It's Either We Or Them

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's Either We Or Them

Either we or them must be out of date. Outdated like outdated film. Or more.
Click to expand...
What the hell that really means? Is that some sort of nefarious implied jab at Obama?

This guy can be dismissed for his stoned threads but sometimes its hard not to get annoyed with his personal opinions pushed through incomprehensible posts about photography.
 
Wow. An anti-P&S jab in the P&S section...strange!

I've seen masterpieces shot with nothing but P&S, phone cameras, or even toy cameras. And I've seen even more rubbish shot with 'serious' Leicas and Nikons. That's worse.
 
Last edited:
Nh3 said:
What the hell that really means? Is that some sort of nefarious implied jab at Obama?

This guy can be dismissed for his stoned threads but sometimes its hard not to get annoyed with his personal opinions pushed through incomprehensible posts about photography.
Click to expand...
Does this post serve any purpose other than to vent? I've been here a long while in various guises and long ago decided that Ruben is translating from Hebrew on the fly, so I will cut him more than a little slack. :D

And if you have picked up any of Ruben's weltansicht from his previous posts you know the last thing he would do is give Obama a nefarious jab. Drinks are on me.
 
Last edited:
I think Ruben assumes that more of us look down on "stupid" cameras than we do. My significant other just got a P-n-S. I love it. We use it all the time becuase it's always with us. It makes photography a fun, spur of the moment type thing.

It's like the difference between a bicycle and a car. It would be silly to be snobbish to people who prefer bicycles. It would be equally silly to assume, say, that if bicycles became a lot more popular cars would just go away and car drivers would be locked into "us vs. them" (or we vs. them, or they, or whatever).

In short, I think the original post posits a false dichotomy. I don't look down on P-n-S people. (Unless they're using Nikons, but that's a different kind of pointless snobbery).
 
photogdave, bmattock, jmkelly & Tuolumne, managed to uncrypt my too twisted plus Heblished post.

It is a self critical post about myself too. I live most of digital cameras through rangefinderforum posts and looked down not at people but at those little cameras next door neighbour is using.

Of course our understanding of photography is deeper. Therefore it seems to me we should also give attention to these wonders, because of something that may have got lost for us in digital, while it didn't go lost in film: the high compactness of these massive used cameras. And about the meaning of high compactness virtuosity, I think I do not need any detailing.

Now photogdave, bmattock, jmkelly & Tuolumne, kindly stay on alert.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Nh3 said:
This guy can be dismissed for his stoned threads but sometimes its hard not to get annoyed with his personal opinions pushed through incomprehensible posts about photography.
Click to expand...

I hope you were looking in the mirror when you typed this.
 
Before digital, there was (relatively briefly) APS; before that, there were crazy-simple, auto-everything compact 35s. Before those, there were several generations of ever-smaller-format Instamatics and, for those inclined toward pre-digital instant gratification, Polaroids. Simple cameras for the casual, happy-snaps crowd, who didn't know all that much about photography, and weren't terribly interested in learning.

In other words: 'twas ever thus.

Digital changes the game mainly in terms of image portability. Take picture; throw images in the computer; attach them to an e-mail. Put them on Facebook or Twitter or something. Maybe even make an occasional print, or get a digital desk frame. Does it make the photography "better?" Not especially. Does all this make pictures more fun for a lot of people? Definitely.

And, for the most part, none of this has in the least impinged on my photography (mostly film, mostly RF, for the record). Bill's point is very well taken by me.

Don't worry, be snappy. ;)


- Barrett
 
OK... since my methods don't seem to work well, can anyone explain the following to me?

"No I am not refering to the smart crowds, but to all those high throat distinguished senators and poiticians, the same who already started to plan Ceasar's execution and therefore took a seat around their prospected vyctim, they also were pointing their stupid little cameras to Obama at every single moment and were catched by the CNN, infraganti."
 
Gumby said:
OK... since my methods don't seem to work well, can anyone explain the following to me?

"No I am not refering to the smart crowds, but to all those high throat distinguished senators and poiticians, the same who already started to plan Ceasar's execution and therefore took a seat around their prospected vyctim, they also were pointing their stupid little cameras to Obama at every single moment and were catched by the CNN, infraganti."
Click to expand...

