Wow, Your Camera Takes Really Good...

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I know, but the way Mongo put it it wasn't "I try to explain photography and they just suck at it." It sounds like he's intentionally trying to to turn them off by going right into complicated, as he put it, 'excruciating' detail.

Well let me put it another way. Someone comes up to a Linux user and asks how to compile the kernel.

Now there is no easy way to explain it *without* using highly technical terms and going into all of the nit-picky details. This is why there are two-inch thick books on the subject that are as hard to read as some college text books are.

If the person then says "Gee, I'll just leave it as the installer created it", is the Linux user a dick?

So when asked about my photography I go into detail on how I set up the shot and all the tools I use and all the settings I set to get the shot. If the person wants to know more, then they can ask me. If they don't want to learn they can keep using their "point and shoot" or their smartphone cameras.

And let me ask you this. Why in the name of fuck am I the dick here? Have you any idea how many times I've been asked about my camera only to have them come back to me screaming "I bought this piece of shit camera and it takes the worst pictures in the history of photography AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!" as if I were the one who told them to held a bazooka to their head and made forced to sink $600 into a camera.

Why are they not the dicks? After all, how goddamn many times have we seen this shit on Customers Suck when an idiot asks for advice of the sales person, lets it go in one ear and out the other, then screams bloody blue murder because it doesn't to the task without a knowledgeable user behind it?

Fine. Want me to be a dick? I'm a dick...no I am a colossal, Olympus Mons-sized super dick. I am Superdick from the planet Dickton because I am tired of all the blame I get because I can use a camera to its fullest potential while someone else thinks that the better the camera, the better the photos are when themselves are not versed in the basics of photography.

Gee! By that way of thinking then perhaps I should avoid talking about how nice a Shelby Cobra is lest someone sink a shit-load of money in one and kill themselves because they don't know how to drive. I might end up facing Murder One charges or something.

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe you could just mention that the camera you use takes a lot more effort to learn than a point and shoot and ask if the person asking has any. But I guess that would just be too easy or something.

^-.-^

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Maybe you could just mention that the camera you use takes a lot more effort to learn than a point and shoot and ask if the person asking has any. But I guess that would just be too easy or something.

^-.-^

Yeah, I've tried that. People on Customers Suck have tried that. Didn't work for me, didn't work for them. Idiocy is often defined as "repeating the same action in the same situation over and over again and expecting a different result".

I try to avoid being an idiot.

People still ask a simple question, get a simple answer, assume that they are now [subject] gurus, spend a lot of money, get a poor result and then blame the people they asked the question of. And I'm the one catching flak for it.

I find hard to understand why.

The Comedy Sketch group "The Frantics" have a sketch called Tae Kwan Leap (sequel to their popular "Boot to the Head" Sketch) where in a student of the martial arts asks his teacher to teach him how to kick some heads and wants instant gratification. When told that he must learn patience he replies "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, patience. How long will that take?"

Sound familiar? Sound like something you might have read about many times on CS.com?

That's the heart of my disillusionment with people who ask me questions that they don't want to listen to the answers to. So I reply in technical detail. Anyone who is really interested in the answer will ask me to clarify, or will have a passing knowledge of the subject at hand in which time my time and effort will have a positive result.

Anyone who doesn't give a rats ass and is in the "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, patience. How long will that take?" frame of mind will ignore me or even better still will give it up as a lost cause and keep on doing what they are doing.

Leaving two positive outcomes (for me at least).

One, they do not buy an expensive camera and then blame me for their failure.

Or two, they buy the camera and either figure out how to use it based on my advice, or they come back to me and ask "Ok, what am I missing since I'm still not getting as good results as you." in which case I can work with them.

I can not and positively WILL NOT work with anyone who comes up to me and screams at me for their strange delusion that I forced them to buy a camera they are unwilling to learn how to use.

And given the horror stories on customers suck, I'll lay you even money that I'm not the only one.

[MrsEclipse]

The first thing I notice about a picture someone takes is how clear it came out, actually. That is, if the camera was capable of taking the picture the person wanted.

I'm still impressed by how CRISP digital cameras take pictures are. If you take a gorgeous picture of a waterfall I'll be all, "Wow, it looks exactly like it does. Your camera can do that? Mine can't because it's a phone. Your camera takes better pictures than mine." It doesn't mean I don't value you as a photographer. I just am really amazed at what cameras can do.


I think a lot of people think the same way, even if they don't quite realize it.

[mikoyan29]

I don't mean to be rude, but the way you put it it sounds like you only want people who are already at least fairly good at photography to know how to take good pictures.
.

There have been a couple times when I've been at the Mackinac Bridge at night and people have come up to me and saw the picture on my screen. If they ask how it looks nice, I will tell them what to do. I cringe when I see someone with a higher end camera trying to take a night shot and are just holding it or worse..using the flash. So I will tell them that barring a tripod, they can sit it on a steady surface and use the timer.

