Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The dopes of digital...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 1:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.

Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.

More education. Less marketing. Please.

More about : dopes digital

Anonymous
September 12, 2005 1:55:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In all fairness, the guy might have had an ND or IR filter on his
Coolpix (which model) and was trying something creative. When I want to
shoot IR with my Canon G2 or other semi-compact digital camera, a
tripod is essential.

Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

-Cardamon Dave
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 1:55:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
>
> Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
>
> More education. Less marketing. Please.

For one, you don't really know this guy, and while it looked like he may
have had steady hands he may have a condition where his hands are not that
steady, yet he still loves photography. There are a lot of reasons to use a
tripod. I wouldn't second guess his.

As a matter of fact, if more of us used tripods we'd probably get better
shots, or at least sharper shots.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 3:55:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kz8rt3 wrote:
>
> Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
>
> Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
>
> More education. Less marketing. Please.

To be honest my hands probably appear steady to the novice eye. my
whole body moves, a lot. My new cam, the oly c-725 has proven very
hard to keep still enough to guarantee good results every time, even
in close up with no zoom. I have always suffered this way since buying
a digi, so please, don't assume the guy's clueless just because you
wouldn't do what he's doing.

BTW, even a monopod has proven to be problematic for me, that's how
much movement I cause when taking shots.

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 4:10:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1126478644.020657.266010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In all fairness, the guy might have had an ND or IR filter on his
> Coolpix (which model) and was trying something creative. When I want to
> shoot IR with my Canon G2 or other semi-compact digital camera, a
> tripod is essential.

No. Clear, not even a polarizer. I tend to over doubt myself but I was
right next to him.

>
> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.

That's silly. This is the kind of thing that makes that guy walk around
with a tripod. Where do I begin? How stable is stable? God, it'll make a
freak out of people.

>
> Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Here's some crack.

>
> -Cardamon Dave
September 12, 2005 4:10:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
accused of being a dope.

The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him to
hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?

Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
essential...........

Gimme a friggin break.....


Smarty

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-BBFBDC.20104111092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <1126478644.020657.266010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In all fairness, the guy might have had an ND or IR filter on his
>> Coolpix (which model) and was trying something creative. When I want to
>> shoot IR with my Canon G2 or other semi-compact digital camera, a
>> tripod is essential.
>
> No. Clear, not even a polarizer. I tend to over doubt myself but I was
> right next to him.
>
>>
>> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
>> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
>
> That's silly. This is the kind of thing that makes that guy walk around
> with a tripod. Where do I begin? How stable is stable? God, it'll make a
> freak out of people.
>
>>
>> Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
>
> Here's some crack.
>
>>
>> -Cardamon Dave
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 4:42:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:55:40 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>
>Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
>people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
>what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
>it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
>
>Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
>the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
>
>More education. Less marketing. Please.

Seems like you could use the education. Maybe he makes photos like
these with it.

http://www.edigitalphoto.com/cameras/0101edp_onthe/

Note the use of the tripod.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
September 12, 2005 4:44:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

>
> As a matter of fact, if more of us used tripods we'd probably get better
> shots, or at least sharper shots.

And a tripod also allows for careful compositions. I find when I use a
tripod I almost always get better results, even in bright daylight.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 4:53:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

When I was a young man I could hand hold at 1/15th...now I am lucky to get
it done at 1/30th. If I want to be sure I use a tripod. Another use of a
tripod is to repeat shots. With a remote release I don't have to stare into
the finder for the whole show...I can watch it comfortably and click off
when it looks good.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
>
> Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
>
> More education. Less marketing. Please.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 5:13:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4324C3C2.EA0ADAC1@blueyonder.co.uk>,
Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> kz8rt3 wrote:
> >
> > Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> > people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> > what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> > it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
> >
> > Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> > the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
> >
> > More education. Less marketing. Please.
>
> To be honest my hands probably appear steady to the novice eye. my
> whole body moves, a lot. My new cam, the oly c-725 has proven very
> hard to keep still enough to guarantee good results every time, even
> in close up with no zoom. I have always suffered this way since buying
> a digi, so please, don't assume the guy's clueless just because you
> wouldn't do what he's doing.
>
> BTW, even a monopod has proven to be problematic for me, that's how
> much movement I cause when taking shots.

