Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
From | PeterN |
Date | 12/07/2013 15:00 (12/07/2013 09:00) |
Message-ID | <l7v9k80112r@news6.newsguy.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
Followups | Savageduck (53m) > PeterN |
SavageduckNot at all the same. the purpose for my definition was to make it clear that a good photo artists was all I was referring to. My definition was ignored because it attempted to preclude arrogant chest thumping, albeit unsuccessfully. -- PeterN
On 2013-12-07 13:23:12 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:PeterNSavageduck
On 12/7/2013 4:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:Eric StevensPeterN
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:59:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:nospamEric Stevens
In article <u7l4a9t5h6h49bikcrpj86m300lu31sock@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensnospamPeterNnospamPeterNSavageduck
would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record actions. the artist modifies each image, individually.
Not all photographers are "artists".
in fact, very few are.
And I was clearly only talking about good photo artists.
that's nice.
everyone else was talking about photographers, not a specific niche you picked.
For a given definition of 'photographer'. You seem to be using a different one.
a photographer is one who takes photographs.
what definition are you using?
The question is 'what definition is everyone else using in this discussion?' My impression is that the definition does not include merely holiday/family snap shooters.
See my response to Tony Cooper. I can't understand why my clear contextual definition was ignored.
...because it is biased, pretentious, and wrong. It is only worthy of being ignored. Your position is the same as saying that only graduates of the Harvard Law School should be called lawyers.