[Amanita]

^You live near the Mackinac Bridge? Cool!
I've actually been considering getting a DSLR camera, how hard are they to learn to use compared to a point and shoot?

[mikoyan29]

^You live near the Mackinac Bridge? Cool!
I've actually been considering getting a DSLR camera, how hard are they to learn to use compared to a point and shoot?

The nice thing about a DSLR is that they have auto arc modes, so you can use them right away. As you feel more comforabke, you can play with the different settings to learn the effects of exposure times and apertures. Pretty soon you'll be fine with the manual modes.

[Shalom]

The vast majority of people know jack shit about how their flash even works and don't know that past, say, 15 feet, it does sweet fuck all.

Well now that depends. I have a flash that's good for up to 50 feet (depending on film speed, etc.).

Its only problem is that it's getting harder to find M2 flashbulbs to feed it these days...

edit: the cameras in my bag at the moment are three: a 3A Special Kodak (vintage about 1916), a 1A Folding Pocket Kodak (vintage 1905), both of which work and are loaded with the appropriate size rollfilm, and a Monroe Camera Co. Number 2 quarter-plate, circa 1897, which does not. None of the above have any flash sync at all. It's funny when people see me using these cameras and look at the back to try and see the image. Sorry, folks, LCDs hadn't been invented yet when these were made, you'll have to wait for me to get out the HC-110 and develop the film. It's not as difficult as you might expect to get the film either, never mind that Kodak hasn't made any in those sizes in 40 years.

When you use antique equipment like this, obviously, you have to know what you're doing in terms of camera settings if you want any kind of results at all, as it's not going to do it for you. Even so, they had point-and-shoot cameras even that long ago (the 1A-FPC has fixed focus. one speed (with a switch for instantaneous/bulb/time) and four aperture sizes, so it might be considered a semi-P&S itself).

[crazylegs]

I have in the past handed over my camera (only to someone who I absolutely trusted) and said "you do it then".

Seeing as they couldn't even turn on my camera I think I made my point...

(Nikon D300 in case you're wondering)

[mikoyan29]

I have in the past handed over my camera (only to someone who I absolutely trusted) and said "you do it then".

Seeing as they couldn't even turn on my camera I think I made my point...

(Nikon D300 in case you're wondering)

Ewww...Nikon...Nah, just kidding. When I was looking at cameras, I was torn between Nikon and Canon. The deciding factor was that I could get a mid-grade Canon for about $500 less.

[the_std]

Ewww...Nikon...Nah, just kidding. When I was looking at cameras, I was torn between Nikon and Canon. The deciding factor was that I could get a mid-grade Canon for about $500 less.

This is no longer the case. Nikon has a broader range of cameras at a more affordable price than Canon. Canon would be in danger of becoming a "specialty" SLR brand-name if they weren't so damned pervasive with their advertising.

[Andara Bledin]

Completely and utterly

I'll just leave this here....

New type of camera, from tech startup Lytro

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

A friend of mine just published a blog post about her camera, an Olympus PEN E-PL1. She described it as "a really great camera if you want to step up from a point and shoot but don't want to commit to a full on DSLR yet." For whatever that's worth.

[Skunkle]

I think the issue, Mongo, was that your first post came across as though, when asked, you give them lots and lots of minute detail with the intent of trying to make them (a) give up and/or (b) go the hell away. There's explaining (which may or may not result in the person giving up and walking away), and there's mouthing someone's ear off until they get fed up and stomp off. I'm sorry you get jerkoffs who come back and try to blame you for their own screw-ups or lack of knowledge, but were I in your position I'd begin by telling them "it's easy to take snapshots, but photography of the level that belongs framed on a gallery wall takes more than a high-quality camera. If you'd like to learn more about the techniques involved, I can tell you, but be warned that there's time and effort involved." Start out NOT assuming that they're ALL impatient idiots, and you'll get more interested parties willing to listen and learn.

I generally take snapshots, but I'm not trying to make gallery-quality photography. My acquaintance who criticizes my photos also likes to criticize my drawings, trying to explain that he thinks they look like crap unless I use perfect proportions, framing, focal points and composition. My explanation that my artwork is intended as setting-explaining material for roleplay sessions and not stuff you frame and hang on the wall doesn't change his opinion that I must follow all the rules, or the product is worthless. Example: One of my images is one of those "pipe organ pizza parlors" from the 70s. There are a million pipes, drums, etc. all over the walls, a big white organ console front and center, and a huge disco ball at the top, among other things. He tells me I need to eliminate the clutter; even if the setting is cluttered, it makes for a horrible image. He also says the disco ball needs to go; it and the console are the focal points, but he says one distracts from the other, and that I should erase it and just tell roleplayers, "Oh, there's a big disco ball up there, too, but I didn't draw it because it's a distraction in the drawing."

[Amanita]

^Dear god, somebody like that would drive me NUTS. I like to do drawings of personified skyscrapers, the guy would probably shit if he saw something like that.