that lens she cannot zoom at all. "What is it good for when you cannot zoom?" I tried to explain and then shook her head because she couldn't understand the cost and size of this lens when it can't do what she wants.

Even more they shook their heads when I tell them, that every photo needs to be postprocessed (let's say only exported to jpg), they are used to do things conveniently. (And I'm not even mentioning panorama stitching or portrait retouching and time spent on this)


----------



## Roo (Nov 21, 2013)

My pet peeve at the moment is the use of the word 'photographer'. Last week a good friend updated her fb info to state that she was a 'photographer'. She likes taking a photo but more often models in them with a friend shooting for her. Some of the shots she actually takes are good but she has never taken the camera (a 60d) out of full auto. She only posts her shots on fb and has never sold one or been contracted for a shoot. A couple of months ago I even offered to show her the different functions of her camera but she never took me up on the offer and has never even taken a workshop or viewed youtube clips and yet she considers herself a photographer. 

At the same time another person has posted on the work social media site 'I am a great photographer!' along with an iphone photo of computer monitors in a poorly lit room that had been used in a work web article. 

Do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers??


----------



## cid (Nov 21, 2013)

Roo said:


> My pet peeve at the moment is the use of the word 'photographer'. Last week a good friend updated her fb info to state that she was a 'photographer'. She likes taking a photo but more often models in them with a friend shooting for her. Some of the shots she actually takes are good but she has never taken the camera (a 60d) out of full auto. She only posts her shots on fb and has never sold one or been contracted for a shoot. A couple of months ago I even offered to show her the different functions of her camera but she never took me up on the offer and has never even taken a workshop or viewed youtube clips and yet she considers herself a photographer.
> 
> At the same time another person has posted on the work social media site 'I am a great photographer!' along with an iphone photo of computer monitors in a poorly lit room that had been used in a work web article.
> 
> Do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers??



[quote author=wikipedia]A photographer (from Greek φωτός (photos), meaning "light", and γράφω (graphos), meaning "written") is a person who takes photographs. A professional photographer uses photography to earn money; amateur photographers take photographs for pleasure and to record an event, emotion, place, or person.
[/quote]
According to this definition is photographer anyone who presses the shutter. Nowadays this definition is bit benevolent especially because cameras are integrated in almost every electronic (from watches to mobile phones).

Yes they are photographers, but what kind of?

EDIT: Even being professional photographer doesn't mean being a good one, I learned that on my friends' wedding where the results from "the pro" were mediocre at best


----------



## Zv (Nov 21, 2013)

Roo said:


> My pet peeve at the moment is the use of the word 'photographer'. Last week a good friend updated her fb info to state that she was a 'photographer'. She likes taking a photo but more often models in them with a friend shooting for her. Some of the shots she actually takes are good but she has never taken the camera (a 60d) out of full auto. She only posts her shots on fb and has never sold one or been contracted for a shoot. A couple of months ago I even offered to show her the different functions of her camera but she never took me up on the offer and has never even taken a workshop or viewed youtube clips and yet she considers herself a photographer.
> 
> At the same time another person has posted on the work social media site 'I am a great photographer!' along with an iphone photo of computer monitors in a poorly lit room that had been used in a work web article.
> 
> Do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers??



By this definition - 

I have a laptop and blog = I'm a programmer and web designer

I have a kitchen = I'm an Italian master chef (pasta is my speciality!) 

I have a car = I'm a NASCAR driver

I own a pair of Adidas trainers = I'm an olympic athlete. 

I make bad financial decisions = I'm an investment banker

I have a 60D and shoot on full auto = I'm a twat (cos some things never change!)


----------



## cid (Nov 21, 2013)

Zv said:


> I have a 60D and shoot on full auto = I'm a twat (cos some things never change!)



at least I don't shoot on full auto : ;D


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Roo said:


> My pet peeve at the moment is the use of the word 'photographer'....



+1

I hear you. I am a computer scientist. A real one, with a PhD and a full time job as a research scientist at a University. Every time I'm at a large family gathering I'll run into the occasional uncle who will talk to me about his niece who also works with computers ... which turns out to be a secretary typing on a computer all day long.
That's why when somebody asks me if I'm a photographer I say "no, I'm a photography enthusiast", although I do make money out of photography and have taken some decent pictures (according to other people's opinions on 500px, flickr and this forum).


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."
> 
> I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."




I wouldn't even respond really. Or if they have kids you could in return compliment them on their private parts. May not go over well with some folks though.


----------



## Joe M (Nov 21, 2013)

I actually find it strange sometimes that couples don't ask me what gear I use. I never get asked what body, what lenses, lights, umbrellas or so forth. They just look at the sample albums and decide I'm the guy for their day. I do get the odd one ask casually about lighting or asking if I use Canon or Nikon and whether I'm still using film. Those couples though are usually using a standard "questions for your photographer" that they find in wedding books or online. 
Most comments I find interesting are usually from guests. My most pleasant conversation was at a recent wedding where the father of the groom spotted me using a prime. He thought he was the only one still using them and we had a great few minutes talking about the pros of when and where they shine. 
My oddest conversation was a guest who needed to know if my gear was digital or film and how much it all cost. Cost? Her photographer friend had told her, you see, that digital wasn't as good as film. Yes I shoot digital and the cost is between me, my account and wife.
And yes, I've heard the range of comments from, "I hope I don't crack your lens" to "can you take off twenty pounds?". Well, it hasn't yet so don't jinx me and yes, that costs extra for my time in photoshop but I think you look fine as you are. Seriously though, I have had brides that have regretted the tattoos they have, and asked me to get rid of them from every shot.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a story that I related some time back…
> ...



Seriously...what a beautiful story!!!


C


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Joe M said:


> Seriously though, I have had brides that have regretted the tattoos they have, and asked me to get rid of them from every shot.



Complete tangent, but that's hilarious.

I never got a tattoo (yet) because I didn't want it to be something I regretted.

I scoff heartily at all these fannies who got 'tramp stamps' based on what Pink or whoever else on MTV had, and then three years down the line when they want to kid on they are virigins, and never went to nightclubs and never smoked etc when they decide they want lecrueset cookware and an actuary husband they try and get them removed etc.

The way I see it, if your gormless husband to be liked you when you first met and you had your tatts and peircings then surely, he's only worth marrying (I mean worth in the moral, not financial sense) if he accepts them now?

That said. Getting a tatto of a dolphin across your breasts probably wasn't the best idea you ever had.


----------



## ninjapeps (Nov 21, 2013)

Haven't had anything bad or annoying. It's usually something along the lines of "That camera looks expensive" followed by either "you must be really serious about photography" or "I hope you don't just shoot in auto."


----------



## cid (Nov 21, 2013)

ninjapeps said:


> "I hope you don't just shoot in auto."



I think this is one of the better ones, at least he/she knows there is something called auto and even something else besides it


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 21, 2013)

Nothing a client, bystander, or even fellow photographer could say would be as insulting to a photographer as his/her own whining about not getting the "respect" he/she thinks he/she is entitled to.

In other words, as said long ago by Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

If the weather permits, get the heck out there and take some pictures!


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 21, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> I always responded "I'll take your picture with your camera, if I can first take your picture with _my_ camera"! I collected several nice portraits of people I never knew this way.


hey anthony, that is a nice idea. 
I think, I'll have to remember that. Thank you.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2013)

cid said:


> Once I was on a trip and friend of mine was very interested in my camera ... well until the moment she discovered that with that lens she cannot zoom at all. "What is it good for when you cannot zoom?" I tried to explain and then shook her head because she couldn't understand the cost and size of this lens when it can't do what she wants.
> 
> Even more they shook their heads when I tell them, that every photo needs to be postprocessed (let's say only exported to jpg), they are used to do things conveniently. (And I'm not even mentioning panorama stitching or portrait retouching and time spent on this)



If it makes you feel any better, I find a lot of people expect all dedicated cameras to have zoom capability. I picked up a EOS-M during a fire-sale with the 22 f/2. I handed it to my wife and to a friend to try out on separate occasions. They both asked me how to make it zoom. Suffice it to say, I ended up picking up a white box EOS-M 18-55 for the wife to use. I use the 22 f/2.

When some of my friends first saw the 70-200 II, they thought it had a much longer FL than it did because it was so large/heavy. I use the 70-200 II a lot when my girls are playing soccer, and I've had the usual comments from random strangers like "Wow, that is some lens!" And my default reply, "Yes, it is!" It surprises me that there aren't more parents with better cameras. After all, I see higher quality lenses/camera combinations at berry farms/apple orchards than I see at the kids' games.

I've actually found it to be more awkward interacting with parents when we're watching our kids' team play together. You can hear their frustration trying to capture their kids on phones/cameras wanting to get a good pic but are unable to due to equipment limitations, technique or position issues. And you know that they are wondering if you are getting any good shots with your camera, but they are too shy to ask. I used to take pics exclusively of my kids, but I've come around to taking more shots during the scrimmages of their teammates too. I then send the parents links to the SmugMug galleries and the most common response I get to those pictures is one of gratefulness. That, and the awkwardness is now gone. It's much easier talking to other parents and I have the freedom to take pictures however I want.


----------



## Pugshot (Nov 21, 2013)

The times when I've had someone comment on my camera or lens have usually been the times I was photographing my grandkids' baseball or basketball games - and most of the time it's been because they're envious and want to get a nice 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM for their 50D or Rebel. On occasion there have been some people who mistake me for the "pro" at the wedding, etc. simply because of my "big white lens" - or just because I'm using a DSLR. And there have been a few people who make joking remarks that display their ignorance. But I've rarely had to deal with anyone who truly qualified as a jerk. Usually it's just people expressing, even if ineptly, their assumptions about my skill level based on my equipment. Given that the general population thinks that slightly out-of-focus photos taken with iPhones and P&S cameras on auto are "great" photos, I generally just try to smile and respond politely. I can understand, because when I'm in the presence of a real pro with a 1DX and a 600mm, I get a little "gaga" myself!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Pugshot said:


> On occasion there have been some people who mistake me for the "pro" at the wedding, etc. simply because of my "big white lens" - or just because I'm using a DSLR.



I personally wouldn't take my big white lens or big DSLR to a wedding unless I was the 'pro'. I'm there as a guest, not to get under the photographers feet.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Listen, I know if I got it or not, what is a 3" screen going to tell you?
> ...



If you had a real camera, you could just show the picture on the iPad it was taken with


----------



## iron-t (Nov 21, 2013)

Zv said:


> Coming in late to this thread but yeah I don't particularly like when people compliment the camera - "your camera is awesome, I want one like that", "how much was you camera", "your pics are great what camera do you use?" Etc.
> 
> I think they're just trying to be nice and pay me a compliment in a round-about way. However to me It's kinda like they're saying - "hey, well done for being able to spend large amounts of cash on your equipment. You must be doing well to be able to waste your money on fancy gadgets! Of course your pictures are good, they ought to be for that price!"



