Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18345076
Yawn. Like I said in the other thread, we're all different, we shoot different things, and thus utilize different tools and modes.
What works (and is best) for one may not be for another.
And why philosophical threads like this and the other (where people debate to try to convince other people which mode is best) are almost as irrelevant as...well... this thread and the other.
Actually, this thread and the other centered more on technique or methodology more so than they did philosophy. Ironically, your input has more of a philosophical tone than the threads you’re attacking. And really, if we were to remove all threads on this site that generate mere opinion, POTN would be a remarkably anemic forum.
I suppose we could just use POTN as an online repository for spec sheet PDFs and nothing else.
Anyway, you are correct that all of this is largely subjective, and any definitive outcome will remain perpetually elusive.
And absolutely, I agree 100 percent that “we're all different, we shoot different things, and thus utilize different tools and modes.” And so it can be exasperating when someone does try to push a subjective opinion as though it were universal truth, and yes, this unfortunately does occur frequently.
However, not all people have such a totalitarian agenda, and not all people are impervious to new ideas. People change, grow, and learn. That is, let's not piss on everyone because of a few proverbial bad apples. Sometimes you've got to navigate around the crap to find the good.
Newcomers, in particular, can benefit greatly from reading about different viewpoints, even if there is no specific right or wrong presented…maybe something that fits their personal need or style was unknown to them until coming across one of these threads.
For me, condyk’s early threads on manual focus lenses encouraged me to try one, something I would have probably never considered beforehand. This opened a door that eventually led to my current use of a rangefinder and film—again, something that was unimaginable at that time that I bought my 350D.
Extended discussion can also clarify misinterpretations, a pervasive problem in written communication. I've been guilty of wrongly addressing other members because I misunderstood their point. Through further explanation, I realized it was I who was on the wrong path.
But more importantly, not all of these discussions aim to jam one’s opinion down the throats of others. In many cases, they, or at least some of the participants, just present a new approach, an alternative thought, something different to consider. The reader then has the right to incorporate or reject these ideas or processes.
As for actual philosophical discussion and even debate, especially in the realm of art appreciation, history, and associated motivational or inspirational factors, such discussion is invaluable as far as I’m concerned. Obviously, others, many others, will feel differently.
But to discourage complete discussion of art, which is a major defining component of culture and society, just because such discourse is replete with subjectivity is to indulge in regressive anti-intellectualism, which is already far too widespread among humanity.