Why Wouldn't an AUTO Shooting Mode be Optimal for RAW? (Page 7): What the heck are you talking about? In your response to Peterff you said "I called someone snobbish for dismissing all...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

You want me to reread carefully? I wasn't talking to you. Another poster threw insults at me. If you'll look at what I quoted, I was addressing them! Not you. Jesus, read carefully before having a go at someone.

What the heck are you talking about? In your response to Peterff you said "I called someone snobbish for dismissing all my photos because I haven't had the level of training he thinks I should have." And in your earlier post TO ME you said, "Still snobbish, if you're implying someone has to study to take a good photo." You weren't taking to me in your text to Peterff but you were talking about me and it is that reference to which I responded. Clearly good communication is not your forte. Another skill set you have no interest in working on I guess.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Being rude here. I'm trying to fathom why it matters what skills the photographer has. If it's an amazing photo, does it in your eyes devalue it, if their skill set is low? If so, why? It should be the photo which counts, not what got the photographer there. And anyone can be a photographer, they don't have to follow your definition.

You really don't get it do you? I never said or implied anything about devaluing great photos. You keep misstating and misinterpreting everything I write. It's extremely annoying. I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old. You should once again read, VERY CAREFULLY, all the words I wrote, one by one. I'm guessing English may be a second language for you.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

So all my photos, none of which you have seen, are all crappy snapshots? Thanks!

Likely that most are if you have not been educated. As I said, no way for us to know.

There could be some random good ones by accident.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Being rude here. I'm trying to fathom why it matters what skills the photographer has. If it's an amazing photo, does it in your eyes devalue it, if their skill set is low? If so, why? It should be the photo which counts, not what got the photographer there. And anyone can be a photographer, they don't have to follow your definition.

I think the issue here is that it depends. A good photograph can be the result of luck or the result of skill and planning. As we have seen in recent litigation, a monkey can do it. To be skilled does not require a degree or a certificate, but it does require aptitude and experience.

So are we talking about luck or skill?

"The harder I work, the luckier I get!"

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Peterff wrote:

I think the issue here is that it depends. A good photograph can be the result of luck or the result of skill and planning. As we have seen in recent litigation, a monkey can do it. To be skilled does not require a degree or a certificate, but it does require aptitude and experience.

So are we talking about luck or skill?

"The harder I work, the luckier I get!"

Now this I agree with.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

mwsilvers wrote:

You really don't get it do you? I never said or implied anything about devaluing great photos. You keep misstating and misinterpreting everything I write. It's extremely annoying. I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old. You should once again read, VERY CAREFULLY, all the words I wrote, one by one. I'm guessing English may be a second language for you.

English is not a second language for me. I was best in my year group on one test thank you very much.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

IDguy wrote:

Likely that most are if you have not been educated. As I said, no way for us to know.

There could be some random good ones by accident.

You're saying all my good ones are by accident, because I haven't had an education in photography? Are you going to accuse me of misunderstanding?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

English is not a second language for me. I was best in my year group on one test thank you very much.

How proud you must be!

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

mwsilvers wrote:

How proud you must be!

Gotta be proud of something, after all, all of my photos are bad because I never took a course.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

You're saying all my good ones are by accident, because I haven't had an education in photography? Are you going to accuse me of misunderstanding?

Perhaps you can post a couple of these good ones. You may be blessed with a naturally keen eye and a talent for composition that eliminates the need for you to to actually learn and understand what you're doing and why.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Gotta be proud of something, after all, all of my photos are bad because I never took a course.

You keep referring to courses. No one has said anything about having to take a course but you! Again, you need to focus on your reading comprehension.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Gotta be proud of something, after all, all of my photos are bad because I never took a course.

Apparently you don't understand sarcasm either.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

mwsilvers wrote:

Perhaps you can post a couple of these good ones. You may be blessed with a naturally keen eye and a talent for composition that eliminates the need for you to to actually learn and understand what you're doing and why.

Here. No courses needed for these.

(Download)

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

mwsilvers wrote:

Apparently you don't understand sarcasm either.

My comment IS sarcastic.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

mwsilvers wrote:

You keep referring to courses. No one has said anything about having to take a course but you! Again, you need to focus on your reading comprehension.

The implication is that a lack of education in photography means a photo is only a snapshot. This is what I'm arguing against.