i think today i will go home and photograph my toilet bowl. it's a good subject cos it has many curves.
but before that i better do more pushups. so i can be strong enough to carry a 1ds.
Black lens, white Lens, can take picture is a Good lens
1 piece of meat is not enough to make satay, you need 3 (satay is called satay because it came from Chinese dialect pronunciation 三叠 ) of course, can always chop up the 1 piece into 3 before grilling ... yumyum
Then, what is so specific or absolute about life? Care to share with us?
If it is so specific, why we have statistical studies and probability studies?
We more than often use statistics to draw conculsion on daily life, eg. To support the statement: More boys enrol into engineering courses. But having a few female engineering student will not void the statement.
As you know, in statistic, we treat outliers separately. One or two outliers are not going to have a major impact on the conclusion drawn. Therefore, quoting a few famous female photographers is not going to overturn my statement.
You mentioned about Supply and demand. How did this topic got to do with economics?
I am very surprise that nobody actually challenge your points that man generally gets into photography because of some marketing terms. I will try when I have time.
Last edited by Silence Sky; 17th October 2006 at 11:03 PM.
Last edited by Wisp; 17th October 2006 at 10:43 PM.
Last edited by Silence Sky; 17th October 2006 at 11:21 PM.
Supply and Demand is about the invisible hand balancing the economy. We are not discussing about pricing or market trend in this thread. Therefore, it is not related to this topic. If you really want to apply economic principle here, maybe can try using the indifference curve. For example: I am willing to give up one can of Pepsi to look at a male (in trunk) portrait, I am willing to give up five can of Pepsi to look at a female (in bikini) portrait. Both choices give me the same level of satisfaction. By counting the average number of Pepsi needed to trade off for looking at each portrait, maybe we will have a better answer.
For men, most of us got into photography probably because of good marketing creating a demand.
Marketing is for Product, Photography is a hobby and life style. We can promote photography through campaigning (eg. Photography is good and beneficial for you) but very less through marketing. Now, it is like you are saying the manufacturer is so good at marketing that got you to buy a camera without having a purpose. Now, I have bought this camera, what to do with it? Got no choice, but to pickup photography.
The manufacturers repeatedly use machoism synonymns in order to sell their products, such as 'tough', 'reliable', 'speed'.
Got too much to say, but will keep it short. “Tough”, “Reliable” and “Speed”, these terms are used to described the products, having bought this product does not make one a macho man. A lady will also want to buy a product that is tougher, more reliable and perform faster, isn’t it?
Sad to say, few ever enter it soley because they want good photographs. Then again, that's very much my opinion.
Since it is very much about your opinion, let’s skip this line.
So much for now, type more later.
Last edited by Silence Sky; 18th October 2006 at 01:20 PM.
Men are generally better photographers
Men are specifically better photographers.
see? i believe(correct me if i am wrong) when you first started this thread, your meaning is actually the first one. but some people just like to you-know-what and purposely view it as the second meaning. with this discussion(or argument, as some pp called it) going on at different sides of the coin, it will just get violent and more violent and more violent, until it becomes a flaming match(like what it is going to happen soon when this post is quoted and replied).
so back to the "arguement" about life being "general"............, there is no argument, there is no spoon, cos i dun know what "general" is, same for "specific". problem is those two words can be defined differently to give advantage to one's "arguement". one can very easily mislead people by defining those words him or herself, giving a slight skewed to the actual topic of disccusion by allowing them to give "arguments" like "Tell me another Lee Kuan Yew you know". and since we find it hard to pinpoint the exact meaning of "general" and "specific", we shall take the general meaning of them as their specifics differ from people to people. so, if one wants to talk about life being general or specific, well......, how do you define "life" in the first place? life as in you, or life as in mankind? ............or do you want to take life in general?
Last edited by satay16; 18th October 2006 at 03:10 PM.