Yeah, I have kinetic and fine postural tremor of the hands. I am
sensitive about that as well. He took the camera on and off the tripod.
But whatever, who knows. my greater point still in discussion.

Anyway, 1/250 always helped me.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 5:43:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:

> I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
> accused of being a dope.
>
> The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him to
> hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
> apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
> exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
> which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
>
> Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
> essential...........
>
> Gimme a friggin break.....

No, I won't.

As I said in another post I am sensitive about hand steadiness, etc.

I don't think I have ever had a shadow on a sunny day in my 25 years of
shooting that required a tripod for exposure. It was weird, I was
curious, that is why I watched him.

But I guess you could be right. I mean he might have retro-fitted that
coolpix for 1 ASA and needed a 1/30 exposure time to get his desired
f/166 opening.

Oh, and don't top post.


>
>
> Smarty
>
> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-BBFBDC.20104111092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <1126478644.020657.266010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In all fairness, the guy might have had an ND or IR filter on his
> >> Coolpix (which model) and was trying something creative. When I want to
> >> shoot IR with my Canon G2 or other semi-compact digital camera, a
> >> tripod is essential.
> >
> > No. Clear, not even a polarizer. I tend to over doubt myself but I was
> > right next to him.
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
> >> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
> >
> > That's silly. This is the kind of thing that makes that guy walk around
> > with a tripod. Where do I begin? How stable is stable? God, it'll make a
> > freak out of people.
> >
> >>
> >> Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
> >
> > Here's some crack.
> >
> >>
> >> -Cardamon Dave
September 12, 2005 5:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kz8rt3 wrote:

> In article <6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,

>
> I don't think I have ever had a shadow on a sunny day in my 25 years of
> shooting that required a tripod for exposure.


Good grief, now that IS a dopey statement!

>
> But I guess you could be right. I mean he might have retro-fitted that
> coolpix for 1 ASA and needed a 1/30 exposure time to get his desired
> f/166 opening.

Maybe he is one of the people (like me) that actually uses a tripod rather
than assume it's OK to handhold everything out of lazyness?


>
> Oh, and don't top post.
>

????
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 5:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2jj9i1t0712d6hl8c9lstsd0p83an7kmr6@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:55:40 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> >people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> >what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> >it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
> >
> >Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> >the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
> >
> >More education. Less marketing. Please.
>
> Seems like you could use the education. Maybe he makes photos like
> these with it.
>
> http://www.edigitalphoto.com/cameras/0101edp_onthe/
>
> Note the use of the tripod.

Oh, yeah, that's what he was doing. I must have missed the Rocky
Mountains over my shoulder.

If you read that article it says:

" The most impressive landscape photographs require dramatic lighting.
That light is often of low intensity e.g. dawn and dusk. Sharp pictures
under those conditions often require something steadier than handheld
cameras. Thus, I decided to take my tripod with a ball head, a 9.5 lb
outfit. "

IT WAS 12 NOON.

Sunny/16 - 50ISO = 1/60 at f16

Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
dope.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 5:55:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:55:43 GMT, kz8rt3 trolled with this pungent
morsel:

> Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical
> explanations when him being a dope is the most reasonable.
> Nothing wrong with being a dope.

Nor is there anything wrong with having opinions that serve your
own vested interest.
September 12, 2005 5:55:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kz8rt3 wrote:


>
> Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
> when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
> dope.

So now a photographer is dopey for using a tripod? I always laugh watching
people with high end cameras and expencive "L" lenses trying to shoot
everything hand held!

--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:06:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:43:37 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>> I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
>> accused of being a dope.
>>
>> The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him to
>> hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
>> apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
>> exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
>> which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
>>
>> Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
>> essential...........
>>
>> Gimme a friggin break.....
>
>No, I won't.
>
>As I said in another post I am sensitive about hand steadiness, etc.
>
>I don't think I have ever had a shadow on a sunny day in my 25 years of
>shooting that required a tripod for exposure. It was weird, I was
>curious, that is why I watched him.

