jennimon wrote:
...If you were a member of a gym - a very enthusiastic weight lifter or jogger, would you scorn someone who had a trial membership? If that person came up to you and asked you how to work a machine or how to get the best results out of it, would you say "I'm not on a salary to answer your questions" or get wrapped up in semantics and start a debate?
I'd hope not.
No, but if someone came up to me and said "I didn't win the Mr. Universe title even though I've been working out for a whole two weeks. Do you think something is wrong with the weights?" that would be worthy of some scorn, or at least mirth.
fotorelic wrote:
lisy78--I've read your post several times now, and I truly did not understand what you were trying to say to me on first reading, insults aside.
If you are saying that only certain amateur photography questions are OK on this forum, and others aren't, based on motivation, I would say that most amateurs don't know when they asking the second kind of amateur question, or that it is not a good thing. You are asking an amateur to make a distinction which he or she is probably not even aware of.
This is why I suggested the notice, which has been implemented and which I think is great. I don't see why an amateur should be expected to take the temperature of a forum before posting, I really don't. Many disagree, and many disagree about amateur 'responsiblity', but I would point out that the notice does not hurt, does it? And it might actually help....Show more →
fotorelic, I did NOT insult you. I said you might be a troll or need help if you didn't get the difference between the questions, but you got the difference between the questions... so I don't see where the insult is.
I'm not the judge of what questions are or aren't ok and frankly I couldn't care less what anyone asks... if I think I can help I usually try to, provided that the poster shows that they've done the necessary legwork.
The OP has posted again in the thread and my feelings haven't changed... he(or she, I'm not sure which it is but it's irrelevant) is comparing shooting someone's wedding while having significant equipment and technical know-how limitations (I don't know what else to call his surprise at what the camera is doing using various settings) to his learning trombone by playing it. Frankly I would compare his wedding experiment to volounteering to play the trombone for a bunch of kids who have a ear condition that will require the removal of their ears the next day and who wish to hear their favorite song played one last time. If you can't make that trombone sing like there's no tomorrow, stay home and play for your friends. and if the foundation says they don't have money to hire a professional trombonist tell them to figure something else out. it's amazing what materializes at the 11th hour when you don't think you have alternatives.
For what it's worth I'm glad you continued this discussion which resulted in Evan's editing his post. i think the edit is indeed a VERY GOOD THING.
I would actually strengthen it to say something like "if you're going to shoot a wedding for free keep that to yourself, we really don't want to hear it.. since that really is the truth about that bit right there"
