Skip to main content
news

Re: converting raw images f...

PeterN
SubjectRe: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
FromPeterN
Date12/07/2013 15:00 (12/07/2013 09:00)
Message-ID<l7v9k80112r@news6.newsguy.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSavageduck
FollowupsSavageduck (53m) > PeterN

On 12/7/2013 8:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck
On 2013-12-07 13:23:12 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:

PeterN
On 12/7/2013 4:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:59:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
In article <u7l4a9t5h6h49bikcrpj86m300lu31sock@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

PeterN
would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record actions. the artist modifies each image, individually.

Savageduck
Not all photographers are "artists".

nospam
in fact, very few are.

PeterN
And I was clearly only talking about good photo artists.

nospam
that's nice.

everyone else was talking about photographers, not a specific niche you picked.

Eric Stevens
For a given definition of 'photographer'. You seem to be using a different one.

nospam
a photographer is one who takes photographs.

what definition are you using?

Eric Stevens
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.

PeterN
See my response to Tony Cooper. I can't understand why my clear contextual definition was ignored.

Savageduck
...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.

Not 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