So, by your lights, he should disassemble his rig for any shot
where you judge he didn't need a tripod? There was no chance he had
just come from or planned to go to where it would be needed? He should
go to all thet rouuble (and wear and tear on his gear) so a stranger
mightn't be offended?

>
>But I guess you could be right. I mean he might have retro-fitted that
>coolpix for 1 ASA and needed a 1/30 exposure time to get his desired
>f/166 opening.
>
>Oh, and don't top post.


Oh, and don't net nanny.

I'm deeply sorry if the rest of humanity doesn't measure up to
your lofty standards, whether in equipment selection or in posting
style.

>
>
>>
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kz8rt3-BBFBDC.20104111092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> > In article <1126478644.020657.266010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In all fairness, the guy might have had an ND or IR filter on his
>> >> Coolpix (which model) and was trying something creative. When I want to
>> >> shoot IR with my Canon G2 or other semi-compact digital camera, a
>> >> tripod is essential.
>> >
>> > No. Clear, not even a polarizer. I tend to over doubt myself but I was
>> > right next to him.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
>> >> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
>> >
>> > That's silly. This is the kind of thing that makes that guy walk around
>> > with a tripod. Where do I begin? How stable is stable? God, it'll make a
>> > freak out of people.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
>> >
>> > Here's some crack.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> -Cardamon Dave
September 12, 2005 7:26:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
>

Erwin Puts, the renowned Leica specialist, once noted on his web site that
just the slight movement created by the heart pumping blood throughout the
arteries was enough to cause subtle camera shake that could reduce
resolution by up to 40%.

I began using tripods for virtually all of my shots, and I can personally
attest to the very visibly improved results. I admit that my digicam looks
a bit silly on a tripod, but what care I about what some strangers (whom I
will probably never see again) find funny about it?

I bought a lightweight Vivitar tripod for fifteen bucks at Wal-Mart for my
digicam, and it does the trick in keeping the camera steady at the moment of
exposure. I take mostly static objects--landscapes and cityscapes--so the
tripod does not adversely affect my work. I use the built in self timer to
trip the shutter whenever possible, and there is absolutely no doubt that
the use of even a cheap tripod has a major positive effect on the images.

The reason I use the inexpensive tripod is because it is light and easy to
carry. My heavier tripods are of little use if I leave them behind. The
Vivitar weighs in at under 2 pounds, and I take it everywhere. It may not
be the ideal solution, but it has proven itself to be the best compromise
for my needs.
September 12, 2005 7:31:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:E9idnQo9oJftfLneRVn-uA@comcast.com...
>
>
> As a matter of fact, if more of us used tripods we'd probably get better
> shots, or at least sharper shots.

I couldn't agree more. Neither can this web page:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6traudt.shtml
September 12, 2005 9:08:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Assinine statement. You have no idea why he was using a tripod, and in fact
are the sort of person who would probably post here about some "dope" not
using a tripod for a 6x6 camera. In other words a snob.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
>
> Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
>
> More education. Less marketing. Please.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:30:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kz8rt3 wrote:
>
> In article <4324C3C2.EA0ADAC1@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > kz8rt3 wrote:
> > >
> > > Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> > > people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> > > what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> > > it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
> > >
> > > Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> > > the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
> > >
> > > More education. Less marketing. Please.
> >
> > To be honest my hands probably appear steady to the novice eye. my
> > whole body moves, a lot. My new cam, the oly c-725 has proven very
> > hard to keep still enough to guarantee good results every time, even
> > in close up with no zoom. I have always suffered this way since buying
> > a digi, so please, don't assume the guy's clueless just because you
> > wouldn't do what he's doing.
> >
> > BTW, even a monopod has proven to be problematic for me, that's how
> > much movement I cause when taking shots.
>
> Yeah, I have kinetic and fine postural tremor of the hands. I am
> sensitive about that as well. He took the camera on and off the tripod.
> But whatever, who knows. my greater point still in discussion.
>
> Anyway, 1/250 always helped me.

