Posted on 11/10/2009 12:49:57 PM PST by a fool in paradise
The same elements are in the photos, but they don’t yield the same images. And depending on what you are trying to accomplish, different settings are needed.
Uh, most people get a clear and accurate picture of what you mean when you say “point and shoot”. You have a camera in your hand and see something you want to take a picture of. You point the camera at that thing. You hit the “shutter” button.
It is pretty clear.
My buddy buys and sells a lot of Leica rangefinder cameras from the last five decades. Some might call them point and shoot, but they are not even close, even though they are not SLRs.
“which clearly distinguishes them from non-point and shoot cameras which require additional steps”
Ah, but they aren’t non-point and shoot, are they? Even with extra steps, the common steps are still there. You still have to point and shoot. This is not about whether laymen can understand what you’re talking about. Heck, everyone knows the phrase is supposed to mean that you ONLY have to point and shoot (even thought that’s not literally what’s being said). However, I’m not interested in what’s understood. I’m interested in the logic of it. In the actual meaning of words.
Those extra steps are the difference in camera type. Here let’s make an easy list.
Steps involved in taking a picture with and old fashioned all manual camera:
1 - set presets (speed, aperture etc)
2 - point
3 - focus
4 - shoot
Steps for auto-focus camera:
1 - set presets
2 - point
3 - shoot
Steps for point-and-shoot camera
1 - point
2 - shoot
And that’s also why the auto-focus name got dropped. Auto-focus and point-and-shoot are actually two different types of cameras with two different sets of steps to take a picture.
Morrisseey has a gguutt these days too.
One would think a band would encourage fans to take pictures. Some of the coolest pics you see of yourself are often the live performance shots that you didn’t even know someone took.
No they are non-point and shoot cameras. It’s not about the common steps, it’s about the fact that point and shoot is the entire list of all steps necessary to take a picture with point and shoot. That’s ALL there is, no other steps. All the other cameras there other stuff BESIDES point and shoot.
The logic of is quite simple. And has been explained to you enough times that you’re starting to look like a person arguing just to be arguing. No other camera can take a quality picture with the user ONLY pointing and shooting, thus why we call point and shoot cameras point and shoot.
Okay, if focus isn’t the sticking point, then something else is. Find it, and involve it in the name. I suggested Automatic photography a while back, that could pretty much cover everything that’s different. Although, of course, it wouldn’t be sufficient to distinguish disposable cameras from every other camera that is in some way automatic.
Call a point-and-shoot an instamatic then. Because you have limited your ability to craft the image for ease of use.
There are multiple things to control and they work together or against each other (aperature f-stop, shutter speed, film speed ISO) and whether you use a flash or not.
The image being in focus is not a factor. That is just plain user error.
And what do you propose calling...
give it up. The terms are set. Buy a dictionary.
It isn’t always the bands’ call. The venues want a cut sometimes too.
The House Of Blues for example has photographers under contract. On rare occasion they will permit cameras. But they try to control the use of images from their chain of venues.
And not really the same thing, but in the 1960s, a lot of bands played at the Whiskey A Go Go. Quite a few paid the club to be able to release “Live at the Whiskey A Go Go” albums on whatever label each band was under contract to.
If it isn’t a civic owned venue, ultimately the venue can say “no cameras”. The band probably gets some clearance.
And in the end, do it and let them decide if they want to pursue it.
It is very unlikely that any pro got into the show for free just so he could hear the band.
There isn’t any magic card that gets the press in wherever they want to go.
Press credentials that get a photographer into the show are issued by the bands. If you want credentials to shoot a performance, most bands will require proof that you are shooting for a specific publication before they will issue credentials.
In most cases, the credentials specify photos taken can only be used for that publication and generally cannot be resold or republished in the future. Many bands try to get photographers to sign draconian contracts signing over the rights to all images taken at the show before they will allow the photographers to enter the shooting location.
Good recommendations but, just in case someone is looking, I believe you mean the Panasonic Lumix FZ-28 and FZ-35. There is also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 which is smaller and has a 12x zoom.
For even less money and in an even smaller package there is the 10X Fuji FinePix F70EXR. It has some problems but there is nothing I've found better in low light at that price or double that price (the Lumix LX3 is sweet but the 2.5X zoom limits it and the price is getting close to entry level DSLR). Dynamic range of Fuji beats Panny too. I get washed out skies and blown highlights if I've not careful with the FZ28 and, especially, with an FX500.
bump
“It’s not about the common steps, it’s about the fact that point and shoot is the entire list of all steps necessary to take a picture with point and shoot.”
You don’t seem to understand, so let me try to explain it simply. Names are dreamed up to distinguish things from eachother. One does not distinguish things by what they have in common. If all cameras involve pointing and shooting, and they do, it’s couterproductive to name any particular type of camera after said qualities.
“That’s ALL there is, no other steps. All the other cameras there other stuff BESIDES point and shoot.”
Yes, duh, I know that. The point is, calling them “point-and-shoot” doesn’t say that, no matter how much people pretend it does. And it’s just that, the pretending, that annoys me. It’s lazy. There are a million better ways to say it, and make it clear.
“The logic of is quite simple. And has been explained to you enough times that you’re starting to look like a person arguing just to be arguing.”
No, people aren’t explaining it to me, they’re being unresponsive. I don’t need to hear about focus and apertures. I know there are more steps involved the more complicated a camera is. I said so from the beginning. All this is beside the point. The term “point and shoot” does not express everything you’ve been saying. It simply doesn’t.
“No other camera can take a quality picture with the user ONLY pointing and shooting, thus why we call point and shoot cameras point and shoot.”
And that’s one of the things I hate about the world as it is. Silly little expressions which express nothing. People playing at speaking, toying with code words that they think are clever but are in fact pretty haphazard and shallow.
Wow - U2 - groovy!
“give it up. The terms are set. Buy a dictionary.”
Point-and-shoot is not in the dictionary. It’s one of those little buzz-phrases that hipsters love and which die out in short order. I am perfectly free to loathe it, as you no doubt loathe other fadish phrases.
If you look closely, all three of your lists have steps involving pointing and shooting. I rest my case.
As for the difference between auto-focus and “point-and-shoot” cameras, I could care less. I only suggested calling them auto-focus, too, because everyone suddenly started talking about the all-important step of focus. Call it auto- anything. Because that’s its most important attribute, correct, that it does everything it can on its own.
I do understand, this name isn’t distinguishing by what the cameras have in common. It’s listing all of the steps.
Sorry but at this point you’re the guy pretending. Everybody else on the thread, and seemingly on the planet, seems to understand that when you are handed a point-and-shoot camera all you need to do to take a picture is point-and-shoot just like the name says. It’s a very descriptive name, that’s highly logical.
It’s been explained to you a dozen times. You DO need to hear about focus and aperture because those are what separate point-and-shoot from other cameras. The other steps ARE the point, the other steps are what clearly delineate them FROM point-and-shoot, those other cameras are NOT point-and-shoot because if you just point them and shoot them you get a crappy out of focus improperly lit picture.
This is not a silly little expression that expresses nothing. Quite the opposite. Calling the cameras point-and-shoot not only clearly distinguishes them from other cameras, it provides directions. There’s no code words or playing at being clever here, it’s actually one of the most intuitive and generally useful product designations out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.