That captures my sentiment precisely and probably reveals a lot about both of us. I'm not a pro, but I am a relatively passionate amateur. I have an above-average level of disposable income. I guess I am sensitive that people are mistaking me for a rich asshole who buys expensive toys to demonstrate status.

I think the next step will be to respond to "your camera takes great photos" with "thank you! Tell me what you like about these images. I'm always trying to improve my craft."


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 21, 2013)

A most amusing and entertaining thread to read. ;D

A thread kevetching about people complementing equipment, that is posted in a forum on a website almost entirely dedicated to discussions about camera gear.

I especially like reading the comments about how the equipment is not the important thing from posters who list all their equipment in their signature. 

You guys are a hoot! LoL


----------



## Pugshot (Nov 21, 2013)

> I personally wouldn't take my big white lens or big DSLR to a wedding unless I was the 'pro'. I'm there as a guest, not to get under the photographers feet.



It was my nephew's wedding; he asked me to bring my camera and supplement the wedding photographer; I was extremely sensitive to the hired pro and made sure to stay out of her way (i.e., let her get her shots first and just grab a quick shot after she was done, or work as a second camera shooting things or people she didn't have the time or inclination to do). Give me at least a little credit, man!


----------



## Zlyden (Nov 21, 2013)

After reading few more pages of this thread, I looked at google-banner (helpfully provided below the last post). 

It said (translated from Russian, I hope that in other countries you see different adds in other languages): 

"I am talented. I create masterpieces. I am a new D5300. I am a Nikon." (Just click this nikon.ru link, while you see me!)

Camera manufacturers do lead people to believe that "you need the right camera to take a great photo". Whole "I am a Nikon" ads campaign is about it. 

So, well, in the end, what reaction do you expect from the general public who watch this stuff, except: "What camera did you use to shoot this? Is it Nikon D5300 or Nikon 1?"


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 21, 2013)

I do not mind when people complement the picture taking capability of my camera. It is awesome and makes my life so much easier than it was in the past.

What I do not like is when I do a shoot and present the pictures and the client tells me he loves them, but that he also wanted pictures of A, B, C and D. That really annoys me, as he could have told me that at the very beginning. Now I just take a lot more pics than is in the brief and hopefully cover all eventualities.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> After reading few more pages of this thread, I looked at google-banner (helpfully provided below the last post).
> 
> It said (translated from Russian, I hope that in other countries you see different adds in other languages):
> 
> ...



Those google banners are unique to you, I've often heard folk complain about distasteful spam, when it actually reveals their own browsing habits. You quite clearly have been looking at some websites you shouldn't have. Nikon, indeed.


----------



## Famateur (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I think the next step will be to respond to "your camera takes great photos" with "thank you! Tell me what you like about these images. I'm always trying to improve my craft."



Great idea! I'm going to try this myself next time...


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 21, 2013)

My wife has a much better "eye" than I do. She has taken some fabulous photos with a P&S (albeit the IQ is not always up to par compared with DSLR). I have managed to take many a crummy shot with "better" gear. A perfectly exposed boring photo is still boring!

That being said, I was at a charity "walk" at the local zoo and someone handed me their Rebel with the kit lens to take a photo of their group. I switched it off the green box to Av, tweaked, and took a couple of shots. They told me I was doing it wrong because the flash did not pop up (it was a very bright and sunny morning but actually some "fill flash" would have been helpful.....but this was a group of 30 folks about 20 yards away from me). Knowing that their flash would probably not be that effective, I turned it on, took a couple of more shots, put the camera back on the green box, and gave it back with a smile. 

We are all in this together. Everyone does the best they can. I don't find comments about why my RAW pics take days to process before I show them or comments about my equipment or any other comments bothersome. 

The ONLY thing that bothers me is if someone is threatening, hostile or otherwise makes me feel physically insecure. Otherwise, I smile and thank them.


----------



## Zlyden (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> You quite clearly have been looking at some websites you shouldn't have. Nikon, indeed.



Hmmm... 

I did click the link after I saw it (why not to let Nikon to pay for it after all?). 

But... I haven't been to Nikon's site for a year or so (when I wanted to demonstrate to my wife the Ashton Kutcher slinging some Nikon gear). Normally, my regular photo-hobby-web-browsing-routine is limited only to the first page of DPReview and the first page CanonRumors.

PS: You are right: I did went to Ken Rockwell's site to check reviews of some fisheye (I'm thinking about getting-or-not for New Years trip to Iceland)


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 21, 2013)

Roo said:


> My pet peeve at the moment is the use of the word 'photographer'. Last week a good friend updated her fb info to state that she was a 'photographer'. She likes taking a photo but more often models in them with a friend shooting for her. Some of the shots she actually takes are good but she has never taken the camera (a 60d) out of full auto. She only posts her shots on fb and has never sold one or been contracted for a shoot. A couple of months ago I even offered to show her the different functions of her camera but she never took me up on the offer and has never even taken a workshop or viewed youtube clips and yet she considers herself a photographer.
> 
> At the same time another person has posted on the work social media site 'I am a great photographer!' along with an iphone photo of computer monitors in a poorly lit room that had been used in a work web article.
> 
> Do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers??



There's no state exam to become a photographer, so the title is free for everyone.

In the end it depends on the context. In common situations many people mean professional photographers, but in other circumstances it merely identifies the subject holding a camera and most likely in the act of taking a picture.


----------



## RGF (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Coming in late to this thread but yeah I don't particularly like when people compliment the camera - "your camera is awesome, I want one like that", "how much was you camera", "your pics are great what camera do you use?" Etc.
> ...



I respond to this either of two ways.

1. I sometimes say - you should see the pictures I get back when I send the camera on a trip by itself.

2. Or I will say, do you tell you favorite chef that he/she must have a great set of knives or a wonderful stove?

Always trying to be humorous and with a smile


----------



## Bruce Photography (Nov 21, 2013)

The one that I get most often from people stopping by is "Are you getting any good pictures?" as I'm standing beside some beautiful landscape with my tripod, large camera lens, wired remote, GPS, and other stuff. Since I do quite a bit of lens testing sometimes I tell them that but I'm better off by shrugging as if I don't speak their language. What I want to say is that I come out here by dragging all this stuff out here, down the trail, and I really just want to take bad pictures - But I don't say that. I'm better off with a grin and a shrug....

Actually I kind of like when they say the expensive camera thing because I do sometimes remind them that pro cameras are expensive and that I make money with my photographs. I still cling on to the hope that they won't be so surprised at the price they see of my photographs in a gallery.


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 21, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> A most amusing and entertaining thread to read. ;D
> 
> A thread kevetching about people complementing equipment, that is posted in a forum on a website almost entirely dedicated to discussions about camera gear.
> 
> ...



Whhooooo....me? ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."
> 
> I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."



Many people to be sociable will give you the "your camera takes great pictures". It is not meant to be negative.

However, when you receive this response IMO you have failed as a photographer. I have gotten this response many times, failure isn't fun. 

But, there is a response better than this one. If you get to the response beyond this you have achieved what you set out to do. If someone looking at your picture is so overwhelmed that the first response is "beautiful" or something along the line "that looks like it should be in a gallery..." then you have succeeded. If the first comment is about the beauty of your work, you have won. The comments after these can be about your equipment or anything else, you have already succeeded.

Your camera takes great photo's is a polite response that tells you that your pictures are nice. You probably have a fair skill set, but they are not overwhelmed. 

People overwhelmed by a photograph do not think about your equipment first.


----------



## Policar (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > A good camera is harder to use well, but more powerful when used properly, so of course you will get both the best and the worst from it.
> ...



As I said, harder to use well because it requires more experience, but more powerful (and to that extent easier to use well) with experience. 

And yes, taking a technically good photo is very, very easy, whereas producing a good composition is harder. But measured against the average composition you see here, for instance, getting an above-average composition is also pretty darned easy.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

A thought crossed my mind. Maybe these folk asking about your camera aren't really all that interested, a bit like the weather, they are making small talk because its a polite thing to do. A few responses on the autistic spectrum here.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> A thought crossed my mind. Maybe these folk asking about your camera aren't really all that interested, a bit like the weather, they are making small talk because its a polite thing to do. A few responses on the autistic spectrum here.



WHAT? 
Are you saying that I am not the center of these peoples universe?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> A most amusing and entertaining thread to read. ;D
> 
> A thread kevetching about people complementing equipment, that is posted in a forum on a website almost entirely dedicated to discussions about camera gear.
> 
> ...



So claims the person who reads the equipment lists posted in signatures


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> Whhooooo....me? ;D


that Owl seems to be a professional ... how much does he charge for bird photography and wedding photography ;D


----------



## Joe M (Nov 21, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> The one that I get most often from people stopping by is "Are you getting any good pictures?"



This just reminded me of something that didn't initially come to mind as it's my mother that says this to me all the time and it drives me nuts (bless her). "Are you busy playing with your pictures on the computer", as I'm processing a day's wedding shoot.


----------



## Joe M (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously though, I have had brides that have regretted the tattoos they have, and asked me to get rid of them from every shot.
> ...


There's nothing quite like a beautiful bride who has more makeup across her cleavage than on her face trying to hide the regret. Anyway, I just threw this in this mix because it does come up a lot (though it's not really a peeve or has anything to do with the camera).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 21, 2013)

This thread is full of fun.

However, more seriously, it makes me feel uneasy now that I have the 300 2.8 and can't avoid being seen on occassion in spite of doing my best to hide in the bushes. I'm no pro and don't want to be mistaken for one! 

Jack


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I want to hear from everyone on the most annoying things people commonly say to them about their cameras, lenses, other gear, images and photography in general. My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."
> 
> I used to launch into an explanation of how much time and energy I have invested in improving my technique and artistic vision, but found the results dissatisfying (common response: "well sure you have to know how to use it"). So I just accede, "yes, it's easier to get good pictures with a good camera."



IMO, who cares, nobody saying that is meaning any sort of insult. And it's not like it might not somewhat true anyway, many they are not used to simply seeing so little noise for such a dark scene or so much crisp resolution and such tricky action captured in a way that would be VERY tough to pull off with a P&S.

Just take it as someone being excited over your equipment and as a general compliment to your skills as well. They are probably just excited to hear about your photography and equipment. Maybe even, heaven forbid, just trying to be friendly in general. Maybe a few don't realize things take as much skill as they do, but whatever, they just don't realize something and aren't trying to be #?##s or anything.


