Internet Experts: Who to listen to?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by kuzano

As the old saying goes.... I'm thinking we went to different schools together. Thanks.

Yeah... I have a fraternal (or sororial) twin who is 40 years younger than I (June 15, 1950/1990).

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

Are not all opinions of equal worth?

How about NASCAR racing for example. Is your opinion of it worth more than mine?

Highlight: No, they're not. I know effectively nothing about NASCAR racing, so unless you are equally ignorant, your opinion is probably worth a good deal more than mine.

But unless you are unusually knowledgeable about the history of the 35mm still camera (see A History of the 35mm Still Camera, Roger Hicks, Focal Press 1984), I'd back my opinions against yours on what came first, technical significance, etc.

Cheers,

R.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

this place is my go-to source, because of roger and other authoritative members like him. "authoritative" is the key qualifier, not authoritarian ...

I agree ... though you do need to make sure your bullsh!t filter is working before attempting to process the info!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Keith

I agree ... though you do need to make sure your bullsh!t filter is working before attempting to process the info!

Dear Keith,

And that your bullsh1t definitions are fully up to date.

Cheers,

R.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Keith,

And that your bullsh1t definitions are fully up to date.

Cheers,

R.

Refreshingly ... it's never needed on your site Roger!

[FrankS]

Hey, I've got an idea.

Anyone interested in an argument (remember the Monty python skit?) should find another venue. (Perhaps the room 2 doors down the hallway.)

Let's keep this a discussion.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

It's just a bunch of guys going round in circles. IMO.

Isn't "what came first" a fact rather than opinion?

Nascar: elegant.

"What came first": sort of. But there are always competing claims, with evidence of different weight. This is a fundamental problem in history, and where opinion (or definition) comes in to it. First patent? First prototype? First production camera? First influential camera? What constitutes 'production'? One? Ten? A hundred? How many were commercially available? Where? (Soviet Union/Sport, Hungary/Gamma Duflex?)

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

According to Wikipedia:"In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion... Opinions are never right or wrong they are merely a figment of what someone believes".

Do you concur Mr Hicks?

Yes, but see my previous post. And quite honestly, I don't have much time for Wikipedia. Unless you already have a broad understanding of the subject, you can't judge how much weight to give their opinions.

For that matter, in their history of the SLR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._reflex_camera), they habitually get my middle initial wrong (W not J) and omit my History of the 35mm Still Camera which is well known to most scholars in the field and was (and may still be, for all I know) an accepted text at RIT.

Cheers,

R.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

To some extent, yes. But equally, with over 40 books published and countless magazine articles, I've a better track record than most.

...

Yessir, you do. Thanks.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by FrankS

. . . Anyone interested in an argument (remember the Monty python skit?) should find another venue. (Perhaps the room 2 doors down the hallway.) . . .

Dear Frank

No it's not!

Cheers,

R.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Frank

No it's not!

Cheers,

R.

Sorry ... that was a contradiction!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

Oxford Dictionary.
Definition of opinion
noun

1a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

What is your point here? Note the word 'necessarily'. It is precisely because an opinion is 'not necessarily based on fact or knowledge' that some opinions are worth more than others. The ones that are based on fact or knowledge tend to be worth more.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Keith

Sorry ... that was a contradiction!

Dear Keith,

No it wasn't!

(Sorry, your time is up. My post was 6 minutes ago, and you signed up only for 5-minute argument).

Cheers,

R.

[FrankS]

Ha, ha. Thanks guys.

[michaelbialecki]

Originally Posted by SimonSawSunlight

don't "listen" to anybody.

I like that reply a lot....

cheers, michael

[texchappy]

And now for something completely different...

The job interview sketch:

5! 4! 3! 2! 1! Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by texchappy

And now for something completely different...

The job interview sketch:

5! 4! 3! 2! 1! Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding

Wasn't that your twin brother?

Cheers,

R.

[Hamel]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

I haven't heard of half the blogs you mention but for the few that I have heard of I can say that none of them gives any kind of photography insight whatsoever. They all seem to be about camera gear. There's nothing wrong with that and I like to read about gear and technical stuff as much as the next guy but I would hardly label that as 'solid photography insight'.

I find www.americansuburbx.com to give a very good collection of all sorts of different photography insights. Lots of Galleries, Interviews and Essays about great photographers. As I said, it's a collection of information, not a blog.

I second Americansuburbx. The best way to learn is to study the masters. Read interviews and watch videos of photographers talking about their work. Spend time viewing the magnum in motion videos. Take it all in and mold it to your own style. It's better than one person, who is probably mediocre, talking about what suits them best.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Hamel

I second Americansuburbx. The best way to learn is to study the masters. Read interviews and watch videos of photographers talking about their work. Spend time viewing the magnum in motion videos. Take it all in and mold it to your own style. It's better than one person, who is probably mediocre, talking about what suits them best.