This damned camera is as finicky as a woman :o )
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 12:44:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well now that you have got the flame war out of the way (!), I for one
applaud the OP for trolling if nothing else. He has generated, and
continued to wind you all up, a discussion on a topic which I as a novice
really knew little about, and have now a different attitude towards using a
tripod.

Well done -- good troll

Rob


"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:t38Ve.1762$Jp.358585@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Assinine statement. You have no idea why he was using a tripod, and in
fact
> are the sort of person who would probably post here about some "dope" not
> using a tripod for a 6x6 camera. In other words a snob.
>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> > people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> > what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> > it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
> >
> > Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> > the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in
cahoots.
> >
> > More education. Less marketing. Please.
>
>
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 1:34:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Sz6Ve.3308$XO6.2534@trnddc03>, Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
>> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
>>
>
>Erwin Puts, the renowned Leica specialist, once noted on his web site that
>just the slight movement created by the heart pumping blood throughout the
>arteries was enough to cause subtle camera shake that could reduce
>resolution by up to 40%.

No disrespect to Mr Puts, but it has to be said that Leica, um, users, do
have something of a reputation as the audiophiles of the photography world.

With practice, and on fast enough shutter speeds, I can get results from a
Mamiya 7 without a tripod which are just as sharp as tripod shots when
scanned and turned into a 50 megapixel image. If my heartbeat isn't strong
enough to cause an observable difference on 6*7 slide film, then it ain't
going to do it on 35mm, no matter how well engineered the equipment is.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:09:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
>accused of being a dope.

Agreed.

> The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
> to hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
> apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
> exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
> which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?

Or maybe was shooting a panorama.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
September 12, 2005 5:24:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3okfa0F6dvv4U4@individual.net...
> kz8rt3 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
>> when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
>> dope.
>
> So now a photographer is dopey for using a tripod? I always laugh watching
> people with high end cameras and expencive "L" lenses trying to shoot
> everything hand held!
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Actually, I'm wondering (and, probably, so are you) if the original post
wasn't just a troll looking to create a little excitement . . .
September 12, 2005 5:26:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rob Graham" <robert.k.graham@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:43252f59$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> Well now that you have got the flame war out of the way (!), I for one
> applaud the OP for trolling if nothing else. He has generated, and
> continued to wind you all up, a discussion on a topic which I as a novice
> really knew little about, and have now a different attitude towards using
> a
> tripod.
>
> Well done -- good troll
>
> Rob
>
>
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t38Ve.1762$Jp.358585@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> Assinine statement. You have no idea why he was using a tripod, and in
> fact
>> are the sort of person who would probably post here about some "dope" not
>> using a tripod for a 6x6 camera. In other words a snob.
>>
>> --
>> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
>> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> The Improved Links Pages are at
>> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
>> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
>> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>>
>> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> >
>> > Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
>> > people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
>> > what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
>> > it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
>> >
>> > Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
>> > the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in
> cahoots.
>> >
>> > More education. Less marketing. Please.
>>
>>
>
>

I did find his subject line kinda' catchy: "The DOPES of DIGITAL!" Very
mellifluous.
September 12, 2005 5:31:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:8ttfv2-ff5.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...

>
> With practice, and on fast enough shutter speeds, I can get results from a
> Mamiya 7 without a tripod which are just as sharp as tripod shots when
> scanned and turned into a 50 megapixel image. If my heartbeat isn't strong
> enough to cause an observable difference on 6*7 slide film, then it ain't
> going to do it on 35mm, no matter how well engineered the equipment is.

Perhaps YOU are as steady as a tripod, unlikely as that may be, but Puts'
assessment remains valid. And the longer the focal length, the more the
magnification of any camera shake.

