[stoppingdown]

"you must have a very good camera" is a good start...

 

:lol:

 

This is the mandatory starter, of course. Personally, I don't receive lots of comments about my photos, most evidently because I publish them only to my site (with very rare exceptions) and I don't enable comments on it. But I take personally insults directed at other photographers, and one of the worst one is "How lucky you was"; typically referring to an outstanding photo where the moment an osprey predates a fish has been frozen, or a bee-eater offering a bug to his mate, or a wonderfully composed landscape with everything at the right place... ignoring the patience and the preparation that led to the final image.

 

There's an outstanding episode about this insult that I still remember perfectly: at an exhibit of the former BBC wildlife photographer of the year prize, there was a perfect photo of a grebe reaching the nest and offering food to the chicks. It was taken literelly on the surface of the water - so you get it, perfect bokeh etc... A lady commented the infamous "how lucky he was", ignoring that the caption near the photo was explaining how the photographer got it after wearing an underwater suit, entering the pond before the dawn to avoid being spotted, and passed several hours still in the cold water, with the camera and lens laid over a floating element...

 

While this insults falls in the same category "it's thanks to everything, but the photographer", I find it particularly disturbing because it ignores the fact that a photo is the result of the process, and not necessarily a single instant...

 

PS @Studor13: can you please give the references of the green book "The Alps" at the right side of the first posted photo? It's intriguing me...

[mst]

"The Alps: A Birds-eye View" by Matevz Lenarcic

[Brightcolours]

A bit more subtle: "Well done!" which has that patronising quality to it.

[Studor13]

 

PS @Studor13: can you please give the references of the green book "The Alps" at the right side of the first posted photo? It's intriguing me...

 

Yes, that book is a good one.

 

It's by a guy called Matevž Lenarčič. It “only” covers the European Alps. He also has two or three others where he goes right around the world - solo, of course.

[stoppingdown]

Thanks for the book info.

[Rover]

Being called a paparazzi. By a (clueless) relative, to add injury to insult.

[obican]

How old is Lubitel?   First was made 1950.

 

Maybe the grandfather did HAVE a Rolleicord (introduced in 1933). Or even a Rolleiflex (1929)? Cycling through Wales in the 90s, when a lot of factories and coal pits got closed down, I could see all kinds of Rolleis collecting dust in the second hand windows. 

 

 

It's not the age, it's how common Lubitel are comparet to various Rolleicord and Rolleiflex. I've heard that "we have a camera just like that at home" and it always turned out to be a Lubitel, no exceptions so far. And if they were talking about a smaller camera, it's either a Zorki or a Zenit. Not even a Kiev.

 

Still, one can find a Rolleicord Vb in working condition for less than 100$ here. In the meantime, hipsters have driven Lubitel prices to around that much as well.

 

Maybe I should buy another Rollei.

 

Fun Fact: Carrying two Rolleicord Vb with different films in them weigh less than having a Hasselblad with two backs.

[couplos]

In common sense

"zoom" is the name of all lens 

 

Most people would have to ask "prime?"

 

in common sence,

a lens is a lens,

a zoom is a variable focal lens,

 

...

nerving me "some" people do not understand, even after explaining the difference

 

kr

couplos

[Brightcolours]

Not an insult, just a related dumbass question: How much zoom does that lens have? 

[Rover]

Not an insult, just a related dumbass question: How much zoom does that lens have? 

... and then, derision when they learn that it's "only" 2.2x (as in 16-35/2.8 L )