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > Whhooooo....me? ;D
> ...



Bird photography is his specialty and he charges 3 mice an hour 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > If you could take equally as good pictures with a cheaper camera, why wouldn't you use it?
> ...



+1

(although in the last instance, sometimes it turns into a good laugh as I struggle figuring out how to take a pic with the P&S hah, although a few times it did feel a trace embarrassing, but whatever, all in good fun)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> Actually, we might take this as an opportunity to start weeding out some of the fauxtographers that are flooding the streets. How about a reply along the lines of, "Yes I do. I have $XXXXXXXX invested in my gear and anyone else wanting to take comparable photos to mine will need to spend as much."
> 
> This is a double edge sword to the uninitiated photographer-want-to-be. On the one hand, the price tag might discourage him enough to give up and go away. On the other hand, he might be just stupid enough to sell his Rebel and go out and drop $10,000 on a 1DX and a couple of L lenses. At which point the joke is on him because he'll be completely befuddled as to why he's still not taking great pictures.



Or maybe he turns out to have not been a sucky as you think just because he was shooting with a Rebel and seemed to be relatively new and maybe in a few months he is handily out shooting you? And maybe he is loving his new camera because he loves sports photography and he ends up glad that he went from his Rebel + 18-135 to a 7D/5D3/1D4/1DX + 70-200 2.8 or 300 f4 or whatnot? Who knows.

And you sound awfully paranoid about competition.

I think attitudes like above are what somewhat give photographers a bad name (unfriendly, stand offish, cutthroat).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> A most amusing and entertaining thread to read. ;D
> 
> A thread kevetching about people complementing equipment, that is posted in a forum on a website almost entirely dedicated to discussions about camera gear.
> 
> ...



+1

;D ;D ;D


----------



## thedman (Nov 21, 2013)

iron-t said:


> My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."



Just had one of these recently on a Facebook share of one of my shots. "Wish my camera was this good!" :


----------



## Skulker (Nov 21, 2013)

My to least Fav comments are

"You must have a good camera" Usually followed by a discourse on their camera.

Or

"I've got a picture like that, I took in on my phone" Usually followed by presenting an out of focused badly composed image.




;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry but I can't resist.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 

No one has ever said "that image would look better with a bit more DR" :-*


----------



## thedman (Nov 21, 2013)

My biggest pet peeve though are people who, once they see that I'm a 'serious' photographer, offer their advice on what I should shoot. It always begins with "Hey, you wanna take a good picture...", after which they proceed to drag me to a subject that would be a terrible or at best average shot.


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 21, 2013)

Skulker said:


> My to least Fav comments are
> 
> "You must have a good camera" Usually followed by a discourse on their camera.
> 
> ...



One person might ;D


----------



## Snaps (Nov 21, 2013)

Most of the time I get people saying along the lines of, "That camera is nice, you must take good pictures." 

Sure, I do, or at least I like to think I take great photos, but it all boils down to skill of the individual behind the viewfinder. I've taken photos of people using their iPhones or equivalent smartphone, and sometimes they wonder why their photos don't turn out as good when they see the one I took. 

It's ultimately not about the camera, but the individual using it. Kung Fu is not necessarily better than Karate, or vice versa. It depends on the skill of the person using it.


----------



## Skatol (Nov 21, 2013)

I usually respond with something like:
It also takes really bad ones if I don't set it up correctly, here's just one example of many (as i show them a shot on the tiny 3"screen).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > My to least Fav comments are
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



I actually heard some people say just that, including the photographer himself. Large platinum prints.

It's interesting that those who seem to make most fun of DR and list every last bit of equipment also get quickly crazy offended by innocent, most likely friendly comments from strangers.


----------



## ninjapeps (Nov 22, 2013)

thedman said:


> My biggest pet peeve though are people who, once they see that I'm a 'serious' photographer, offer their advice on what I should shoot. It always begins with "Hey, you wanna take a good picture...", after which they proceed to drag me to a subject that would be a terrible or at best average shot.


This reminded me of something similar my mom once advised me to do. She suggested that I go out and take pictures of what's happening outside during typhoons and then submit them to newspapers. I just told her that I wouldn't be doing that because it's really rather dangerous and my camera isn't waterproof.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Nov 22, 2013)

As a seventeen year old with a 5D mkii, my biggest pet peeve is that everyone always says, "oh your parents bought you a nice camera" and things like that. No, I payed for it, I actually sell prints, shoot weddings, do ad work and photograph for local magazines. I have literally over a million hits on several of my photos and have been featured on petapixel.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

Roo said:


> My pet peeve at the moment is the use of the word 'photographer'. Last week a good friend updated her fb info to state that she was a 'photographer'. She likes taking a photo but more often models in them with a friend shooting for her. Some of the shots she actually takes are good but she has never taken the camera (a 60d) out of full auto. She only posts her shots on fb and has never sold one or been contracted for a shoot. A couple of months ago I even offered to show her the different functions of her camera but she never took me up on the offer and has never even taken a workshop or viewed youtube clips and yet she considers herself a photographer.
> 
> At the same time another person has posted on the work social media site 'I am a great photographer!' along with an iphone photo of computer monitors in a poorly lit room that had been used in a work web article.
> 
> Do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers??



Definitely NOT, but this is the age we live in now. (I can sympathize with your above anectdote, see my last paragraph).

"Photographer" has been very, extremely cheapened, and if it ever gets restored to what it's supposed to be, it will be a long time from now. Too many people take pictures and think of themselves as photographers. I suppose these days even dogs and cats can be photographers! 

Even on a website like this, for people who are enthusiastic about the cameras, lenses, equipment...We are all at varying levels of technical and artistic ability, experience, expertise, knowledge, skill, age...and certainly "fame" and income (from the photography).

Photography is just too accessible now, for pretty much everyone on earth, 6 billion plus people...to _not_ think of themselves as photographers. If you take a picture with a phone or whatever, in a way you are a photographer. *But if you're someone who uses a DSLR in full auto mode, and has no curiosity about what else to do with it, * you're not an artist...because artists take their tools (and their ability to use them) seriously, regardless of what kind of art it is. I've talked to many female photographers, and have yet to meet one who is curious or enthusiastic about their equipment. I have no doubt there are thousands, or perhaps millions of ladies who are into their equipment...but given my experience, it's probably closer to thousands. I especially don't like attempting to discuss photography with someone who starts off by saying "what would you like to know?"...assuming I'm some kind of idiot just because I wanted to discuss photography. There's a certain arrogance amongst many in our profession, male or female.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously though, I have had brides that have regretted the tattoos they have, and asked me to get rid of them from every shot.
> ...



How about a swastika or a skull and cross bones on the breasts? I've seen it. That's a woman who hates herself and hates life, and probably would never even look at a picture of herself. The problem is, other people will.

I would like to offer my services for cloning out tattoos on photos, if anyone would like to hire me! Seems like there would be millions to be made on it!!

The very worst place a woman can get a tattoo, is on the breasts. At least in the tramp stamp region, it seems less harmful of the beautiful womanly form...although there are some massively giant tramp stamps out there, usually they're dark in color too. Whoever thought of doing all this, should have their brains tattooed, haha...


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 22, 2013)

But my camera does take great photos. After all, it is a Canon.


----------



## Zv (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> As a seventeen year old with a 5D mkii, my biggest pet peeve is that everyone always says, "oh your parents bought you a nice camera" and things like that. No, I payed for it, I actually sell prints, shoot weddings, do ad work and photograph for local magazines. I have literally over a million hits on several of my photos and have been featured on petapixel.



Or they think you stole it! No one takes you seriously as a 17yr old. Must suck. Well done though, sounds like you've put in a lot of effort and it's paid off! Don't pay attention to the old farts who tell you what to do.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> But my camera does take great photos. After all, it is a Canon.



All by itself huh?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe M said:
> ...



If Katy Perry got her brains Tattooed some idiot somewhere would copy her.

When I worked at the university there was one student who took to wearing a red t-shirt with a prominent white circle encased swastika over her chest. She would be 18 or close.

I eould refuse to deal with her on days she wore the t-shirt, even although I knew fine that she was into punk and after this kind of reaction, and no more a neo-nazi than my goldfish, Adolf.
(The goldfish bit is a lie, i couldn't help it)

But I also knew that there was a lecturer in another department who taught on the holocaust, and who had lost family in that genocide. When the university wouldn't support me I suggested wearing klu klux clan robes and pokey hat to my work. I kinda hoped the lecturer and the students path would nevercross, say in the canteen or in a corridor, because I dont think the student really understood the weight of the semiotics she was flirting with, or the upset it may cause, but snother part of me hoped their paths would cross, because the lecturer was a fierce intellectual and would have torn the student a new arishole with eloquence but such volume that nobody within a 10 mile radius would be in any doubt about adorning themselves with that symbol in play irony or jest ever again.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 22, 2013)

I'm the one who gets most of the credit. So I give some modest praise to my gear.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
> ...



If that's directed at me

1) I'm not making fun of DR. What I'm making fun of is those who DRone on a lot of DRivel about it. I don't care if it is pro or anti to be honest. As far as I'm concerned its important as part of the process of creating images.

2) I don't list ANY of my equipment. I mention it when relevant.

3) I don't get "crazy offended". Not even by idiots.

I do get disappointed with people who try to ram their ideas down other peoples throats, and can't even chill and have a chuckle at what is obviously intended as a light hearted comment.

Love and Kisses


----------



## chauncey (Nov 22, 2013)

Is your ego that shallow that you concern yourself with comments like "Gee, your camera sure does take good pictures". A little analysis might do wonders for that shallow ego. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

chauncey said:


> Is your ego that shallow that you concern yourself with comments like "Gee, your camera sure does take good pictures". A little analysis might do wonders for that shallow ego. :


Dear doctor Phil, we are shallow people who hang around in a *gearcentric forum* (called Canon Rumors) but we don't like when people compliment our gear.


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

People! Calm down. This is a fun thread....

Hugs and kisses is correct.


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

cid said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 60D and shoot on full auto = I'm a twat (cos some things never change!)
> ...



Shooting mode is irrelevant. The end result is.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 22, 2013)

in nascar... we compliment the racers... not the car. Jimmy Johnson won the whatever cup.. not his car. this is s perfectly respectable beef.


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> A thought crossed my mind. Maybe these folk asking about your camera aren't really all that interested, a bit like the weather, they are making small talk because its a polite thing to do. A few responses on the autistic spectrum here.



So true.


----------



## Zv (Nov 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



But shooting on full auto and refusing to learn any other modes AND calling yourself a photographer is what I was referring to. The post was a reply to the "do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers?". Just my way of saying hell no! 

