intimidating.....

[Netskimmer]

I didn't say it was likely that she didn't know what she was doing, I was just playing my own devils advocate and mentioning both ends of the spectrum of possibilities. People do go out and spend tons of money on gear they don't know how to use and sometimes they do get embarest by that when in the presence of someone who can. This is not an assumption or opinion, this is fact. Your assumption that this is not even in the realm of possibility doesn't really matter.

 

[Steve5D]

I didn't say it was likely that she didn't know what she was doing, I was just playing my own devils advocate and mentioning both ends of the spectrum of possibilities. People do go out and spend tons of money on gear they don't know how to use and sometimes they do get embarest by that when in the presence of someone who can. This is not an assumption or opinion, this is fact. Your assumption that this is not even in the realm of possibility doesn't really matter.

Personally, I would be "embarest" [sic] if I jumped to conclusions the way many here do. Based on the information provided by the OP, odds are the woman probably knows what she's doing. It's kinda' silly to suggest that she could be lying. What's the basis for something like that?

Also I've never said it wasn't within the realm of possibility. This conversation would be a lot more enjoyable if you approached it honestly instead of attributing things to me I've never said. You should be embarest for doing so...

 

[Netskimmer]

You just jumpted to the conclusion that she knew what she was doing because she said she did and carried an expensive camera. We have no knowledge about this woman so any postulation on my part or yours is just speculation.

Again, I never said she didn't know what she was doing I just said it was possible. You dissmissed my second comment as 'nonsense' it angered you that I even typed it. If you think it is possible, why would you react so aggressive towards me bringing it up.

 

[pixmedic]

Lets not drag the thread too far off the civil track.

 

[Steve5D]

You just jumpted to the conclusion that she knew what she was doing because she said she did and carried an expensive camera. We have no knowledge about this woman so any postulation on my part or yours is just speculation.

Again, I never said she didn't know what she was doing I just said it was possible. You dissmissed my second comment as 'nonsense' it angered you that I even typed it. If you think it is possible, why would you react so aggressive towards me bringing it up.

The OP stated that the woman worked in a photo studio. I don't think it requires any great stretch of the imagination to assume she knows how to use a camera.

Other than that, I'll just say that I would be embarest if I jumpted to anything...

 

[vintagesnaps]

Steve I don't know why it was necessary to post a comment that seems to be for the purpose of making fun of someone's grammar or spelling. So he mispelled a word, why even comment on it?

This seems to be a lot of speculation because I don't think we know the whole story of why the client brought her own camera. It seems unusual but could have been for a reason that was fairly mundane - we don't seem to have enough information to know. I think that's the type situation in which the photographer would need to take control and ask questions or discuss it with the client so it can be a workable session.

 

[manaheim]

Let's stop the hostile remarks, picking on spelling, etc.

The moderation team is getting a little tired of having to lock threads, and additionally tired of the same individuals being in the midst of them.

Let's return to civil discourse please.

 

[Steve5D]

This seems to be a lot of speculation because I don't think we know the whole story of why the client brought her own camera. It seems unusual but could have been for a reason that was fairly mundane - we don't seem to have enough information to know. I think that's the type situation in which the photographer would need to take control and ask questions or discuss it with the client so it can be a workable session.

I agree.

I just happen to think it's silly to dismiss the possibility (or perhaps probability?) that the woman knew how to use a camera. If the OP says she worked in a studio, there's no reason not to take that at face value. Suggesting that she could be lying is silly, primarily because whether or not she's lying (which is really nothing more than wild speculation) is completely irrelevant to the scenario...

 

[imagemaker46]

Working in a studio doesn't necessarily mean the mother knows how to use the camera. She could have helped set up lights, moved sets around, done make up, and maybe shot a few things. The thread is about the OP finding another person with a camera intimidating. If the Op is going to charge money to shoot she had better get over the "mother's gear is better than mine" thoughts in a hurry. If all it takes is someone holding a more expensive camera to rattle the Op, there is a confidence issue at hand.

 

[Steve5D]

Working in a studio doesn't necessarily mean the mother knows how to use the camera. She could have helped set up lights, moved sets around, done make up, and maybe shot a few things.

It's also equally likely is that she was the primary photographer and is quite proficient with a camera. There's simply no reason to dismiss that possibility.

The thread is about the OP finding another person with a camera intimidating. If the Op is going to charge money to shoot she had better get over the "mother's gear is better than mine" thoughts in a hurry. If all it takes is someone holding a more expensive camera to rattle the Op, there is a confidence issue at hand.

Agreed...

 

[tirediron]

Closed pending discussion amongst the Moderating Team.