Not me, Tom … must've been someone else. Read the article, Tom - it's only a couple of months old.

You know - the last time you mentioned Samsung - IN THIS VERY THREAD - you pointed out Samsung was over and done with - and I was quick to point out the Galaxy NX series - is still very much with us. But, perhaps - because it was convenient not to acknowledge it - to advance your argument, you chose to ignore it … do yourself a favor, Tom … and Google the Samsung Galaxy NX-30 … would you, PLEASE!!!!

Check into his qualifications. For example, has he ever been a
faculty member at an accredited institution? (Maybe he taught
at the Sorbonne or the UC--but I seriously doubt it.)

I did find this on-line:
"As mentioned everywhere, Serge Ramelli Signature Preset Collection
is a chest of positive energy, and the pros of this product is beyond listing.
Serge Ramelli Signature Preset Collection is absolutely suitable for beginners.
The techniques are extremely powerful and easy to follow."

Shades of Tony Robbins.

I did not find any page about him that did not appear to originate with him
or someone connected to him. He's such a well-known photographer that he
doesn't even have a page on Wikipedia (though he does on Corporation Wiki).

Internationally at least, he is mainly known for his Youtube videos, which
makes him almost as famous and important as Henri, le Chat Noir.

I'd be suspicious of anyone peddling a "system". There is only one photographer
with a highly regarded system: Ansel Adams. And his Zone System was entirely
defined in film photography terms.

Ansel Adams is a good case in point. He had an 8th grade education. But he
taught at the Los Angeles Art Center School (now the LA ArtCenter College
of Design), along with Fred Archer. He was self-educated in photography,
but few photographers are as detail-oriented and technical as he was.
(He also taught himself to play the piano, then trained to be a concert
pianist under Henry Cowell!)

Technology is based on science.. Cameras are always optical, but they are
only also chemical, electrical, electronic or computerized if you want
them to be. So photographers get to pick how much technology they want
to deal with.

Your current camera, fit is digital, uses all of the above, except chemical.
So it's based on a lot of different sciences (all founded in physics).
Take exposure for example: it is based on optics and sensiometry.
If you understand the science, you understand exposure. If not,
not.

So you don't need a charismatic motivational speaker as a teacher,
you need somebody who understand the science and how to apply it.
Only then does it all make sense.

Physical laws do not change, but technology does So time spent
learning science will pay off much longer than time spent learning
which button to press in which order on firmaware revision 2.1.2.

The same goes for art training. The rules for composition in
photography are similar if not identical to the rules for composition
in painting.

In art, new media do not make old media obsolete. The painter using
the very latest medium is unlikely to produce better work than say,
Giotto, Vermeer, Cezanne or Turner. Art is older than civilization and
older than history, and will probably continue long after civilization has
fallen and history is no longer recorded.

So time spent learning science and art is never wasted. But there is
no substitute for a knowledge in a teacher--not fame, forturne or a
good sales pitch.

Anyone can hang out a shingle as a "psychic advisor" or "photography
teacher"--no degree or license required by the State. But you need
someone who knows the definition of "candlepower" and doesn't
think it's something witches do.

If there's a "royal road" to photography, I've never found it. Experience
is a good teacher--but only if one has enough of the theory to make
sense out of it.

A lot of things in photography are contrary to common sense and what
our senses tell us.. What-you-see (with your naked eye or in the OVF,
EVF, back screen, or computer monitor) is rarely what what-you-get in
the final print. This is equally true in processing and image file.

In this respect, photography is like piloting an aircraft in cloudy skies
(IFR conditions): the pilot has to understand and trust his instruments.
The artificial horizon tells him which way is up---if his inner ear
disagrees, he must go with the instrument--otherwise he may put the
plane into a spin.

Theory (and science) cannot be dispensed with in training photographers
any more than it can be dispensed with in training pilots. The difference
is: pilots all know this---and they know the limitations of the autopilot.
At the first sign of anything unusual, they grab the controls and the
autopilot disengages, giving the pilot full control. (Except on a Boeing 737
Max 8 with MCAS.)