Hard to say. When money is tight, people tend to sell the lenses they use less frequently, and are less likely to buy lenses they don't expect to use often.
On a $15 camera such as the one in the video? Absolutely, why not. Obviously the images it produces will still be lousy, but at least the camera will be fun to look at. Years ago I painted up an inexpensive film camera with colorful psychedelic patterns. It looked awesome!
I'd be far more surprised if there actually was customer service at MBP.com! When I think of MBP.com, I imagine a huge warehouse with a minimal, low-paid staff - barely enough people to keep up with receiving and shipping stuff out. A constantly ringing phone no one has time to answer, emails piling up, etc. Keeping prices low usually means keeping operational costs low. And performing adequate customer service costs money.
Atheism cannot prove with facts that there is no God. It can't be done. A leap of faith is required.
Atheism is not a belief. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. No leap of faith is required. Of course the non-existence of god beings cannot be proven with facts. If they could be proven, they would no longer be supernatural. Just as one cannot definitively prove that invisible, magical unicorns don't exist. But the lack of proof does not mean one therefore must believe such magical unicorns do indeed exist.
When you attempt to read the card on the computer via card reader, do any files or folders on the card show up? Does the card register at all being connected?
True indeed. But in situations when grouping and categorizing has little usefulness and potentially stifles creativity, it is best to suppress the urge!
Which photographer style are you familiar with and what exactly is his/her style? How do you define its particularity? Personally i find it hard to compartmentalize my own works into one homogenous group. As for others, I see trends & types of photography, styles-not so much.
Is Abstraction in photography what you meant with universal style? I'm still weighing ideas on that, either to call it style or ism. But truthfully that is the general trend of photography. Even when when making panoramas, photographers tend to refine/compose the scene to its simplest form.
Which photographer style are you familiar with and... (show quote)
I don't think you quite understood my post. I was making a case against the categorization of photography styles, not for it. Even if it was possible to some extent, it wouldn't really be useful.
Obviously there are personal styles. With some photographers personal style is well-defined and identifiable, with others not so much. But universal style categories? I don't think it would be particularly helpful to compartmentalize photography in that manner. To what purpose or benefit?
I've seen lots of examples of "nearly flawless" sky replacement. It always means there's a flaw, and once you see it in a photo you can never unsee it.
But one can always tackle those minor flaws afterwards with a little manual editing. Sky replacement doesn't really do anything one can't do manually, but it can save some time. Sometimes.
If you like it, that's all which really matters. Far too many photographers seem to lack confidence and trust in their own perceptions, they require constant approval of their work from others.