View Single Post
  #5  
Old 13th August 2008
Graham_of_Rainham's Avatar
Graham_of_Rainham Graham_of_Rainham is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rainham
Posts: 7,810
Thanks: 616
Thanked 904 Times in 698 Posts
Likes: 2,137
Liked 1,503 Times in 856 Posts
Re: Camera Society or Camera Club?

I belong to a Photographic Society, that has its attention firmly on the end result, be it Prints, Digital Images and Slides (yes we still do that)

My original comment was, I have to admit, a bit of a swipe at the focus that is placed on the equipment rather than the resulting image. But this forum is about the equipment, so I was a little bit in the wrong there.

Each Year, The East Anglian Federation of Photographic Societies publishes a Club Directory in which it's roughly 50/50 between PS and CC so the name is fairly unimportant. Having visited a few they each have their own emphasis on activities and their programme reflects this, with some having more "equipment" evenings than others.

I love discussing the technical aspects of cameras and all the associated technology that goes to producing that final image in whatever format that may be.

I also enter Prints, Digital Images and slides into competitions and get great satisfaction from that.

What I fail to understand is why it's felt necessary to know what camera produced what image. I want to know about the exposure, lens, filters, and all the other useful info., but I don't give a hoot as to what make of camera produced the image.

This was most noticable to me at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition where every image was captioned with camera manufacturers details. It's the same with all the magazines.

I accept that I should simply ignor it and just enjoy the pictures but it's one of those silly little things that I find annoying. Hence the original comment.

Anyway, this is yet another great example of what makes this such a good forum.

__________________
Graham

We often repeat the mistakes we most enjoy...
Reply With Quote