I can speak only from personal experience--I have much sharper images when I
use a tripod. The difference is clearly visible, even on a 4x6 print. If
you are able to produce equally sharp results whether or not you use a
tripod then you are the exception.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 5:57:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> IT WAS 12 NOON.
>
> Sunny/16 - 50ISO = 1/60 at f16
>
> Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
> when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
> dope.

1/60 is not very fast if zoomed out significantly. There is nothing
wrong with going after that extra sharpness.

You know what else ... it just isn't that big of a deal.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:06:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3okf44F6dvv4U3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>kz8rt3 wrote:
>> In article <6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
>> I don't think I have ever had a shadow on a sunny day in my 25 years of
>> shooting that required a tripod for exposure.
>
>Good grief, now that IS a dopey statement!

Indeed. I went out with a tripod, an APS-C digital camera, a 1.4x TC and
a 500mm lens (to do some test shots) but I forgot to bring a QR tripod
plate. :-(

Of course I had to try a shot before heading home to get the plate. Just
holding the combination steady enough for composition was already close
to impossible.

>> But I guess you could be right. I mean he might have retro-fitted that
>> coolpix for 1 ASA and needed a 1/30 exposure time to get his desired
>> f/166 opening.
>
>Maybe he is one of the people (like me) that actually uses a tripod rather
>than assume it's OK to handhold everything out of lazyness?

Assuming sunny 16, if you want to shoot at f/8 and ISO 100 you get 1/200. That
means that for really sharp pictures you don't want to go further than
the equivalent of 100mm on 35mm.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:10:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8ttfv2-ff5.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>With practice, and on fast enough shutter speeds, I can get results from a
>Mamiya 7 without a tripod which are just as sharp as tripod shots when
>scanned and turned into a 50 megapixel image. If my heartbeat isn't strong
>enough to cause an observable difference on 6*7 slide film, then it ain't
>going to do it on 35mm, no matter how well engineered the equipment is.

Maybe his tripod shots are sharper than your tripod shots. After all, he
uses a Leica :-) :-)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:20:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1hsq4gr5g6kmdghku3ea3ksqi7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>Assuming sunny 16, if you want to shoot at f/8 and ISO 100 you get 1/200. That
>means that for really sharp pictures you don't want to go further than
>the equivalent of 100mm on 35mm.

Oops, that should be 1/400 and 200mm.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:20:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:08:41 +0000, Tony wrote:

> Assinine statement. You have no idea why he was using a tripod, and in fact
> are the sort of person who would probably post here about some "dope" not
> using a tripod for a 6x6 camera. In other words a snob.

And the lighter the camera the more the need for the tripod.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:32:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dg2kpg$dc6$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
> >I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
> >accused of being a dope.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
> > to hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
> > apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
> > exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
> > which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
>
> Or maybe was shooting a panorama.

He wasn't.

>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:32:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:32:26 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <dg2kpg$dc6$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>> >I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
>> >accused of being a dope.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
>> > to hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
>> > apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
>> > exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
>> > which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
>>
>> Or maybe was shooting a panorama.
>
>He wasn't.

In our Digital Photography SIG, we have been encouraged to demonstrate
our knowledge of the basics of light management; ISO, shutter speed,
and aperture.
Using a tripod to take successive shots while changing the settings is
encouraged, as it removes one variable.
Maybe your "dope" was doing something similar? Or even something else
that he somehow forgot to tell you about?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:34:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:20:22 +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:

> In article <1hsq4gr5g6kmdghku3ea3ksqi7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
> Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Assuming sunny 16, if you want to shoot at f/8 and ISO 100 you get 1/200. That
>>means that for really sharp pictures you don't want to go further than
>>the equivalent of 100mm on 35mm.
>
> Oops, that should be 1/400 and 200mm.
No, you was right first time.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:39:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <jsr9i15lvlq80cjini8quilmekl4udam0p@4ax.com>,
kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:43:37 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
> > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
> >> accused of being a dope.
> >>
> >> The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
> >> to
> >> hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
> >> apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
> >> exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
> >> which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
> >>
> >> Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
> >> essential...........
> >>
> >> Gimme a friggin break.....
> >
> >No, I won't.
> >
> >As I said in another post I am sensitive about hand steadiness, etc.
> >
> >I don't think I have ever had a shadow on a sunny day in my 25 years of
> >shooting that required a tripod for exposure. It was weird, I was
> >curious, that is why I watched him.
>
> So, by your lights, he should disassemble his rig for any shot
> where you judge he didn't need a tripod?

