Something Very Annoying Happened Tonight

[epp_b]

True, most people want a point and shoot. On the other hand, the D40 is as cheap as ever these days ($400 on Amazon with a kit lens, the last I checked) and very easy to use.

Ask him if he actuallyi wants to get into photography. If yes, suggest the D40 kit. If no, tell him that every P&S camera is pretty much the same.

[TPF Sponsor]

[Christie Photo]

Usually, in my experience, if you give them enough rope they'll hang themselves. If not a few well placed questions will bring their full ignorance into a glorious spotlight.

You literally took the words right out of my mouth.

The only thing I can ad is, check your motives. What is it you want to achieve? If you feel you have to set the record straight, then go for it. If you're feeling she needs to be knocked down... punished... well, then just quietly smile and let her ramble. It's likely others in the room will see what's going on... both with her and you.

[SrBiscuit]

set her up...be passive aggressive.
ask her questions that seem obvious that you KNOW she doesnt know the answers to, and when she tries to answer, gently correct her or even do the whole "oh, that's weird, i was always under the impression that A B C..."

theres a guy at work that has a similar attitude toward everything, and ive called him out on more than one occasion using the tactic above, and he has backpedaled everytime.
it's an intrinsic victory, but a victory none the less.

video tape it and you tube it!

[KvnO]

Personally, I don't see the point of being an ass about it (unless you want to look like an ass). If the information is really bad, you can correct her politely. Maybe she'll even appreciate it.

In a situation like this, I'd let it go. If he has an interest in an SLR, chances are he'll be happy if he decides to choose one over the point and shoot.

[JerryPH]

I think what you did, Chris, was the best. Let the waters of her lack of knowledge roll off you like rain off a RainX'ed window... lol

It did not cause you to lose any money, it did not make you look bad, it had no adverse affect on you as a person or a photographer... you did good by not raising any stink.

I would love to have competition in my town as poor as she appears to be... my business would KILL hers on a daily basis.

Meh... come here, vent a little, we make fun of her stupidity a bit and move on. Thats the best way to handle these kinds of situations.

Something that I often tell my friends to know how important things are or not...

"As yourself... in 25 years, *HOW* important will that conversation be and how will it impact your life?... oh, not very much, huh?... then it is not very important now, so don't let it get under your skin."

[stsinner]

I'm always amazed when people belittle, "Auto shooters." I've seen many times where auto pictures are better than pictures taken by, "Manual shooters." Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out or you want to control the exposure or do something funky with the picture or control DOF. Can you honestly tell me that Auto mode doesn't take good pictures? It's the same tired argument, and if someone wants to blow a ton of cash on a nice camera and shoot auto, why should we care? It's their money, and with more money probably comes a better auto mode. Since everyone does PP anyway, why not just shoot in a mode where you know you'll get a good basic shot and then do to it whatever you would have tried to do to it by manipulating your camera? If I have time to play around and retake pictures I'm in manual, but if I really need to get a shot, I use auto because I know that it's kind of like an insurance policy.. You can totally blow a shot in manual, but it's hard to blow a shot in Auto. It will more often than not be a pretty decent shot. Now I know that there are reasons for shooting outside auto, such as stopping motion with a faster shutter speed, forcing low-light pictures to expose, etc.

As for your conversation, I'd have corrected any misinformation, but if she was just giving her opinion then let her babble away.. If she was trying to educate the chap with misinformation, then you can summon all the tact you can muster and join the conversation while remaining cordial. Right is right, and a few Wiki searches or thumbing though some books would have been on the agenda. You said you were having fun-plus, you all seem to enjoy photography, so flipping through some books could have been additional fun and learning for your two froends all at the same time..

[Mike_E]

^^ What Jerry said. Plus ask you friend if he'd like to come along one day and see how your camera shoots to see if he would like one like it. You can correct any misconceptions then.

[gsgary]

I'm always amazed when people belittle, "Auto shooters." I've seen many times where auto pictures are better than pictures taken by, "Manual shooters." Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out or you want to control the exposure or do something funky with the picture or control DOF. Can you honestly tell me that Auto mode doesn't take good pictures? It's the same tired argument, and if someone wants to blow a ton of cash on a nice camera and shoot auto, why should we care? It's their money, and with more money probably comes a better auto mode. Since everyone does PP anyway, why not just shoot in a mode where you know you'll get a good basic shot and then do to it whatever you would have tried to do to it by manipulating your camera? If I have time to play around and retake pictures I'm in manual, but if I really need to get a shot, I use auto because I know that it's kind of like an insurance policy.. You can totally blow a shot in manual, but it's hard to blow a shot in Auto. It will more often than not be a pretty decent shot. Now I know that there are reasons for shooting outside auto, such as stopping motion with a faster shutter speed, forcing low-light pictures to expose, etc.