You can't parse that? ;-)

OK. Historical note. Julias Caesar was killed by his own troops, as a result of a plot between the Senate and the army. The Senate insulted Caesar time and again - some Senators refused to stand when Caesar entered a room, and remained seated at the table when he sat down, clear breaches of protocol, but the intent was unmistakable. Here Ruben points out how the Senate lauds our new President, both sides of the aisle, but do they even now plot his downfall? Even as they gather around to take photos like star-struck fans themselves, do they gather their forces to strike, in a Bimbogate or Contragate or other such maneuver? In flagrante delicto, of course, simply means 'caught in the act'. 'Fragrante' may simply be a mispelling, or perhaps Ruben is playing with words, using 'fragrant' in place 'flagrant' to indicate that not only were the Senators caught by the news media acting like star-struck teens, but that it 'smells'.

Stream-of-consciousness rants can be a thing of beauty, but they do require some context with which one is familiar, or it can seem like gibberish.

Being an amateur student of history, I got the jape. At least, I think I did. Ruben will correct me if I am wrong.
 
photogdave said:
It seems perhaps some are missing Ruben's point. I think he's basically saying that the compact digitals which many of us may perceive as being "stupid" or insignificant because of their lack of features, image quality etc. are actually capturing many of the significant moments of our lives these days. So let's not dismiss them out of hand because they may ultimately prove to play a more important role in the world than our "smarter" DSLRs, RFs and so on.
Did I get it right Ruben?
Click to expand...

We may both be wrong, but that is the way I took it too.
 
ruben said:
The other little stupid camera highlight incindent took place when after the oath, inside the white house, a noticeable fat in toxidised photog with a big digital camera, also took out from his pocket a stupid little camera and started to earn his livelihood.
Click to expand...

I DO like this, although I'd look at it in a different light to Ruben. It seems to me that the photographer was earning his crust with the "big digital camera", but also grabbed the opportunity to take some personal snapshots for his own benefit. I know it seems odd, but I can't imagine any other reason unless his pro kit had packed in.
 
MickH said:
I DO like this, although I'd look at it in a different light to Ruben. It seems to me that the photographer was earning his crust with the "big digital camera", but also grabbed the opportunity to take some personal snapshots for his own benefit. I know it seems odd, but I can't imagine any other reason unless his pro kit had packed in.
Click to expand...

Battery dependent maybe them DSLRs ;)
 
MickH said:
I DO like this, although I'd look at it in a different light to Ruben. It seems to me that the photographer was earning his crust with the "big digital camera", but also grabbed the opportunity to take some personal snapshots for his own benefit. I know it seems odd, but I can't imagine any other reason unless his pro kit had packed in.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any other gear than this hypo DSLR and mini digi.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I'm a little bit ashamed to admit it but my panasonic P+S gets a lot more action than do my rangefinders. I've even published pictures at my paper from them. They aren't fast, they lack a lot of manual controls (I'm talking about the FX series) but in well lit situations they produce a hell of an image. The lens is astoundingly good and has effective image stabilization and they are very subtle when they need to be. Lets not forget that for many the camera is a tool, not a device with intrinsic worth. I know there are people that become attached to a specific camera, especially on this forum, but for me I'm much more attached to the images that I produce. I don't mind that the rangefinder I use as a tool is pleasing as an object itself, but I recognize that somtimes there is a better tool for the job, be it a diferent film camera or one of my digis
 
bmattock said:
You can't parse that? ;-)

OK. Historical note. Julias Caesar was killed by his own troops, as a result of a plot between the Senate and the army. The Senate insulted Caesar time and again - some Senators refused to stand when Caesar entered a room, and remained seated at the table when he sat down, clear breaches of protocol, but the intent was unmistakable. Here Ruben points out how the Senate lauds our new President, both sides of the aisle, but do they even now plot his downfall? Even as they gather around to take photos like star-struck fans themselves, do they gather their forces to strike, in a Bimbogate or Contragate or other such maneuver? In flagrante delicto, of course, simply means 'caught in the act'. 'Fragrante' may simply be a mispelling, or perhaps Ruben is playing with words, using 'fragrant' in place 'flagrant' to indicate that not only were the Senators caught by the news media acting like star-struck teens, but that it 'smells'.

Stream-of-consciousness rants can be a thing of beauty, but they do require some context with which one is familiar, or it can seem like gibberish.

Being an amateur student of history, I got the jape. At least, I think I did. Ruben will correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Thanks Bill, I think I should deposit some bucks at your paypal account :)

Cheers,
Ruben
 
It's not so much getting attached to a camera as the camera getting attached to you. I have several Leicas, two of them being M2's. I can't tell them apart without a close look, but when I reach into my bag one of them seems to find my hand far more often than the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom