XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: n-chen@cometcast.net 
  
 "ECM"  wrote in message 
 news:93903fca.0409090725.6e58edd9@posting.google.com... 
 > Thad  wrote in message 
 > news:<2qa0qoFt496tU1@uni-berlin.de>... 
 >> Thanks for the feedback, ECM. 
 >> 
 >> ECM wrote: 
 > ***SNIP*** 
 > 
 >> > So, I humbly propose (something like): 
 >> > rec.photo.digital.professional (combining the SLR and Rangefinder 
 >> > categories) 
 >> 
 >> There are consumer, prosumer and professional models of DSLRs. 
 >> Rangefinders are used by photographers with a wide degree of different 
 >> backgrounds too. 
 > 
 > I think that's one of the things I'm objecting to - the categories are 
 > too artificial. Perhaps a division along the lines of use rather than 
 > equipment type....? 
 > 
 > ***SNIP*** 
 >> 
 >> > rec.photo.digital.software (to discuss digital post-processing and so 
 >> > forth) 
 >> 
 >> Post processing will be discussed in the same group as all of the 
 >> cameras anyway, so why ban them from the charters? 
 > 
 > I was a bit hazy on this one as well - I was trying to come up with 
 > something too fast.... feel free to ignore it. 
 > 
 >> > Now, I picked these names "out of a hat" so to speak; really I just 
 >> > think that no-one will really understand the groups you've suggested, 
 >> > and the proposed names presuppose a level of knowledge of photography 
 >> > that few beginners (or even moderately sophisticated dabblers) are 
 >> > going to have. Perhaps a division along the lines of the professionals 
 >> > vs. the hobbyists would be more useful. Or perhaps hardware and 
 >> > software? I don't know. 
 > ***SNIP*** 
 >> Thanks, but that would open even more basis for "elitist" accusations 
 >> than the current proposals. 
 > 
 > Yeah, you're probably right about that. >>sigh<<. 
 > 
 >> This way, cameras are classified by ability, 
 >> not class or experience level. 
 > 
 > I disagree that the type of equipment one owns is a measure of 
 > photographic ability - it's more a measure of enthusiasm and excess 
 > wealth. 
  
 IMO, it's more the measure of photographic ability and enthusiasm; not so 
 much as having an excess of wealth. If I were to create a disending list of 
 what is most important, I would list: 
  
 1- Enthusiasm as being most important. Without that nothing else really 
 matters. 
  
 2- Photographic ability. Being enthusiastic drives one to continually find 
 ways to improve upon ability. The ability being developed is not related to 
 being exclusive to equipment type being used, but to the development of 
 one's mind in having understood and applying lessons learned. Great pictures 
 (as in pictures of opportunity) are not always taken with the best of 
 cameras and are often the results of darkroom talent. 
  
 3- Wealth is what I would list last. Don't misunderstand me. It's great to 
 be able to afford obtaining better equipment as learning curves improve. I 
 also recognized that being able to afford only Brownie type cameras is not 
 very helpful if one is very enthusiastic. But great cameras are also 
 available in the used equipment market. 
  
 A  long time ago I heeded the advice of studio pros when they recommended 
 this philosophical advice. Buy equipment that is better than what you need 
 at the time. As experience is gained, the advantages of the better equipment 
 will be readily available and in the end, it will prove to be cost 
 effective. Naturally, one shouldn't buy way over ones capability to pay for 
 good equipment, but when there is a difference of say $500 between mediocre 
 and good equipment, hold out and save for the good equipment. Trade-ins 
 incur large losses and private sales often lead to price haggling, sometimes 
 good and some times bad. 
  
 Just offering my opinion along with my abridged rational. 
  
 nick 
  
  
 >Snip 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)