Now, if they can use full auto as well as other modes to create stunning images then yes I would say that person could be called a photographer. 

You gotta know the limitations of your equipment and be able to push yourself and be creative. That person Roo was talking about sounds like the opposite of that.


----------



## iron-t (Nov 22, 2013)

I didn't realize what a rager this thread would become, but I love it! I'll note for the record that I consider the "gear credit" to be a minor annoyance. It's not something that is going to shake me up. I wouldn't even say it makes me angry.

Tangent #1: My mother in law takes great photos with a Rebel XS, kit lens, on full auto. Not suitable for huge hi-res prints, but beautifully framed, wonderful shots. My cousin takes spectacular photos with a fairly cheap P&S. She's been hired to do portraits based on the strength of her images and been greeted with confused frowns when she pulls the camera out of her purse. She's been wanting a Canon DSLR for awhile and look out when she gets one. The point is, gear is cool and can do awesome things, but credit the photographer too!

Tangent #2: My other hobby/passion is competitive long distance running. Believe me, average Joe on the street doesn't understand that any more than he understands photography. It is a world most people simply cannot understand. Keeping this in mind, I try not to get annoyed with people who say or think my training is excessive, unhealthy, obsessive/compulsive, pointless, vain, etc. All the same, other runners and I will gripe about it because it's a common experience among us.


----------



## Zv (Nov 22, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I didn't realize what a rager this thread would become, but I love it! I'll note for the record that I consider the "gear credit" to be a minor annoyance. It's not something that is going to shake me up. I wouldn't even say it makes me angry.
> 
> Tangent #1: My mother in law takes great photos with a Rebel XS, kit lens, on full auto. Not suitable for huge hi-res prints, but beautifully framed, wonderful shots. My cousin takes spectacular photos with a fairly cheap P&S. She's been hired to do portraits based on the strength of her images and been greeted with confused frowns when she pulls the camera out of her purse. She's been wanting a Canon DSLR for awhile and look out when she gets one. The point is, gear is cool and can do awesome things, but credit the photographer too!
> 
> Tangent #2: My other hobby/passion is competitive long distance running. Believe me, average Joe on the street doesn't understand that any more than he understands photography. It is a world most people simply cannot understand. Keeping this in mind, I try not to get annoyed with people who say or think my training is excessive, unhealthy, obsessive/compulsive, pointless, vain, etc. All the same, other runners and I will gripe about it because it's a common experience among us.



Some good points there. I guess when I think about it I bought a DSLR because I wanted to take better pictures. I could have bought a point and shoot and learnt that way. Does your cousin have a website? Or flickr? I'd like to see the pictures.


----------



## chris_w_digits (Nov 22, 2013)

It's never bothered me if people notice my camera, find it interesting, and mention it. Since the venue I shoot in a lot is large and I need close-ups and head and guitar shots, the 70-200mm f/2.8L zoom is on my camera most of the time. It's large. The camera doesn't get their attention -- the lens does, and people think it's a permanent part of the camera and say "That's a nice camera!" and compliment me on the pictures (sometimes me and sometimes the camera). They just assume that a bigger lens and better camera are going to take better pictures. Most people wouldn't know a 5D3 from a T2i unless they have some knowledge about cameras. Most people just find it something to start a conversation about and that's preferable to not saying anything. I prefer the friendliness and willingness to start a conversation. I don't consider myself a professional photographer and don't want to be "that photographer" who gets upset about things of this nature. Nothing is more of a turnoff than getting jumped on for saying something the wrong way in an attempt to talk to or be friendly to a photographer. There is no sense in getting upset with people for saying things about something they don't understand.


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

chris_w_digits said:


> They just assume that a bigger lens and better camera are going to take better pictures.



It is amazing how "ordinary people" can intuitively understand basic things about photography which we debate here to death!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> Hugs and kisses is correct.


I would like that very much, provided they are coming from the opposite gender ;D


----------



## cayenne (Nov 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> But shooting on full auto and refusing to learn any other modes AND calling yourself a photographer is what I was referring to. The post was a reply to the "do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers?". Just my way of saying hell no!
> 
> Now, if they can use full auto as well as other modes to create stunning images then yes I would say that person could be called a photographer.
> 
> You gotta know the limitations of your equipment and be able to push yourself and be creative. That person Roo was talking about sounds like the opposite of that.



Sorry, but I can't resist posting this link about...how to be a *Professional Photographer*:

MWAC Attack-Episode 1: The Camera

I get tickled every time I watch this..or the ones that follow in her series....


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> chris_w_digits said:
> 
> 
> > They just assume that a bigger lens and better camera are going to take better pictures.
> ...



hahahahaha. well said!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I get tickled every time I watch this..


OMG!     ... I am shocked for 2 reasons:
1. Everything about that video
2. That you say "every time I watch this" ... how many times did you watch !t? more importatnly, why on God green earth are you watching it more than once? 
Lord forgive me, I have sinned by losing almost 4 minutes of my life that I can never get back!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 22, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> A thought crossed my mind. Maybe these folk asking about your camera aren't really all that interested, a bit like the weather, they are making small talk because its a polite thing to do. A few responses on the autistic spectrum here.



Ding! We have a winner!

When people try to start a conversation with a stranger, it is easier to focus the initial conversation on something that is not personal.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 22, 2013)

How to irritate a Photographer... YA BASTARDS!

Evidently I have been annoying "photographers" for many years. My annoying "photographers" does not bother me so much, it is just that I was annoying them unintentionally. 

I wonder how many of us annoy people with other interests with our vapid complementary conversation starters?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I get tickled every time I watch this..
> ...



You mean you watched it right through to the end ?! ???


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 22, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Sorry, but I can't resist posting this link about...how to be a *Professional Photographer*:
> 
> MWAC Attack-Episode 1: The Camera
> 
> I get tickled every time I watch this..or the ones that follow in her series....



She is fantastic! I had the same experience watching FOX NEWS for the first time, I couldn't work out if it was a very subtle satire or for real and there were idiots who really thought that way. When I got to episode 15 about GOD, I was in no doubt that like FOX NEWS, it was a clever satire.


----------



## Skatol (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...


How did you ever come across this????? Never mind, I don't want to know.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 22, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> How to irritate a Photographer... YA BASTARDS!
> 
> Evidently I have been annoying "photographers" for many years. My annoying "photographers" does not bother me so much, it is just that I was annoying them unintentionally.
> 
> I wonder how many of us annoy people with other interests with our vapid complementary conversation starters?



Don't know about his captures, but I'd never tire of slamming a hot iron into his face.


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> You mean you watched it right through to the end ?! ???



If you have not watched the second half, you missed most of the fun.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 22, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I can't resist posting this link about...how to be a *Professional Photographer*:
> ...



I dunno...Fox News isn't any worse than say, MSNBC.....

I tend to at times put both the remote and switch between the two of them on evenings I'm bored. I figure between those two extremes, I'll find a bit of truth there somewhere...


K


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 22, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Sorry, but I can't resist posting this link about...how to be a *Professional Photographer*:
> 
> 
> I get tickled every time I watch this..or the ones that follow in her series....




Oh boy. That's like fingernails on chalkboard. A) Because there are people (and not just females) who talk like this for real and B) Because it shows some of the recent gender bias that has started to develop in some industries. No, I don't think that the stereotypical guys who used to dominate certain industries were any "better" in that sense. But I've been watching a lot of the Creative Live features recently. You know the types I'm talking about. Some of those chicks have pretty good business sense I must say. And some are very good photographers, no doubt, while others I find deliver shockingly mediocre results.
But they all seem to get much better access these days to all sorts of situations where guys seem to have a harder and harder time based on the changed image of who and what is a photographer.

Don't get me wrong: I wish them all much success. Everyone is responsible for their own thing. Who cares how you get there.

I take it that most of us here are guys. Which seems to be rather typical these days. The famous pro guys are all tech guys. You know, those who tour the country to show some sweaty overweight guys named Chuck how to correctly use PocketWizards and their new camera. (Full disclosure: I watch a lot of those guys' videos, read the books and should really lose another 15lb...). Most guys known for their actual photography are mostly from a generation before that (yes, there are always exceptions). And then there is the new wave of female pros known for their California hipster style wedding photography (barf) or baby photographers to the celebrities (more barf) and so forth.

So to the original point: camera doesn't matter really (well it does, but not really). It's about the marketing. How can Chucky and his friends be comfortable out there and get paid appropriately these days? Other than as a sports photographer that is.


----------



## poias (Nov 22, 2013)

Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.

If you are a painter, you could argue that it is your talent and skill that contribute most to the product you are developing. After all, having good quality canvas or paint alone is not going to translate into good painting. But a good quality lens and a good quality camera will give a good quality photo UNLESS the operator sucks. Of course, great photographers can get great results with great cameras, but the skill and talent necessary for great photos is not as great as photographers would like to believe. No offense, but we are in this rumor site where we talk nothing but gear -- so, gear does matter quite a bit in photography.

So, when somebody compliments your gear, just smile and reply back, "Thank you, without this expensive gear, my photo would look shitty just like coming from your iphone." That is the truth.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > You mean you watched it right through to the end ?! ???
> ...



OK, so I watched the second half; there's just something about her presentation which makes me feel I could turn gay. 

She's not married to Ken Rockwell by any chance ?


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Brother and sister maybe? ;D

OK...curiosity finally made me cave and watch it. I thought it was humorous and obviously tongue-in-cheek. From now on, I'm using P mode so I can be a pro too. 8)


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 22, 2013)

I was undecided until 2.14.

Then I think I fell in love. Her song to the tune of jungle book gives me a huge crush.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...


Unfortunately, Yes! :-[ ... in my defense I did ask the Lord to forgive me


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> She's not married to Ken Rockwell by any chance ?


 ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> in nascar... we compliment the racers... not the car. Jimmy Johnson won the whatever cup.. not his car. this is s perfectly respectable beef.



In F1 you hear a lot of complements for both driver and car.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



Why not? It's better than most recent SNL skits!

(Don't be surprise if you see her on SNL next season. It seems pretty clear to me that it's a satirical sketch comedy piece.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

MWAC Attack-Episode 3: The Importance of Accessories in Professional Photography

haha she is awesome

MWACattack: Episode 6: Embrace The Shortcuts

"Education is great, but really, who has the time to learn? We live in a world filled with wonderful things called...Shortcuts!!!! I mean, you could learn about the other settings on your camera, or what all those tools in Photoshop do, but why?"

haha awesome, so much better than SNL has been in years

her videos need more views haha


now THIS is a funny and light-hearted way to react to things and how to go about it


----------



## sdsr (Nov 22, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....
> ...



What a good idea. After I've obliged and taken their photo with their cellphone, and when it's too late, I sometimes wonder whether I should have offered to use my camera instead and email them the results - but that might seem a tad creepy.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> But then again there plenty of rich fools who think they need a 1DX and 200-400 f/4L 1.4x to take pictures of their cat! I guess for some it's a status symbol. Porsche? Check! Butler? Check! Most expensive camera in the world? Check!



