"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| >>> See, even un-serious photographers use filters and tripods! ;-)
| >>
| >> Who says Bill's not a serious photographer?
|
| > I WAS JOKING!!! SEE SMILEY!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)
|
| I know you were joking, but you were still wrong.
Far too arrogant, stop it! Just wait until Michael Reichmaan from The
Luminous Landscape catches up with you and puts you in your place! ;-)
....When you've worked up the courage to challenge him that is! :-P My money
is on him now, his website is there, his proof is there! ;-) Just hope he
doesn't do you for slander, after having his articles dismissed all over
usenet (okay, just uk.rec.walking!) as wrong! ;-) (smiley here, please
note!)
| No-one takes
| "snapshots" with a tripod, that's a contradiction in terms.
But who cares, why feel the need to create categories to put people in?
Just get on with it, that's what I say.
| By
| definition, using a tripod and filters means that you are taking your
| photography seriously.
So you're only half serious for not using filters much? And take away
another quarter of a mark for that flimsy Jessops tripod! :-)
| If you are an "un-serious photographer" you
| can't be bothered with any of that fussing about.
I believe that you hardly ever use filters any more because it's too much
fussing about. Even though you admit that it could produce superior results
to a heavily photoshopped image. ;-)
| But it's not that some photographers are serious and others aren't, many
| photographers are both, it's all a matter of your frame of mind when you
| take your photos. I take both snaps and photos. How "serious" I am
| depends on the circumstances and my frame of mind. If I'm busy walking
| I'll usually take snaps, but if I'm in the mood for photos I'll
| specifically go out on my own to a scenic area, perhaps at sunrise or
| sunset, and I'll go to work with tripods, spot meters etc. I can spend
| an hour photographing one waterfall. That's serious. It's a particular
| approach to photography.
I just take photos and that's it. I just never bother thinking about it and
analyse my intentions etc. Snap snap snap snap. With tripod or not,
planned shoot or not, filters or not, checked the weather forecast or not.
Snap snap snap... :-)
| > ...AND, it proves my point that you and others put the term 'serious'
| > with the term 'good photos.'
|
| It proves nothing of the sort.
Nonsense. I (jokingly) said Bill was un-serious. You immediately replied,
"Who says Bill's not a serious photographer? You should see some of the
framed prints that he's entered into camera club competitions. Many of them
are really good."
So I will repeat, at the first mention of the term 'un-serious,' you
immediately replied that he wasn't 'un-serious' because many of his photos
are 'really good.' I rest my case, as it's pretty clear and not worth
debating further - to be honest, I'm not that bothered either way Paul. :-P
| I use the word "serious" to refer to
| one's approach to photography, not to the results. As a general rule,
| taking it seriously tends to produce the best images, but not always,
| there are many exceptions. Some of my best photos were taken as "snaps"
| and many of my "serious" photos have turned out [censored].
Fine. :-)
| > If you make this distinction (and I
| > don't necessarily), then by saying someone is not serious is the same
| > as saying someone is just [censored]. Not very nice at all, and is quite
| > snide.
|
| That's an interesting way of twisting what I said to infer something
| that I didn't imply and then criticising me for what I didn't say.
Not twisting anything, and not that you don't have a habit of doing the same
Mr Saunders! :-O
So again, you said above that "As a general rule, taking it seriously tends
to produce the best images." And don't forget the bit where you said he
wasn't 'un-serious' because many of his photos are 'really good.'
So the opposite of this, if serious=good, is that un-serious=[censored] (or not
good). Therefore, being un-serious is just another term for being [censored] (or
not good), but saying it in a snide and discrete way. It seems quite a
logical conclusion.
| > Talk of serious and un-serious is just for 'photographers' with
| > bigger egos than ability IMO! You don't see proper photographers
| > talking about this type of thing in newsgroups. They don't have a
| > need to distinguish between the two. Blah blah blah...
|
| Er, you were the one who first made the comment about "un-serious"
| photographers.
Yes, and it was a joke! ;-) ;-) ;-) In fact, if I ever joke about serious
or unserious, or drop in a comment about auto-modes or cocking up
auto-focusing with a polariser on, then it's a cheeky remark to *our* past
conversations on this newsgroup! Call it banter if you like, come on Paul,
keep up! ;-)
| Paul
Ste