As for your conversation, I'd have corrected any misinformation, but if she was just giving her opinion then let her babble away.. If she was trying to educate the chap with misinformation, then you can summon all the tact you can muster and join the conversation while remaining cordial. Right is right, and a few Wiki searches or thumbing though some books would have been on the agenda. You said you were having fun-plus, you all seem to enjoy photography, so flipping through some books could have been additional fun and learning for your two froends all at the same time..

Auto does not take good pictures if you shoot sport

[Dubious Drewski]

Auto doesn't take good pictures if you use wide aperture lenses and want to take advantage of it.

- What if you're at that wedding and you want to isolate the subject(bride) walking down the isle? You've got a f2.8 lens on, but that camera won't touch that wide aperture in green mode! Nope, it will choose something completely inappropriate, like f8, iso 400 and 1/45th shutter. Sure, it's going to give you the correct exposure, but the shutter's too low, the ISO can go way higher, and the aperture needs to be much wider for the effect. Green mode can't figure that out.

- What if you are in a hockey rink and want to concentrate on having the fastest shutter possible? Green mode can't figure that out.

- What if you're in that hockey rink taking photos for a newspaper and having really noisy pictures won't matter? (noise doesn't show up at all in newsprint) Green mode would give you typical middle-ground settings like f4, 1/60th shutter and ISO 400-800 or something completely stupid like that. What you'd really need in a hockey rink is f2.8, 1/250th and ISO 1600/3200. Green mode couldn't figure that out.

So sure, you could, in theory, get a better shot in Green mode than someone shooting in another mode, but it would be a fluke.

I don't trust green mode.

[Moglex]

Well, obviously you can think up a billion examples where full auto will destroy your chances of a decent shot.

That doesn't alter the fact that for a great many people the majority of the pictures they will want to take will be perfectly acceptable using auto. Not the best obtainable but that's not what they're after.

And when the auto fails they'll just classify that type of shot as 'difficult' and avoid it in the future. It may seem a sad waste of equipment to an enthusiast but it keeps them relatively happy.

Of course people such as that are wasting their money if the buy an all singing all dancing SLR and keep it 'on green'. Plus the size of the thing may well inhibit them from taking it out at all.

As always, 'horses for courses'.

[JerryPH]

I'm always amazed when people belittle, "Auto shooters." I've seen many times where auto pictures are better than pictures taken by, "Manual shooters." Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out or you want to control the exposure or do something funky with the picture or control DOF. Can you honestly tell me that Auto mode doesn't take good pictures?

It takes "ok" pictures, no it doesn't take a picture to the maximum possible quality. It is there only for one thing... to hand a crutch to those that are clueless.

Anyone that understands photography and how to use their cameras... knows this to be a fact.

Anytime and EVERY time you see someone take a better picture in auto vs manual... you are looking at someone that doesn't understand either his camera, exposure, photography in general, or any/all combinations of the above.

Auto mode has made people lazy and not need to know anything. This was certainly not the case in the film days where there was no such thing as auto mode as it is today (auto focus, auto expose, auto compensate, and "whatever" aperture it takes to get the shot at the minimum shutter speed set up in the camera).

I am not trying to be insulting or saying that anyone here is like that, but I can guarantee you that in 5 years, if you ever get photography down... you will look at your statement above... and laugh.

[Christie Photo]

Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out...

I'll give auto a try when I can't figure something out!

-Pete

[JerryPH]

I'll give auto a try when I can't figure something out!

[Seefutlung]

Much of the impact with an image is derived from the creative side ... while I am personally ignorant of seeing first hand what "auto" can do for me ... I think that that "auto" will severely limit one's creative options.

Gary

[leighthal]

I'm one of those "auto shooters". I'm learning photography and I think it's the best way to learn. I take offence at the hot debates that I am wasting my time (or somehow your time) having a DSLr and using it on auto. Why would I want the limitations of a PS if I am trying to learn a new hobby? You would never instruct someone to buy a soapbox cart if they are trying to learn how to drive. Soapbox cars may have the basics but they will never get you on the highway.

If I ever do get the hang of exposure and such I hope that I never come back here and become a "manual elitist", trying to feed my ego at the expense of others.

I guess i'm just frustrated and needed a place to vent... how do you guys deal with people who think they know it all... do you just let them go on, or do you try to correct them>????

I tend to tell them that what they say can be harmful (or hurtful). If that fails I walk away and don't listen. Deafness has saved me tons of anxiety.