There was a wonderful geeky moment on an episode of VEEP (a very good HBO sitcom) in which the Vice President hires a professional photographer for some event. An annoying character who works in the White House sees his camera and asks him what it is. An exchange along these lines (but better than I'm describing it, of course) follows:

A: It's a 5D
Q: (With smug look of superiority) Ha. I have a 1D.
A: Oh yeah? Take a lot of sports/action shots do you?
Q, missing the point, continues the exchange briefly and ends up looking as much of an idiot as he usually does, only this time for a reason that only a rather small portion of the audience was likely to appreciate.


----------



## Menace (Nov 22, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> When some of my friends first saw the 70-200 II, they thought it had a much longer FL than it did because it was so large/heavy. I use the 70-200 II a lot when my girls are playing soccer, and I've had the usual comments from random strangers like "Wow, that is some lens!" And my default reply, "Yes, it is!" It surprises me that there aren't more parents with better cameras. After all, I see higher quality lenses/camera combinations at berry farms/apple orchards than I see at the kids' games.



Ditto. 

They are often surprised and disappointed that max my FL is only 200mm whilst their 'long' kit lens goes up to 300! (That'd be the 75-300 III on an EOS 1100)


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 22, 2013)

poias said:


> Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.
> 
> If you are a painter, you could argue that it is your talent and skill that contribute most to the product you are developing. After all, having good quality canvas or paint alone is not going to translate into good painting. But a good quality lens and a good quality camera will give a good quality photo UNLESS the operator sucks. Of course, great photographers can get great results with great cameras, but the skill and talent necessary for great photos is not as great as photographers would like to believe. No offense, but we are in this rumor site where we talk nothing but gear -- so, gear does matter quite a bit in photography.
> 
> So, when somebody compliments your gear, just smile and reply back, "Thank you, without this expensive gear, my photo would look shitty just like coming from your iphone." That is the truth.



dig rev tv does a bit where they give a pro photog a cheap camera and then let them do their thing despite the constraints. 

I agree that photography is an easier medium for artistry, but hitting the shutter button isn't the artistry itself and there in lies the distinction.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > in nascar... we compliment the racers... not the car. Jimmy Johnson won the whatever cup.. not his car. this is s perfectly respectable beef.
> ...



true, but in nascar they kinda makes the cars all even.... presumably the way our gear comes off the assembly line.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 22, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > But then again there plenty of rich fools who think they need a 1DX and 200-400 f/4L 1.4x to take pictures of their cat! I guess for some it's a status symbol. Porsche? Check! Butler? Check! Most expensive camera in the world? Check!
> ...



This

http://youtu.be/n5aAYpwB5zc


----------



## RomainF (Nov 22, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> This
> 
> http://youtu.be/n5aAYpwB5zc



This just became my new favorite video ever.
Could anyone just transcribe this part, i can't get it....?
"You shoot a lot of sports ? Moving action ? You take hundreds of pictured "[what ?] [cats & fish ?]" ... ? Cause otherwise you don't need a 1D". 
Thanks...I hardly try to improve my accent...


On the other hand, if i remember well, i think i've read that all these videos from "MWACattack" are some kind of fakes. She's actually a real pro-photog, probably a good one, and she makes some money out of all the views she gets from annoyed-photographers !


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 23, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > But shooting on full auto and refusing to learn any other modes AND calling yourself a photographer is what I was referring to. The post was a reply to the "do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers?". Just my way of saying hell no!
> ...



Okay, this is the first time I've watched this video.....................................................

I understand now that I had it all wrong, I need to move my dial from "M" for moron, to "P" for professional. 

I had many opportunities before to watch this, but I passed on it based upon what you fine folks commented. How could I have been so short sighted. :

Actually, her bubbliness kind of creeped me out.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 23, 2013)

RomainF said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > This
> ...



"herons catching fish." (Many thanks to paul13walnut5 for finding it!)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 23, 2013)

wsmith96 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



wow people here are wayyyyyy too serious

she is doing sketch comedy

comedy

as in not real

as in think SNL

as in think satire

the funny thing is that in the end she's ended up switching over more to sending up all the overly serious, easily insulted photographers more than those who think being a photo pro is a push of a button as she had been at first


----------



## sanj (Nov 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > You mean you watched it right through to the end ?! ???
> ...



I had watched just the start but based on your post watched it through. Thank you. She is incredible. I suspect her dinner will be putting a packet in the micro.


----------



## RomainF (Nov 23, 2013)

sdsr said:


> "herons catching fish." (Many thanks to paul13walnut5 for finding it!)



Thanks !


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

Jonah: What are you shooting with?
Photographer: This is a 5D
Jonah: Not a 1D?
Photographer: No. Why would I need a 1D to shoot this?
Jonah:I have a 1D..
Photographer: Cool
Jonah: ...it's really expensive, but it's a really nice camera, THATS NOT A KNIFE

Lol.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 23, 2013)

wsmith96 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



 She's horrible!!!

Wait - I now know what I need to do to become 'professional': Get rid of all those complicated big camera's and only use my IXUS 132 from now on, because it comes with P for 'Professional' 

In any case here's a topic I launched on the little budget camera I'm talking about: "IXUS Fun" 'It' takes great pictures! Lol ;D


----------



## Pixel_crab (Nov 24, 2013)

A recurrent phrase I hear from people holding my camera when a prime lens is mounted is the habitual:
"Where is the zoom?"

I won't talk about people saying that anybody would take great pictures with my DSLR as it annoys me more than anything else.


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Jonah: What are you shooting with?
> Photographer: This is a 5D
> Jonah: Not a 1D?
> Photographer: No. Why would I need a 1D to shoot this?
> ...




Ah, Veep. May it grace our screens again soon...


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 24, 2013)

Pixel_crab said:


> A recurrent phrase I hear from people holding my camera when a prime lens is mounted is the habitual:
> "Where is the zoom?"
> 
> I won't talk about people saying that anybody would take great pictures with my DSLR as it annoys me more than anything else.



wow, y'all deal with some rude people. most people acknowledge me and not my gear performance.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jonah: What are you shooting with?
> ...



Yup. Enjoyed the second series far more than the first. I hadn't long finished watching west wing (I know I know) and found it an uneasy adjustment.

In the UK Armando Iannucci directed / produced a series called 'The Thick of it' about spin doctors in the UK, which was far more viceral, maybe a reflection of the way politics are done this side. I initially found Veep the poor cousin, but suspect a revisit with fresh eyes may help.

Iannucci is just a genius, his own eponymous show aired late night on a minority UK channel years back and contained some of the very very funnniest TV ever. Partridge has grown on me, but attracts similar zealous fervor.

I am a fanboy. Dating back to the radio series 'On the hour'.


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 24, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> As a seventeen year old with a 5D mkii, my biggest pet peeve is that everyone always says, "oh your parents bought you a nice camera" and things like that. No, I payed for it, I actually sell prints, shoot weddings, do ad work and photograph for local magazines. I have literally over a million hits on several of my photos and have been featured on petapixel.



oh your parents must be nice to let you use the internet


----------



## TeenTog (Nov 24, 2013)

Despite the fact it pisses me off when comments such as "your camera takes nice photos" and such are made, I try to keep in mind that they are genuinely trying to complement you/me, and by lashing out and correcting them on something they obviously have no expertise in, you're only making enemies, and reinforcing the stereotype of snobby, rich, tech-headed photographers. I just simply smile, nod, thank them, and if they have questions, answer them in the most respectful way possible


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> As a seventeen year old with a 5D mkii, my biggest pet peeve is that everyone always says, "oh your parents bought you a nice camera" and things like that. No, I payed for it, I actually sell prints, shoot weddings, do ad work and photograph for local magazines. I have literally over a million hits on several of my photos and have been featured on petapixel.



If you have a self-funded 5D2 at 17 there's probably very little advice I can offer about photography.

At 17 everybody else is more self conscious about their own paranoia. Be yourself. Short of murder or rape you are allowed a few mistakes. Take risks man. It could be brilliant.


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 24, 2013)

poias said:


> Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.
> 
> If you are a painter, you could argue that it is your talent and skill that contribute most to the product you are developing. After all, having good quality canvas or paint alone is not going to translate into good painting. But a good quality lens and a good quality camera will give a good quality photo UNLESS the operator sucks. Of course, great photographers can get great results with great cameras, but the skill and talent necessary for great photos is not as great as photographers would like to believe. No offense, but we are in this rumor site where we talk nothing but gear -- so, gear does matter quite a bit in photography.
> 
> So, when somebody compliments your gear, just smile and reply back, "Thank you, without this expensive gear, my photo would look shitty just like coming from your iphone." That is the truth.



I'm sorry, but I could not agree less with your view. Sure, we mostly talk gear in this forum, because it's a gear oriented site and we are part gear nerds and part into painting with light (to avoid the loaded term "photographer").

However, there is no way that average joe would take a good picture with a great camera/lens combo. If he could, then photography studios would not have a photographer in them, they would rent the equipment to you for 15 minutes to do your family shot/portrait/boudoir/whatever by yourself.

Now, if you call great picture a standard shot of a gorgeous mountain range, or a Caribbean beach that is in focus and sharp through the corners ... then we have a different definition of great picture. 

When talking about people photography, if I had to choose between background, lights and camera, I would choose the camera third.
Consider which of the following two has a better chance of looking good:
A) An outdoors shot of a model (or any good looking person) using unmodified natural light in the middle of the day, in front of a cluttered background done with a 1D+85/1.2 (or other camera/lens combo of your choice).
B) A shot of the same person at dawn/dusk (or at least very late in the evening) using reflectors/diffusers against a carefully selected background done with a $300 point and shoot.

I'd bet money that (B) will be a better picture any day, unless (A) is done by a very talented photographer who uses the unconventional setup to "break the rules" and achieve a different look, but of course that would only strengthen the point that it's the operator and not the gear.
And if you think that (A) was too contrived look at the light and the choice of background in the pictures your uncle/nephew/colleague who doesn't understand photography takes.

The operator takes the picture, hands down. The expensive gear only makes your life easier, allows for more opportunities and enables you to utilize your potential more. It won't improve your pictures if you are clueless.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 24, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.
> ...