Sod the videos. Look at the still pictures and read the books. At Arles this year I bought a 1952 'how to' book by Willy Ronis, Reportage et la Chasse d'Images. Last year I bought Derriere l'Objectif de Willy Ronis.

If you want to see why I think he's a genius, Google Ronis Provencal Nude and go from there.

Cheers,

R.

[texchappy]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll keep analyzing the images that move me and figure out what makes them do so.

Outside of understanding the basics (aperture/dof, shutter speed, exposure), is there anything else technically that will help make my photography better to learn?

Most of what I learned about photography I learned from film cameras, what sort of technical kind of things should I learn to make my digital output better? (and this is not an invitation to a film versus digital debate)

[lynnb]

Thanks Roger for mentioning Willy Ronis - can you recommend one book of his work?

Apart from well reproduced books of photographers whose works you admire (a good photography bookshop is a great place to spend a few hours - and don't forget the latest additions to your library thread here on RFF), I would also suggest looking at lots of art, analysing what you like and why you like it, as was earlier suggested for photographers' works. Analysing a book like this can teach you a lot about composition, lighting, and the use of colour.
For a comprehensive technical discussion of digital photography I can recommend this e-book. Others here may have alternative suggestions.
Cheers,

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

According to Wikipedia:"In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion... Opinions are never right or wrong they are merely a figment of what someone believes".

Do you concur Mr Hicks?

Haha, you should get into politics. Your selective quoting is funny

Here's the whole quote from Wikipedia including the parts you omitted:

"In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts." and "Opinions are never right or wrong, they are merely a figment of what someone believes. However it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments."

So basically that's exactly what Roger was saying.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

Roger stated that wiki was unreliable and mostly wrong.

The OP is looking to improve his photography. I, and many others in this thread have advised him to look at art that he likes and study it. I posit that he doesn't need to know which camera was used or whether it has a Hungarian patent. He can form an opinion of the image, whether he likes it or not, without knowing "facts". An opinion is subjective and can not be right or wrong.
If the OP likes a particular photo he should not be told that his opinion is worthless or invalid, by someone who has written over 40 books and knows all the facts.

That is my opinion.

So you believe that everyone's opinion is equal regardless of their knowledge or experience?

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

Roger stated that wiki was unreliable and mostly wrong.

The OP is looking to improve his photography. I, and many others in this thread have advised him to look at art that he likes and study it. I posit that he doesn't need to know which camera was used or whether it has a Hungarian patent. He can form an opinion of the image, whether he likes it or not, without knowing "facts". An opinion is subjective and can not be right or wrong.
If the OP likes a particular photo he should not be told that his opinion is worthless or invalid, by someone who has written over 40 books and knows all the facts.

That is my opinion.

I don't think Roger stated that Wikipedia was mostly wrong. All he said was that there are often some mistakes to be found in Wikipedia articles therefore it is not completely reliable.

As you will see if you read through the thread, I did make that very point about looking at photos one likes and studying them in order to improve one's photography (Btw, I can't find any post of yours making that point.) But if I read the thread correctly that's not what Roger's comments were related to. The discussion went off on a tangent about opinions and whether or not some are more valid than others. Roger used knowledge on camera patents as an example why some opinions that are interpretations of facts might be better supported by facts than others. I didn't see him make the point that technical knowledge is a prerequisite for appreciating aesthetic qualities of pictures.

By the way, while opinions cannot be right or wrong, they can be worthless and the arguments supporting them can be invalid. Let's say I'm a bigot and I say that I don't like some ethnic group. Now unless you think I'm being sarcastic or I'm lying you will probably not contest that I don't like that group but you might ask me why I don't like them. And when I then present you with arguments that are based on false prejudices you will, most likely, contest those arguments. And you will, rightfully IMO, think that this particular opinion is worthless. An ignorant person's opinions are not wrong, they're stupid (i.e. it is stupid to have them).

Anyways, to make a long story short, Roger and I have merely argued that just because truth conditions don't apply to opinions, it does not follow that all opinions are of equal worth.

[heartattackandvine]

I could recommend the nice bloke from Texas, Ted Forbes. He's totally about how to improve as a photographer, and has little time for equipment talk. His podcasts/videos are on his website, http://theartofphotography.tv/

I beg to differ from opinions expressing cynicism towards the breadth of information available on the Internet. I've seen before the Internet, and I've seen the Internet. The second one's better.

Use your own judgement to improve signal-to-noise ratio.