Did I say that?

> There was no chance he had
> just come from or planned to go to where it would be needed? He should
> go to all thet rouuble (and wear and tear on his gear) so a stranger
> mightn't be offended?

What do you have against the fact that he was a dope?

Ya know, of course I could think of a thousand reasons why he was
carrying that tripod. But I was there. You were not.

>
> >
> >But I guess you could be right. I mean he might have retro-fitted that
> >coolpix for 1 ASA and needed a 1/30 exposure time to get his desired
> >f/166 opening.
> >
> >Oh, and don't top post.
>
>
> Oh, and don't net nanny.

Stop coddling dopes.

>
> I'm deeply sorry if the rest of humanity doesn't measure up to
> your lofty standards, whether in equipment selection or in posting
> style.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Smarty
> >>
> >> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:kz8rt3-BBFBDC.20104111092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >> > In article <1126478644.020657.266010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In all fairness, the guy might have had an ND or IR filter on his
> >> >> Coolpix (which model) and was trying something creative. When I want to
> >> >> shoot IR with my Canon G2 or other semi-compact digital camera, a
> >> >> tripod is essential.
> >> >
> >> > No. Clear, not even a polarizer. I tend to over doubt myself but I was
> >> > right next to him.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
> >> >> rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
> >> >
> >> > That's silly. This is the kind of thing that makes that guy walk around
> >> > with a tripod. Where do I begin? How stable is stable? God, it'll make a
> >> > freak out of people.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
> >> >
> >> > Here's some crack.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> -Cardamon Dave
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:42:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3okf44F6dvv4U3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> kz8rt3 wrote:
>
> > In article <6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
>
> >
> > I don't think I have ever had a shadow on a sunny day in my 25 years of
> > shooting that required a tripod for exposure.
>
>
> Good grief, now that IS a dopey statement!

Why? (You left that part out)

>
> >
> > But I guess you could be right. I mean he might have retro-fitted that
> > coolpix for 1 ASA and needed a 1/30 exposure time to get his desired
> > f/166 opening.
>
> Maybe he is one of the people (like me) that actually uses a tripod rather
> than assume it's OK to handhold everything out of lazyness?

Yeah, yer both dopes then.

>
>
> >
> > Oh, and don't top post.
> >
>
> ????

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=top+post+usenet&bt...
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qk4Ve.2270$R9.282@trnddc02>,
"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

> When I was a young man I could hand hold at 1/15th...now I am lucky to get
> it done at 1/30th. If I want to be sure I use a tripod. Another use of a
> tripod is to repeat shots. With a remote release I don't have to stare into
> the finder for the whole show...I can watch it comfortably and click off
> when it looks good.

God, what is it with the top posting morons here.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=top+post+usenet&bt...

Listen, he was not doing what you think. You can surmise all you want.
And if you can get a good shot at 1/30 then you are better then most.

>
> --
> Thanks,
> Gene Palmiter
> (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
> freebridge design group
> www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> > people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> > what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> > it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
> >
> > Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> > the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in cahoots.
> >
> > More education. Less marketing. Please.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:49:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:49:22 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <qk4Ve.2270$R9.282@trnddc02>,
> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> When I was a young man I could hand hold at 1/15th...now I am lucky to get
>> it done at 1/30th. If I want to be sure I use a tripod. Another use of a
>> tripod is to repeat shots. With a remote release I don't have to stare into
>> the finder for the whole show...I can watch it comfortably and click off
>> when it looks good.
>
>God, what is it with the top posting morons here.