I think you're missing the main point I believe poias is making. I believe the point is that photography is a combination of three things (a) technical skill; (b) equipment that's up to the job; (c) good aesthetic judgement.

Many photographers think that (a) is hard to develop. With good teaching, and a willing (not necessarily talented) student, "average Joe" can develop decent technical skill pretty fast. I have seen it happen several times.

As we all agree, (b) is pretty easy to buy if you have the money.

(c) is a major point of contention, and I think it's the main issue poias is addressing. Many photographers have the absurd notion that photographic "talent" is some innate spiritual attribute. That doesn't account for folks who don't start paying attention to art until after retirement, or following a traumatic event. You can always engage in confirmation bias and postdiction to proclaim that so-and-so was "destined" to be an artist, but that's a steaming pile of freshly produced organic fertilizer. While we know that some people have specific deficits that make it harder to do visual arts (acuity, poor depth perception or color vision), there has been, to date, no test to show which 3-year olds have artistic "talent" and which do not.

Photographic ability, like other "talents," is some inscrutable combination of heredity and development. It is entirely possible that "Uncle Joe," who takes crappy pictures, will one day metaphorically wake-up and start learning to be a better photographer. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen. You don't know who doesn't have talent until they acquire the interest, and put in the effort to learn. And one more thing: at any given level of skill, from incompetent to genius, "better" equipment helps. (by "better" I mean more suited to your desired end-result)


----------



## surapon (Nov 24, 2013)

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not Me and Not My Camera.
Surapon

PS, Dear Friends, If you know who took these pictures and what kind of camera, Please let us know---THANKSSSSSS.

May be This One ?? : http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx


----------



## surapon (Nov 24, 2013)

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not My Camera.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Nov 24, 2013)

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not My Camera.
Surapon


----------



## ME (Nov 24, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...


I agree with you on your three points, for the most part. Skills are a definite asset, and can be developed by educating yourself and practicing a lot. I believe the old adage: practice makes perfect. As far as equipment is concerned, it can depend on what your objective is and what type of equipment is needed to achieve your goals. Shooting sports often requires expensive fast telephoto lenses and fast fps cameras. You only get one chance to capture that moment. And even if you are a skilled pro, if you miss too many shots because of inadequate gear, your income could be seriously reduced. I used sports shooting as one of the more obvious examples for possibly needing better equipment, and better equipment often correlates to expensive equipment. But just having expensive gear will not make you a talented photographer. As for talent, it is obvious some are born with it. Mozart is an extreme example of talent (genius) at a young age. Did he have to have the best musical equipment? Probably not, but it probably sounded better and made it easier for him to play and compose new music. How much time did he need to practice to improve his skills? Who knows, but i would guess not as much as most. As far as creating music as opposed to playing it, who knows where creativity or talent comes from? I have my ideas on this, but this is not the forum to discuss that subject matter, plus i dont have time and dont feel like. I think most of us believe that some people have more talent (something I believe is not related to education or practice) than others, and some discover it at various times of their lives. At least that is what I have observed. As far as photography vs painting, having done both, I am inclined to say that many more people can take an "ok" photograph than can paint an "ok" painting. And that is mainly because technology makes it easier. (I am not going to get started on a debate of what constitutes a "good" photograph or painting , but I think there is often a general consensus at any particular time in history, or of what the majority of people like at a given time-is it all relative? And we each have our personal likes/dislikes that may or may not agree with the masses, and may change with time). However, if someone is going to take a particular type of photograph within a specific time frame and/or circumstances, I believe someone with skills and a certain amount of talent will be much more likely to get the desired results more consistently, which is usually a requirement of professionals. And having the right equipment for the occassion can definitely make a difference. Everybody is bound to have a little luck once in a while. And there are exceptionally gifted people, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. As far as people making ignorant remarks about your gear, I guess MOST of the time I believe people are just trying to be nice and make coversation, and may be curious about your gear for whatever reason ( hopefully no plans to steal it). And even though it is an ignorant remark, ideally, I believe patience and courtesy/politeness is a good response. On a bad day/bad mood, a response might be to roll my eyes and say: "Yes, in the right hands this camera CAN take very good photos."


----------



## ME (Nov 24, 2013)

surapon said:


> Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
> Sorry , Not My Camera.
> Surapon




I am fairly certain that I didnt take those photos. I would probably remember. There is a movie out with images similar to some of these. They make it look realistic. Did we really land on the moon? ??? ;D The important thing about those images is how good is the DR. Were they taken with a Canon or Nikon? Whatever it is, it does take great photos. I wonder if a ND or polarizer was used.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 25, 2013)

surapon said:


> Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
> Sorry , Not Me and Not My Camera.
> Surapon
> 
> ...


It seems to me that the photos of astronaut were taken with the medium format film, not digital. However, I am intrigued by the shadows are not much dark, after all there is no atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Being the space is black, and not blue (above the atmosphere) which is reflecting light so that the shadows are not extremely black? I can not imagine a silver reflector or softbox being used to artistically pleasing results ...


----------



## ME (Nov 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
> ...



I was just making silly jokes about the old (now almost dead) debates about nikon vs canon d.r. and the controversy over whether the USA actually landed on the moon or made a movie on Earth ground. (I personally believe it was an actual moon landing). But you do bring up some interesting points. Since much of the spacecraft is white, or very reflective, the not-so-dark shadows could be because of all the reflected light. And some of it could be reflected from the earth, depending on it's position relative to the sun & space craft. Is the moon close by? And what about that UFO close by! There I go again making silly humor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 25, 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niyTIbiV19A&list=FLCruY9gFYNfjroKEHOWQQLg&index=70


----------



## surapon (Nov 25, 2013)

Sorry, My Love Canon, But Nikon D2Xs went to space before you-------
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space

Surapon


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 25, 2013)

surapon said:


> Sorry, My Love Canon, But Nikon D2Xs went to space before you-------
> http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space
> 
> Surapon


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dick (Nov 25, 2013)

ME said:


> Did *we* really land on the moon? ??? ;D



*We* did not. Someone maybe did, but it's all about trust, I guess, when it comes to that. One has to bear in mind that the cold war times were times of fooling the other... or were they?

This is something that really pisses me off though. Sports teams are playing against each other and some spectator or even a narrator says that "we now need to" or "if we win this" or something similar. One has to play to be considered being in the team! The common options for a Lakers fan are 1) we won 2) the Lakers lost.

I have heard of people who have won Olympic medals by watching the TV at home. I've never heard of someone who finished last by watching the TV. So when someone else does something great, it's cool to take it away from him/her? When someone on the other hand fails, it's on him/her?

I guess this is the world we live in. Governments are there to take a part of your earnings and operating profit, but when your business goes bankrupt, they will not pay their shares. As long as you are making a profit, they are proud to be a part of it all.

Sorry I went so far off topic. Now back to the topic -->

_*I take great pics with my camera!
When my photos are not that great, it's because of the poor dynamic range.*_

^This is the lame stuff I see here on the forum. Even in this thread people act like everything that they create, is a result of their untouchable skills. When the outcome sucks, the equipment is bad.


----------



## Roo (Nov 25, 2013)

ME said:


> Did we really land on the moon? ??? ;D



Ahh yes America where a lot of people believe wrestling is real and the moon landing faked : lol


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 25, 2013)

Roo said:


> Ahh yes America where a lot of people believe wrestling is real and the moon landing faked : lol


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 25, 2013)

Dick said:


> ME said:
> 
> 
> > Did *we* really land on the moon? ??? ;D
> ...



wow I think you read wayyyy too much into things


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 25, 2013)

Dick said:


> Sorry I went so far off topic.


You sure? I thought you were very reasonable ;D


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 25, 2013)

Hi Dick.
Wow! Bad day? Too many coffees? 
I think it would be more than fair at least for any American tax payer during the moon landing years to say" We went to he moon!" ;D
Or is that we the human race went to the moon, as opposed to apes or dogs who have only orbited in space? :
Could just be the Royal "we" as in we are not amused! ;D

Ps could this be the same we that are likely to loose against Australia because the pressure of winning the ashes has sent one of our players home with a "stress related illness"? :
I mean watching grass grow how stressful?

Cheers Graham.



Dick said:


> ME said:
> 
> 
> > Did *we* really land on the moon? ??? ;D
> ...


----------



## Roo (Nov 25, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> Ps could this be the same we that are likely to loose against Australia because the pressure of winning the ashes has sent one of_* our*_ players home with a "stress related illness"? :
> I mean watching grass grow how stressful?



I thought he was just another South African again once he failed and left the team ;D

Anyway back on topic....
The other week at work someone asked me to take a photo of their team because I'm into photography. I was handed an iPad2 to take the shot with in a office environment. The results weren't pretty.


----------



## Menace (Nov 25, 2013)

Roo said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Ps could this be the same we that are likely to loose against Australia because the pressure of winning the ashes has sent one of_* our*_ players home with a "stress related illness"? :
> ...



Do share that iPad 2 photo with us


----------



## Zv (Nov 25, 2013)

Menace said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Valvebounce said:
> ...



I hope they at least had Snapseed on it so you could fix it up!

Actually, once someone asked me to take a pic with their iPhone. I took a few shots handed it back but then I asked for it back, deleted the crap ones and kept the best one. I didn't want them to put a crappy pic that I took on facebook!


----------



## iam2nd (Nov 25, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> ...
> Could just be the Royal "we" as in we are not amused! ;D
> ...



Couldn't help but remember that Doctor Who episode where Rose tried to get Queen Victoria to say "We are not amused"  IIRC, she said "I am not amused"?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 25, 2013)

TeenTog said:


> Despite the fact it pisses me off when comments such as "your camera takes nice photos" and such are made, I try to keep in mind that they are genuinely trying to complement you/me, and by lashing out and correcting them on something they obviously have no expertise in, you're only making enemies, and reinforcing the stereotype of snobby, rich, tech-headed photographers. I just simply smile, nod, thank them, and if they have questions, answer them in the most respectful way possible



Good for you. That's the mature way of handling it.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 26, 2013)

Roo said:


> ME said:
> 
> 
> > Did we really land on the moon? ??? ;D
> ...



I wrastle with my wife, but she wins by playing dead.


----------



## surapon (Nov 26, 2013)

Wow, Wow, Wow, To all of my Dear Friends and Teachers.
Thanks for post so many FUN,super smart answers and the smart Answer s of Answers for all of us to Read and Thinks----That will make us Thinks in the very difference Ways/ Difference Ideas which will make us smarter in the long run.
Wow, All of Members in This Great CR web site must be super smart/ Intelligent people , who I want to learn with.
Thanks you so much to accept me as your friends and your student.
Surapon Sujjavanich AIA., NCARB.


