At 09:30 AM 2/18/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>On Feb 17, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Stephen Scharf wrote:
>
> > You're right; I've read about the issues early on last year regarding
> > the10D back-focussing; some have noticed it, but others who felt they
> > had a real problem sent the camera to Canon to have the autofocus
> > adjusted and reported no further problems. Phil Askey tested this
> > bone of contention in his review of the 10D and did not find it to be
> > an issue. DPReview is populated by a lot of gear-heads, a lot them
> > are geeks more than they are photographers.
>
>I agree that the site is populated by a lot of people who do not know
>much about photography. I saw a thread yesterday asking, "What are F
>stops?" The argument can be made that they just don't know how to use
>the camera.
Not sure about that exactly, it could be overstated, though likely there's
a little bit of sheer ignorance of the tools at work as well.
I had a guy in my cab the other day from Norway who works for a subsidiary
of a large audio-engineering firm. Among other work his company innovates
product for the home-consumer market, speakers specifically. So we talked
and it came up right away that this fellow, fine chap in all respects,
didn't have a clue when I mentioned to the Advent 2-way system by Henry
Kloss, and less still for the work Kloss did earlier for AR and KLH. Hell,
my passenger wasn't all that clear even when I dropped the name Klipschorn
on him, an excellent product of no little historical significance which
happens to be current, though a faint bell rang upstairs somewhere on that
one . . . he said.
My point is that "knowledge" nowadays is not defined as it was when I grew
up. It used to be the case that a much more comprehensive historical
understanding (in any field) was more or less expected coming into an
entry-level position, if only because of a prospective employee's assumed
interest in the area, but no longer, and signs of this are everywhere to see.
That doesn't necessarily mean this fellow is specifically "unsuited" for
his work in a manner I could point to; it does imply that his understanding
of today's technology must be stilted to the degree that this understanding
of his exists absent any (clear) reference to and for the technology of
prior generations which helped to give birth to today's products.
In terms of photography, what I see (saw last time I bothered to get into
stupid arguments on photo.net, and it's been three years now or so) is an
entire generation of newcomers whose only appreciation of photography is
the final image on display and a worrying percentage of this group has
worked solely with digital gear. There seems little motivation by these
people to learn anything about the analog photographic process and, what
surprised me most of all, there are photographers of some merit who came up
in the analog school who not only wink at this but seem to think it could
be a good thing in some inherent way--which completely eludes me.
It seems that ignorance is not just bliss these days but part and parcel of
some superior education method!
I, of course, don't buy into this at all. I know better. Yes I do. Where
are my glasses?
Tris
www.tristanjohn.com
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|