John and everyone, and since John chose to make the personal remarks "public":

At 03:32 PM 3/15/2010, johntubbs at comcast.net wrote:

>Jim and everyone,
>I'll weigh in only one more time here with two points.
>
>1.) I find it interesting that the people with the expensive gear
>aren't the ones criticizing the abilities of people who choose to
>use less expensive gear. I respect people's choices, and in case
>people missed it in my first post, almost all the time nowadays I'm
>using my $300 superzoom digicam. I think the people with the ego in
>this thread are the ones who imply or outright state that people who
>make different choices than they do clearly are inferior
>photographers. Who has the narrow-minded viewpoint here?

Then why, John, did you set up a "straw dog" of a bird 500 feet away
at a nest, then make the absurd INFERENCE that we, who use less
expensive and less powerful equipment, think our results would EVER
be better than someone using high end, MUCH MORE POWERFUL and IMAGE
STABILIZED lenses or cameras? YOU did that. WE did not. You've
insulted US by implying that we thought we were better than anyone
else, and you continue to do so by belaboring, instead of edifying or
educating, which we who aren's so well-financed have attempted to do
for the "common man".

>2.) More importantly, knowing your background as a wildlife
>biologist, I'm surprised that you would tout getting a photograph of
>a bird while buried deep in a thicket as a good thing.

I was NOT "touting" anything. The nesting attempt was already a
failure BECAUSE of the cowbird. I was using the example as one to
refute your IMPLICATION that the only good photography is of HUGE
birds at great distance taken by experts with HUGE lenses and
expensive equipment. I do agree that we should all do what works for
each of us. That was ALL I was attempting to show. On list and off list.

>One of the benefits of large lenses is being able to stay a safe and
>biologically reasonable distance away from your subject.

And MY (not YOUR) experience with the species I referenced was what
led me to KNOW, taking into consideration the complete failure of the
host to reproduce, that my presence was not going to adversely impact
the nest NOR THE ENDANGERED SPECIES under consideration. The dead
vireo eggs in the nest, killed by adult cowbirds, was sufficient to
tell me that. Assumptions about others' experiences are getting a bit trying.

>I have seen way too many photographers - with the entire range of
>equipment, not just high end, low end or no end - ignoring good
>birding etiquette to get that all-important shot. I think that type
>of behavior gives all wildlife photographers a bad name.

Agree. And I do not deny my own mistakes in that regard. But, that
was not the topic.

>Now you now why I meant to erase the tweeters address rather than
>Doris's in my original e-mail - it's because I've seen this "my way
>is superior to your way and I'm superior to you" attitude in this
>topic before.

But, you keep touting YOUR opinion as "the superior" opinion.
Situations call for different methods.

>As I mentioned offline to several people, the folks in this thread
>who attack other people's personal choices and abilities are eerily
>reminiscent of other similar attitudes I saw when I was the COO of a
>very well-known photographic company. There were a number of
>fantastic photographers at that company who I admired greatly
>because of their ability to capture all manner of images on film,
>and in particular to print prints in the darkroom that would have
>made Ansel Adams proud. Unfortunately, there was a high percentage
>of these same people who totally pooh-poohed digital photography
>COMPLETELY (not just what equipment you chose to buy) and did so in
>a particularly strident and personally attacking manner.

So? That was NOT what we were doing.

> Anyone who gave any credence to digital photographer simply was an
> uneducated slacker who clearly didn't know anything about
> photography. Stuff like...Obviously people who use digital simply
> aren't skilled enough to use film or do darkroom prints; digital
> photography isn't and never will be 'art', digital photography
> isn't 'real' [and presumably little grains of silver in an emulsion
> is 'real', I guess?!] and on and on. Those folks are strangely
> absent and very, very silent these days - because their
> closely-held universal truths proved not to be so
> universal. Anyone remember the days when Tom Till only did
> hand-developed Cibachrome prints and swore never to do
> otherwise? Interestingly, Tom is not only selling digital prints
> now, but he's giving digital workshop tours. The point is that
> with a few minor wording changes, the attitude in the "people who
> own expensive equipment obviously don't have photographic ability
> or a good 'eye' comments reflect exactly the attitude that my old
> film-is-king-friends at the company had.

I don't think anyone was making any such assertions. YOU are wrong.

>'Nuff said, except to thank the off-line responses I got who also
>took issue with the attitudes expressed by a couple of other folks
>in this thread. Folks...buy whatever you want, respect other
>people's choices, and have fun shooting birds (except don't disturb
>them in the process).

I respect you, John, and YOUR experiences as what led to your
conclusions. Respect mine.

>John Tubbs
>Snoqualmie, WA
><mailto:johntubbs at comcast.net>johntubbs at comcast.net
>www.tubbsphoto.com