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 26, 2013)

Who said that all we care about is gear:
http://500px.com/photo/53149670?from=popular


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> Who said that all we care about is gear:
> http://500px.com/photo/53149670?from=popular


Yeah! now we're talking about what really matters ... the *Real Things!* 8)


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 26, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > Who said that all we care about is gear:
> ...



Too bad each "items" is not the best in its category... 

Canon/Pear shaped C/Laphroaig


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > anthonyd said:
> ...


So, basically what you're saying is that, you have some concerns regarding DR ;D


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 26, 2013)

Just this week, with family in town, I took some shots of a moving 9 month old indoors with bad lighting and that lighting was behind him. Between the motion and the backlighting, they did not come out too well (by my standards).

The boy's dad's response was, "how close did you zoom in?"

Guess the 5diii and 70-200 ii were at fault, cause it could not have been me!

;D


----------



## ME (Nov 27, 2013)

Dick said:


> ME said:
> 
> 
> > Did *we* really land on the moon? ??? ;D
> ...




Just now getting back to this thread. I didnt realize I had created such a stir. It was meant to be lighthearted. Are you one of "those" conspiracy theorists? Sometimes they turn out to be true. I do realize that there was serious competition between the USA and the Soviet Union during that period of time, and it would not surprise me if the moon landing was faked. But we, I mean I lean more towards it being a real moon landing. Who has proven it one way or the other? Besides, how do you know that I am not an astronaut who was on that flight and I (we) did land on the moon? I am ;D Just kidding Pro wrestling is faked to a certain extent (I believe). But I would not say it to a wrestler's face. Does anyone remember the incident with John Stossel and the wrestler he was interviewing? Also, remember Andy Kaufman? I just read one rumor that he is still alive and faked his death. And We? Just a commonly used expression, for fans of sports, citizens of countries, etc. Fandom can have a positive effect on athletic teams. I suggest you not take everything so literally, or as Valvebounce suggested maybe you were having a bad day. Anyway, we (I might have a multiple personality disorder, or is that a faked condition? ), I, ME didnt mean to raise you blood pressure. It was all meant to be taken as lighthearted humor, but maybe I failed in getting that across.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 27, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> Just this week, with family in town, I took some shots of a moving 9 month old indoors with bad lighting and that lighting was behind him. Between the motion and the backlighting, they did not come out too well (by my standards).
> 
> The boy's dad's response was, "how close did you zoom in?"
> 
> ...



+1 on your sense of humor! It's a shame you didn't try a faster prime...or a 6D, haha!


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 27, 2013)

ME said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > ME said:
> ...



Conspiracy theories about a faked moon landing? Where does this come from? Is it because you just can't bring yourself to admit something like that happened while Nixon was president? (Assuming you realize it was during his first term...) This is almost as bad as 9/11 "truthing", but not quite! My uncle worked on the Apollo program. To deny the moon landing, is about as lame as denying WW2 happened, or at the very least, the holocaust. Just because someone was not alive for a big moment in history, does not mean it never happened, or that you should question whether it happened. In my opinion, too much emphasis is put on the competition between the Soviet Union and the USA, to land on the moon. The Soviets only cared about world domination, not Moon domination. They lost on both counts, because they believed an authoritarian government that fooled the useful idiots into putting them in power, would somehow equalize everybody's life outcome. The problem was, the outcome only got worse than the days of the Czars, not better. Hopefully America is learning our lesson about such absurd pipedreams now, before it's too late...

One thing we definitely don't have to worry about anytime soon, is NASA putting more men in space. They have to pay the former Soviets to do it (unless you think that's faked too). The only way Americans will be launched into space over the next 20 years or more, is by the private efforts and thick wallet of Richard Branson. It's a very brief trip, though, not even close to any sort of orbit.


----------



## Dick (Nov 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> To deny the moon landing, is about as lame as denying WW2 happened



That was not really my point in the first place, but let's discuss that then. I'd claim that people too easily accept things as facts. People base their views on stories told by others. Many made up things have been considered as the truth, like the world being flat. I think it's kinda sick to blindly believe in everything just like that. The moon landing might be real, but how do you really know? Assuming and believing is not the same as knowing. Why do you need to have a definite opinion when it comes to the moon landing? 

It's not lame to just say that you don't really know, since that is actually how it is for most people. Claiming the moon landing really happened is just as lame as claiming it didn't. Accepting the fact that you don't know, is the only sensible option in my opinion. That is the only objective way to view the whole thing.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 27, 2013)

Dick said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > To deny the moon landing, is about as lame as denying WW2 happened
> ...



Sorry that I missed your initial point, easy to lose track when there are multiple quotes. You have a good argument, however, what's funny about the world-is-flat belief, is that all sailors knew it was false, since the times of the Vikings, and even before...at least according to the History channel!  Pretty easy to see why...because if they didn't know how to navigate, they would have been lost at sea...and nobody would have ever sailed anywhere out of site of a shoreline. 

Why do I need to have a definite opinion when it comes to the moon landing? Well, um, because it's a significant accomplishment of mankind...a milestone...and America did it. Why do you need to doubt it? Name me one good reason why you doubt it? Is it because you think your generation is the most important one, because you were raised to believe this ever since you were a child...and therefore only your generation could have accomplished such a thing? 

One of the reasons my uncle seems to have been so enthusiastic about working on the program, was because of JFK's declaration. Given his politics, I can only imagine how peeved he was that it didn't happen until it did. He certainly loves how things are going now, and doesn't mind at all that NASA's been castrated. In his mind, even the Space Shuttle was not important. To him, we did enough when we went to the moon, because that's what the lord JFK told us to do. Once that was done, he was done with NASA.

There is amazing history to the Apollo program, so stop watching youtube conspiracy channels, and start learning the real history! For instance, you wouldn't believe how primitive the computer RAM was in the Command and Lunar Modules...google it. My uncle had to laugh as he recalled it. _And that's the very program he worked on!_

There's a difference between looking at evidence, and then deciding to believe something...and just blindly believing something because somebody told me. (That's what conspiracy youtube channels are for.) 

I was a toddler when Apollo 13 happened, and I recall seeing it on live TV...and then my mother pointing out the window at the moon and telling me they were headed there. This isn't much evidence that it wasn't faked. However, I'll throw one of the arguments people who believe there was no conspiracy to assassinate JFK, out to you. *"If there was a conspiracy and a coverup, why haven't the guilty parties been discovered by now?"*

I suppose in an age when some people might have a hard time knowing what is real and what is not, that I shouldn't be as surprised as I am, when silly conspiracies that also attempt to make America look bad and illegitimate, are all the rage...the "cool" things to believe in. I mean, nothing is cooler, more realistic, or more satisfying than teenage-vampire-werewolf love triangles, or teenagers shooting bow-arrows at those bad old people in wigs on gameshows, is there? 

Next you're going to tell me that vampires are real, right? You do know who Vlad the Impaler was, right? Apparently nobody who believes in vampires has ever heard of him, because he is where it all started...and he was scary, but no vampire! 

_"It's not lame to just say that you don't really know, since that is actually how it is for most people. Claiming the moon landing really happened is just as lame as claiming it didn't. Accepting the fact that you don't know, is the only sensible option in my opinion. That is the only objective way to view the whole thing."_

No, the only sensible way to view the whole thing, is to look at the evidence. Then, you have to believe there is reasonable doubt that it actually happened, in order to really say something like "I don't know if it happened or not". Frankly sir, you have an agenda here, and I don't like it. There is no reasonable doubt, given the historical evidence. 

Being ignorant of the evidence is no excuse to believe a lame conspiracy, and the lunar landing conspiracy is a lame one that lazy people believe. Get informed. 

Did aliens place the mirrors on the Moon which have allowed astronomers to measure the distance to within millimeters accuracy with lasers? Or did NASA astronauts? Which is the more plausible possibility? Somebody put them up there. I doubt the aliens would have wanted to help out our scientists very much...Or did they? Nah...


----------



## Ken B (Nov 27, 2013)

Getting back on to the subject 
I take great photos with My I phone, I also have taken some bad ones. Many bad ones have been the fault of my Equipment as well as the operator. Lets be honest, not every image we shoot comes out perfect. We all are guilty of bad pictures and we only show the world the good stuff 

I believe that when people blindly blurt out, "Your camera takes great pictures" they assume you are the one in control but believe that your equipment helps take better pictures. If I could get the same quality pictures from my Iphone as I can from my 5D3 then I wasted allot of money on my 5D3. 

The key is use what you have and with lesser equipment you will have a good chance of a producing a great photo. With great equipment you have a better chance of getting the great photo. This is due to your better equipment's features and ability to use it. Therefore Good Cameras do take better pictures.


----------



## Dick (Nov 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Did aliens place the mirrors on the Moon which have allowed astronomers to measure the distance to within millimeters accuracy with lasers? Or did NASA astronauts? Which is the more plausible possibility? Somebody put them up there. I doubt the aliens would have wanted to help out our scientists very much...Or did they? Nah...



I guess we come back to the same question. *How do you know* that there are mirrors? I suppose one can surely spot the mirrors in some way if they are there, but have you spotted them yourself? I have no personal experiences that would make me 100% sure that those mirrors exist. I don't know if they do.

Who is responsible for 9/11? I don't know. 
Do Asian men really have tiny dicks? I don't know and I don't really even care.
Does my wife enjoy living with me? I don't know, but I hope she does.
Are my kids really mine? I believe they are, but I don't really know.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 27, 2013)

Actually, all of you are wrong.

The Planet Earth is accurately described as an "oblate spheroid" and is neither round nor flat.


----------



## Pi (Nov 27, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> Actually, all of you are wrong.
> 
> The Planet Earth is accurately described as an "oblate spheroid" and is neither round nor flat.



In common use, "round" is an alternative to "flat". Then it is either round of flat, by definition.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 28, 2013)

Pi said:


> JPAZ said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, all of you are wrong.
> ...



A circle is round, a ball is spherical.


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 28, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > JPAZ said:
> ...



I wonder what it is in 11 dimensions?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2013)

Pi said:


> Hmm..., how do you really know that the Earth is round? Have you checked it yourself, or you just believe what you have been told? It is kinda sick that you would believe it like just like that. Your personal experience certainly supports the flat Earth theory.



I have checked..... You can measure the curvature of the earth with a telescope and an item of known height over a lake....


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 28, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



I thought we were up to 16 dimensions?


----------



## surapon (Nov 28, 2013)

Dear Sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Ha, Ha, Ha-----Just another point of views-----Ha, Ha, Ha, No comment from me.
Have FUN, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I have checked..... You can measure the curvature of the earth with a telescope and an item of known height over a lake....



