Re: [Leica] Re: Amateur Photographer

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Hello, Horst,etc..

I'd like to add "amateur radio" to Horst's comments....much 
of the communications technology we enjoy today was 
'pioneered' by amateurs.....unfortunately, with the epidemic 
"dumbing down" of the US educational systems, and the systematic 
"liberalizing" of the "amateur" licensing structure, I don't 
see the past being representative of the future....too bad....

Yes, the better 'amateur' photographers are in every way equal 
to the 'professional'.....and many times better informed, at least 
technically....I've been both, and enjoy much more 'freedom' 
as an amateur!.....even though 99% of my income is from 
photography, I haven't been a "shooter" for years....this is 
changing somewhat, and with the changes will go some of my 
"freedom"....

Walt
On Fri,
23
Jul
1999, A.H.SCHMIDT wrote:

> This message was send once before, but I received an rrror message, telling
> me it was not send..
> 
> I am sending it again.
> 
> Horst Schmidt
> 
> 
> 
> > Dr. Joseph Yao wrote:
> >
> > Snip:
> >
> > Perhaps the title of the magazine says it all:
> > 'AMATEUR Photographer'.
> >
> > Dr. Joseph Yao,
> >
> > I agree with most of your comment about the Amateur Photographer
> > magazine.
> >
> > However I strongly disagree with the meaning ofyour last sentence. You
> > are inferring, that amateurs are of lower standards and of inferior
> > capabilities as the Professionals.
> >
> > I suppose you are considering your self as professional. It is true,
> > that in some fields, the professional is to be preferred. E.G., I don't
> > think I would like to be operated on by an amateur brain surgeon. In
> > other fields however, to be an amateur is not necessarily a sign of
> > inferiority. For example, in the field of astronomy, more comets and
> > stars have been detected, then by professionals. I suppose you don't
> > watch the Olympic games, because most of the athletes are, or are
> > supposed to be, amateurs. In the Photographic field, I don't believe,
> > contrary to you as it seems, that an amateur is not able to
> > differentiate between a good or an inferior camera, or picture. On the
> > contrary, an amateur can often  afford to experiment and try , whith out
> > having to worry, if the result is negative, where the next pay comes
> > from. A professional often does not have this privilege, because of time
> > restraints.  I also don't think, despite your professionalism, that you
> > grasped the meaning of the publication, behind the title Amateur
> > Photographer. The title does not, and I repeat
> > not, refer to the Staff of the magazine. It refers to the readers of the
> > magazine. Are you calling all the readers, simple?. The Editorial staff
> > are most probably professionals.They are surly professional journalists
> > and included are surely quite a few professional photographers. It just
> > shows you, just because one calls himself a professional, does not mean,
> > you produce a professional product.
> > I suggest therefore, you apologize to all the amateur LUG members. Maybe
> > you would  prefer that the LUG turns in to a Professional only forum.
> > Without a mixture, the LUG would bee doomed. It would turn in to a forum
> > where the members bore each other to death.
> >
> > Horst Schmidt
> >
> > NB. I am in no way affiliated with, or have shares, or a brother or
> > uncle, in the" Amater Photographer" publication.
> 
> 
>