12-03-2010, 07:58 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291331195' post='4716']
Serkan... there's nothing wrong in reading anything out there. For example, from guys like Thom Hogan, Lloyd Chambers, Ken Rockwell I learned about photographic concepts that people can misunderstand but still make people think that they know enough to write about them.
So my advice is to read things that have little to no writing-fluff in them. More to the point/scientific the article is, the fewer things can be said wrong or be misinterpreted by the reader. Afterall, nothing can be said/read wrong when there's no writing, right? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
GTW
[/quote]
I think reading rubbish is something that's not avoidable in todays internet full of junk. At least at the beginning... I don't read Lloyd Chambers or Ken Rockwell (not any more I must say)... Rather than those, I prefer objective and scientific articles. But this doesn't mean that when I find something informative from people like Thom Hogan I can use it to increase my knowledge. I mean I don't know the guy and I don't want look like his public attorney, but there's no meaning in saying "Thom Hogan is a joker"... not more than saying "GTW is the Batman"<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />...
Coming back to my request, can you suggest some authors who write scientific & objective articles (other than yourself)?
Regards,
Serkan
Serkan... there's nothing wrong in reading anything out there. For example, from guys like Thom Hogan, Lloyd Chambers, Ken Rockwell I learned about photographic concepts that people can misunderstand but still make people think that they know enough to write about them.
So my advice is to read things that have little to no writing-fluff in them. More to the point/scientific the article is, the fewer things can be said wrong or be misinterpreted by the reader. Afterall, nothing can be said/read wrong when there's no writing, right? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />GTW
[/quote]
I think reading rubbish is something that's not avoidable in todays internet full of junk. At least at the beginning... I don't read Lloyd Chambers or Ken Rockwell (not any more I must say)... Rather than those, I prefer objective and scientific articles. But this doesn't mean that when I find something informative from people like Thom Hogan I can use it to increase my knowledge. I mean I don't know the guy and I don't want look like his public attorney, but there's no meaning in saying "Thom Hogan is a joker"... not more than saying "GTW is the Batman"<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />...Coming back to my request, can you suggest some authors who write scientific & objective articles (other than yourself)?
Regards,
Serkan