But I thought that only works if the telescope is a Nikon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2013)

How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.


----------



## Menace (Nov 28, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



I thought it was 11 dimensions too - 4 'normal everyday' spacetime and rest curled up and invisible to us


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 28, 2013)

Menace said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > serendipidy said:
> ...



Yes, that is one of the later models based on string theory and Brane theory of the universe.
From Wikipedia:
One such theory is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions, as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time. The original string theories from the 1980s describe special cases of M-theory where the eleventh dimension is a very small circle or a line, and if these formulations are considered as fundamental, then string theory requires ten dimensions. But the theory also describes universes like ours, with four observable spacetime dimensions, as well as universes with up to 10 flat space dimensions, and also cases where the position in some of the dimensions is described by a complex number rather than a real number. The notion of spacetime dimension is not fixed in string theory: it is best thought of as different in different circumstances.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

Ken B said:


> Getting back on to the subject
> I take great photos with My I phone, I also have taken some bad ones. Many bad ones have been the fault of my Equipment as well as the operator. Lets be honest, not every image we shoot comes out perfect. We all are guilty of bad pictures and we only show the world the good stuff
> 
> I believe that when people blindly blurt out, "Your camera takes great pictures" they assume you are the one in control but believe that your equipment helps take better pictures. If I could get the same quality pictures from my Iphone as I can from my 5D3 then I wasted allot of money on my 5D3.
> ...



Good points from a basic approach, but we're supposed to list our pet peeves...if you want to get literal about the subject of the thread


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

Dick said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Did aliens place the mirrors on the Moon which have allowed astronomers to measure the distance to within millimeters accuracy with lasers? Or did NASA astronauts? Which is the more plausible possibility? Somebody put them up there. I doubt the aliens would have wanted to help out our scientists very much...Or did they? Nah...
> ...



So, let me get this straight. Unless you experience something personally, then you doubt it exists. That leaves a lot of the world, and its people, for you to doubt their existence. I'm sorry that you're not sure your kids are really yours, but there are DNA tests for that. Of course, since you're not a scientist, that would mean you could not "experience" the actual testing procedure for yourself...so you are right...there's a lot you will never know. However, there's a lot I DO know...because I pay attention, I learn, I stay informed, I don't insert my head in the sand. I don't need to be omnipresent and omnipotent to know that you are on the other end of this computer screen, typing back at me. The fact that you don't know if I exist or not, because you are not in the same room with me, is very humorous to me!!


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.



That photo could be faked, I need to dig it out with a shovel before I'll believe you have a brain!


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> Actually, all of you are wrong.
> 
> The Planet Earth is accurately described as an "oblate spheroid" and is neither round nor flat.



Thank you for pointing this out. Now if we only had a time machine we could travel back to the Vikings and tell them the world is really almost a sphere, rather than an actual sphere. I'm sure they would be very surprised and delighted...before they decided to kill you and rob you of all your gold!


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 28, 2013)

Hi Neuro.
Thanks for the laugh.
My misses looked in my ear because she thought I just had a brainless moment, she couldn't see straight through,  does that count as proof? ;D
Damn, just had a thought, it might just have been my ear drums stopped the light! :-\ Ooh Ooh please sir does having a thought count as proof? ;D ;D

Cheers Graham.




neuroanatomist said:


> How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ..and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.



Nice Corpus Callosum!


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Nov 28, 2013)

Senior year of high school, I had a field project for environmental science where you'd get extra credit if you took photos of where you were doing your project on. I included pictures of birds in flight that I took there and when I gave it to my teacher, he asked, "Did you take these photos?" I replied, "Yes" as girl one exclaimed, "Whoa you took those photos? I thought you got them off the internet!!" 

And then last year when I was shooting an outdoor sports tournament with my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II mounted on my Rebel XSi, one girl who also was shooting with a Rebel but with a ef-s70-300mm sharply told me, "You don't need that big of a lens to shoot" Which is funny because her lens is longer than mine. I needed the 2.8 when it got dark though.


----------



## ME (Nov 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.




How do we know that is an image of YOUR brain? How do we know that you are who your say you are? For all we know you are a Nikon spy sent to gather information on what is happening in the Canon Rumor world! And if I go to your house, will I see pelican cases filled with Nikon gear, not Canon gear. Did you fake those photos also? You heard it here first: Neuro is an extremely crafty spy who actually works for Nikon  Hard to believe, isnt it? Of course, this is only a rumor. I dont have any facts to support this theory ;D. I have to leave now. I believe there is some delicious food waiting for me.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2013)

Solipsists are the biggest peeves - but to themselves only.


----------



## ME (Nov 28, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Solipsists are the biggest peeves - but to themselves only.



And people who like to use words that require me to go to Wikipedia to find out what they mean .


----------



## ME (Nov 29, 2013)

At least I feel relatively safe expressing my opinions on an internet forum (excepting the NSA): WRESTLING IS FAKE (watch before commenting)


----------



## gbchriste (Nov 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, we might take this as an opportunity to start weeding out some of the fauxtographers that are flooding the streets. How about a reply along the lines of, "Yes I do. I have $XXXXXXXX invested in my gear and anyone else wanting to take comparable photos to mine will need to spend as much."
> ...



Oh come one man, where's your sense of humor? That was meant as a bit of tongue in cheek. First of all, I have no competition. I only shoot for myself, family, and friends, and am lucky enough to have engaged with some fabulous mentors who constantly challenge me through direct and honest criticism of my work. I don't need to compare myself to anyone but myself.

As a matter of fact, I teach an adult education photography class several times a year in my community. I get nothing more than a small token payment for the effort. I do it because I enjoy passing on knowledge and experience to other people who really want to improve their skills. So if I was paranoid about any potential competition I wouldn't be basically giving it away.

But my main area of interest is portraiture. I don't know about the rest of the genre but the undeniable fact is that in the portrait arena, the streets are indeed flooded with mother-with-camera photographer wannabes who think they are the bees knees but couldn't produce a well composed, well lit shot if their life depended on it. But they think because they put that fancy DSLR in to one of the auto modes that they really didn't understand, and shot what was really a mediocre picture of their kid but one that all their Facebook friends "oohed" and "aahed" over, that that qualifies them to start passing out business cards. They go around selling cheap sessions for $100 with a CD of 100 images, depressing the market for the highly qualified artists who really do deserve the title. The real pro that has invested several tens of thousands of dollars in gear and many years of toil perfecting their craft are constantly defending their prices because a day doesn't go buy that they don't have to justify that higher price when "Magic Butterflies and Rainbows" baby photographer down the street, who just got a Rebel for her birthday, will shoot a newborn session for $50. And "Magic Butterflies and Rainbows" also hasn't paid any business license fees, isn't declaring her income and paying income and self-employment tax on it, isn't carrying equipment or liability insurance, isn't taking the usual precautions that a real pro would in having backup gear in case something breaks during the shoot, etc etc etc. So not only is "Magic Butterflies and Rainbows" basically giving it away, she is undercutting the working pros by not carrying any of the overhead expense that a real pro and legitimate business would.

Now, I know a lot of fabulous portrait shooters who started just like that. But at some point, they woke up to the fact that they had only taken one step on a journey of several thousand. So they buckled down and educated themselves, learned to use the gear they had to maximum effect, studied lighting, composition, perfected their editing skills, etc and in the end could turn out a really high end product. And I admire the work and the journey they've undertaken. Many of them are my friends.

My problem is not with them. It's with the other 95% of them that continue to market themselves as portrait photographers while simultaneously turning out garbage at garbage prices. 

Every top notch portrait shooter I know who use to be able to earn a decent living in the business sees, experiences and suffers from this phenomenon every single day.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.


I agree "how do we know anything" ... but how do we know its your brain?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.
> ...



That's a no-brainer. He knows for sure but you don't.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do we 'know' anything? Most of you _assume_ you have a brain in your head...but have you actually checked? Where's your proof? Speaking for myself, I've checked...and put the evidence out there for everyone to see, right to the left of my words.


I checked too....


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 30, 2013)

My pet peeve is when people think they need the absolute best gear they can afford in order to take good pictures. I have a friend that bought a 10d when they first came out and bragged ad nauseum about the vast superiority of his new camera that used vastly superior Compact Flash to my point and shoot. He has only used the kit lens and never bough a flash. I bet he has not taken 100 images with it. I got far greater use out of my P&S. I would have loved to bought a camera like that at the time but I was just a poor college student. 

Personally given the number of artists in my family if one of them said my camera took good images from them it would be a comment about image quality and not composition. They stopped using DSLRs because point and shoot cameras in there pocket were capable of good enough image quality for their needs.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


How do you know about another man's brain? ... highly suspicious behavior I say.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> My pet peeve is when people think they need the absolute best gear they can afford in order to take good pictures. I have a friend that bought a 10d when they first came out and bragged ad nauseum about the vast superiority of his new camera that used vastly superior Compact Flash to my point and shoot. He has only used the kit lens and never bough a flash. I bet he has not taken 100 images with it. I got far greater use out of my P&S. I would have loved to bought a camera like that at the time but I was just a poor college student.
> 
> Personally given the number of artists in my family if one of them said my camera took good images from them it would be a comment about image quality and not composition. They stopped using DSLRs because point and shoot cameras in there pocket were capable of good enough image quality for their needs.



And you're still friends with him? Let me get this straight. He bought a 10D, a decade ago, and hasn't taken more than 100 pictures with it, even though he bragged how good it was at taking pictures? That's messed up man!!


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 4, 2013)

My mom's a great cook - it must be her stove.
My brother's a good writer - must be the typewriter.
My sister is a dancer - I blame the shoes.
Dad got a speeding ticket - must be the "fast" gas.
Little brother took a great picture - he's a photographer.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 5, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> My mom's a great cook - it must be her stove.
> My brother's a good writer - must be the typewriter.
> My sister is a dancer - I blame the shoes.
> Dad got a speeding ticket - must be the "fast" gas.
> Little brother took a great picture - he's a photographer.



THIS, so very true...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > My mom's a great cook - it must be her stove.
> ...



... though have to admit that from this list the photography item maybe is the least ridiculous one because taking some shots with a great lens creates an instant "wow!" effect no matter how good your composition/postprocessing/... skills are which matter in the long term.


----------



## Grumbaki (Dec 6, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> My mom's a great cook - it must be her stove.
> My brother's a good writer - must be the typewriter.
> My sister is a dancer - I blame the shoes.
> Dad got a speeding ticket - must be the "fast" gas.
> Little brother took a great picture - he's a photographer.



I'd push the envelop and insert a condom version of the answer. Possibly including the sister.


----------

