Photographer or gear-head

[Bertram2]

Confused,
Harrison

Hmm, honestly, my impression too. Maybe it helps if you re-read the posts, this time a bit more carefully and realizing what was really said.

And please try to handle definitions a bit more precisely, what are "better" pics
"of course" !? There is a lot of different gear used especially among RF shooters, old an new, cheap and expensive and that does not say anything about the quality of the results the photogs achieve. Maybe this is new to you ?

And what is "better" gear at all ?? What is better than what ? What purpose, what impact, is sharper= better for you, or is more contrasty better , or is smaller and lighter meant, or is faster better than slow ?? Or did you mean better= higher price ?

BTW it's really interesting to learn what you believe to know about certain assumptions ALL members here make but do not forget: It could all be totally wrong ! 😀 Believe = not to know it.

I post here because I use RFs as I use SLR, TLR and yes , even P&S sometimes. And I bet ( excepted the TLR) you were surely not among those who could tell what is what,neither on the monitor nor on a print.

I am sorry to say so but considering your age , your possible photographic experience and the time you have spent on this forum you sometimes sound a bit precocius to me, and a bit unfriendly too. Sometimes.

Having a son two years older than you I know how to handle it but I second Peter's advice : Think about it !

B.

 

[RJBender]

We have been going through a weird time here at RFF. I notice that yesterday was a full moon.

http://www.die.net/earth/

go to moon phase

I think it has more to do with fewer hours of daylight than it does with the moon, Frank. 😕

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

But did you have a filter on it when you took it to the beach? 😉

We have had some rather hot topics come up lately. I'm ok with them as long as no one forgets that there is nothing wrong with a different opinion. Things get stupid and ugly on other photo forums and I'd really hate to see that happen here. That's the main reason that this is the only one I visit. I'm confident that there overwhelming majority here would agree and we should not have a problem continuing to share our love of rangefinders, through photos, collections or both.

Scott

We have great moderator here. Have you met Joe (Back Alley)?

R.J.

 

[hms624]

Betram, I am glad that you are here to "handle me." I am also glad that there are such friendly people here, to balance out my unfriendliness. Bertram my friend, I just want to let you know that using my age as an excuse to disrespect me, disregard my opions, and condescend to me is not one of the friendlier things that has been done to me of late. Furthermore, I did not know that it was a sign of friendliness to call collectors of cameras "men who have had their testes cut off" or eunuchs, as you so pleasantly did a few posts ago. It also seems a little out place in this forum, considering that a large portion of people here are collectors. (Not to mention a little sexist: women ought to have the right to be blatantly disrespected on this forum for being camera collectors also. Although not according to your use of eunuch.)

In terms of my not understanding what was "really said," I believe that it is the opposite. I have carefully read, and responded to, every post in this thread. In fact, with the exception of one person, it seems that many people have taken my beliefs out of context. Once out of context, they have used these beliefs to decry "the descent of RFF into such a lowly, and shameful forum as Photo.net. (Or at least I am assuming that this is the forum which everyone is so slyly referring to. Just making sure I clarify that "Believe = not to know it.")

Finally, to clarify yet another one of my points, I did not say that a quality camera makes a quality picture. I simply said that: "Of course better gear allows for better pics. Granted that good equipment will not make one a good photographer, but bad equipment can certainly prevent full potential." Most on this forum make this claim everyday! It is fact! Regardless of how each individual defines better, most here are seeking good equipment for the sake of good photographs. The fact that this is a RANGEFINDER FORUM, and not a PHOTO FORUM, (as the motly, and apparently disrespected Photo.net is,) means that simply by being a member, each person here is making a value judgment about the type of camera they believe takes the best pictures.

I am sorry, G-Man, that I did not "take the hint" and skedaddle as soon as I encountered backlash for my dissenting opions.

Ever Precocious,
Harrison

P.S. Speaking of "precocious," Bertram, I do not quite know what you mean by using this term. I think that you may want to "handle definitions a bit more precisely." Precocious means that I develop skills earlier than normal. Maybe you meant that I thought I was precocious, when in fact I wasn't? Or maybe you meant "pretentious." Either way, pretentious or precocious, I am glad for your warm and friendly welcome.

Thank you,
Harrison

 

[DougK]

Whip, meet dead horse...

 

[hms624]

isn't it beat a dead horse? not whip a dead horse?

 

[DougK]

Depends on what area of the country you come from... we always called it "flogging a dead horse" back home, which action would be properly executed with a whip.

I think I'm going to restrain my first impulse and simply, politely, say that my point is I think we've reached the point in this discussion where there isn't anything more productive to be gained here.

 

[johne]

Gee!! Necrophobia meets S&M? GAS vs. ART [or is it Fine Art or FART?] Let's just take pictures on each of our excellent and growing collection of rare and unique cameras.
Johne

 

[back alley]

it was lively while it lasted.

good night all!

joe