Why are you freaking out over it?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:52:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3okfa0F6dvv4U4@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> kz8rt3 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
> > when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
> > dope.
>
> So now a photographer is dopey for using a tripod? I always laugh watching
> people with high end cameras and expencive "L" lenses trying to shoot
> everything hand held!

Please Stacy, I DID NOT SAY THAT A PHOTOGRAPHER IS DOPEY FOR USING A
TRIPOD.

And I don't care about others right now. I was talking about this dope.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:52:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:52:35 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <3okfa0F6dvv4U4@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> kz8rt3 wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
>> > when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
>> > dope.
>>
>> So now a photographer is dopey for using a tripod? I always laugh watching
>> people with high end cameras and expencive "L" lenses trying to shoot
>> everything hand held!
>
>Please Stacy, I DID NOT SAY THAT A PHOTOGRAPHER IS DOPEY FOR USING A
>TRIPOD.
>

Actually, you did. Re-read your original post.
Here, let me help:

"Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended).
Yes,
it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.

Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in
cahoots.

More education. Less marketing. Please."

Now, given the subject that you assigned, you're calling this person a
dope. For using a tripod.

>And I don't care about others right now. I was talking about this dope.

See? There it is again. You just called him a dope. In so many words.
For using a tripod.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:53:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <pkfVe.7290$e96.158@trndny09>, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
wrote:

> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3okfa0F6dvv4U4@individual.net...
> > kz8rt3 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
> >> when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
> >> dope.
> >
> > So now a photographer is dopey for using a tripod? I always laugh watching
> > people with high end cameras and expencive "L" lenses trying to shoot
> > everything hand held!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stacey
>
> Actually, I'm wondering (and, probably, so are you) if the original post
> wasn't just a troll looking to create a little excitement . . .

Well, for me, excitemnt is reasonable discussion. So if I was trolling I
failed.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:55:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4325894d$0$16077$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > IT WAS 12 NOON.
> >
> > Sunny/16 - 50ISO = 1/60 at f16
> >
> > Ya know, you guys are all coming up with these fantastical explanations
> > when him being a dope is the most reasonable. Nothing wrong with being a
> > dope.
>
> 1/60 is not very fast if zoomed out significantly. There is nothing
> wrong with going after that extra sharpness.
>
> You know what else ... it just isn't that big of a deal.

Yes, it isn't. So I wonder why so many are freaking out.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:59:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <IE6Ve.3313$XO6.2432@trnddc03>, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
wrote:

> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:E9idnQo9oJftfLneRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> > As a matter of fact, if more of us used tripods we'd probably get better
> > shots, or at least sharper shots.
>
> I couldn't agree more. Neither can this web page:
>
> http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6traudt.shtml

Thank you for proving my point. Jackass.

" However, I issue you a stern warning: You MUST comply with ALL the
factors."
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Sz6Ve.3308$XO6.2534@trnddc03>, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
wrote:

> "Cardamon Dave" <davek57@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Yes, digital cameras have been marketed to extremis. But the basic
> > rules of photography, like keeping the camera stable, are timeless.
> >
>
> Erwin Puts, the renowned Leica specialist, once noted on his web site that
> just the slight movement created by the heart pumping blood throughout the
> arteries was enough to cause subtle camera shake that could reduce
> resolution by up to 40%.
>
> I began using tripods for virtually all of my shots, and I can personally
> attest to the very visibly improved results. I admit that my digicam looks
> a bit silly on a tripod, but what care I about what some strangers (whom I
> will probably never see again) find funny about it?
>
> I bought a lightweight Vivitar tripod for fifteen bucks at Wal-Mart for my
> digicam, and it does the trick in keeping the camera steady at the moment of
> exposure. I take mostly static objects--landscapes and cityscapes--so the
> tripod does not adversely affect my work. I use the built in self timer to
> trip the shutter whenever possible, and there is absolutely no doubt that
> the use of even a cheap tripod has a major positive effect on the images.
>
> The reason I use the inexpensive tripod is because it is light and easy to
> carry. My heavier tripods are of little use if I leave them behind. The
> Vivitar weighs in at under 2 pounds, and I take it everywhere. It may not
> be the ideal solution, but it has proven itself to be the best compromise
> for my needs.

Can anyone point to somewhere I have said tripods are bad?

And for every Erwin Puts there are five William Klien's.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:10:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <t38Ve.1762$Jp.358585@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Assinine statement. You have no idea why he was using a tripod, and in fact
> are the sort of person who would probably post here about some "dope" not
> using a tripod for a 6x6 camera. In other words a snob.

Another top poster.

I don't use land camera's so I would not know about them. But LOGICALLY
it seems like you would need one. See how logic works?
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:12:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <43252f59$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
"Rob Graham" <robert.k.graham@baesystems.com> wrote:

> Well now that you have got the flame war out of the way (!), I for one
> applaud the OP for trolling if nothing else. He has generated, and
> continued to wind you all up, a discussion on a topic which I as a novice
> really knew little about, and have now a different attitude towards using a
> tripod.
>
> Well done -- good troll

Top poster.

But be my guest, listen to them.

>
> Rob
>
>
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t38Ve.1762$Jp.358585@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > Assinine statement. You have no idea why he was using a tripod, and in
> fact
> > are the sort of person who would probably post here about some "dope" not
> > using a tripod for a 6x6 camera. In other words a snob.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> > The Improved Links Pages are at
> > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> > A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
> >
> > "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:kz8rt3-D30B80.17553911092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > >
> > > Was out this morning, we have kind of a town commons here, food lawn,
> > > people, etc., and I saw a man walk up with a Nikon CoolPix on top of
> > > what must have been a 10 pound tripod (and it was fully extended). Yes,
> > > it was quite sunny and his hands seemed steady.
> > >
> > > Digi's turn everyone into a "photographer". I think I blame it more on
> > > the marketing than on the technology, but they are definitely in
> cahoots.
> > >
> > > More education. Less marketing. Please.
> >
> >
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:36:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

i second that

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
>I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
>accused of being a dope.
>
> The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
> to hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
> apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
> exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
> which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
>
> Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
> essential...........
>
> Gimme a friggin break.....
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:36:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <432513d3$0$24680$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"h.fang" <herrfang@hotmail.com> wrote:

> i second that
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
> >I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
> >accused of being a dope.
> >
> > The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
> > to hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
> > apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
> > exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
> > which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
> >
> > Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
> > essential...........
> >
> > Gimme a friggin break.....

I mean I would not expect anymore. Another top poster.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=top+post+usenet&bt...

Maybe it is the fact that this is dopes defending dopes? I wounder how
many here have went out with tripods on sunny days cause it made them
look professional.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:36:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:47:39 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <432513d3$0$24680$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "h.fang" <herrfang@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i second that
>>
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:6Z-dnS3El_g9VLneRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
>> >I find the comment itself "dopey" rather than the person who is being
>> >accused of being a dope.
>> >
>> > The photographer may have a medical condition making it difficult for him
>> > to hold the camera, or hold it steadily. Despite the fact that the day was
>> > apparently sunny, there are often shots of areas in shadow required long
>> > exposures. Or perhaps the photographer wanted to choose manual settings
>> > which combined low ISO, small aperture, and resulting long shutter speed?
>> >
>> > Or perhaps, a panoramic picture was being taken, where a stable pivot was
>> > essential...........
>> >
>> > Gimme a friggin break.....
>
>I mean I would not expect anymore. Another top poster.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=top+post+usenet&bt...
>
>Maybe it is the fact that this is dopes defending dopes? I wounder how
>many here have went out with tripods on sunny days cause it made them
>look professional.

What an interesting statement.
I've been out with pro photogs on sunny days, and they often use
tripods.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:09:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:39:04 GMT, kz8rt3 wrote:

>> Oh, and don't net nanny.
>
> Stop coddling dopes.

As you wish.

BEGONE, DOPE, AND DARKEN OUR DOOR NEVERMORE!
!