Hi, some quick thoughts late in the night follow...
> One quick example would be when something happens > (relatively soon) such as sensors becoming not only > way higher in resolution but also much more > light-sensitive than film. Among other things, this Well, light sensitivity would be nice, of course, and the the only thing to get new sensors for. Especially for us available night guys. But I think I got quite used to 1600 iso film, souped in good soups, so I don't need much than that. > would allow both digital-only (non optical) zoom and > total depth of field. Software after the fact would > allow you to select the focal plane and bokeh. When Yes, the eq-geeks will dictate it. But for _photography_, I hope I still don't need to heed the geeks. And I don't want to, anyway. Although the dictates of the market are hard. If they are hard enough, I will just drop out of the market, and find my own way. I am using old computers already, and doing fine. And using 30 years old cameras, doing fine. Of course, for photo-income, it's harder and harder. But I will probably find my own small niche, because I think this "progress" thing is just damn crazy. I will leave it to the technophiles, who can't cate a decent photograph anyway most of the time. If noone invented digital, I would be the happier, btw. For all the equipment changes and thinking changes, one cannot focuse on quality. Not telling that _quality_ is going down the drain anyway. Perhaps I am better accustomed to another world. Where should we go?!? technology for its own sake is _not_ the holy grail, but I think that is too much offtopic. Perhaps the kind of us will get looked at as luddites, old fools (although I am young in years) or just fools... Well, to tell you, I don't want that kind of world. And there are alternatives, fortunately, so far. Better be a fool than somebody who just follows the wave mindlessly. > specious. We'll just find more uses that tax the > current and future ones. Already you need almost the > fastest type of consumer computer just to play a > halfway decent software grand piano sample and there's Well, if that's progress, I will more likely adhere to your sig line ;-) or slightly abbreviated: less is more. And if some futurologists (a hint - look up Stanislaw Lem, his futurologist books from 30 years ago /Summa Technologiae/ are quite spot-on, as not only Polacks will tell you). Progress should be about quality, and that it is now not. Not at all. On computers, there are some things that can get better, sure. But WHY?!?! What about human relations, FIRST???! The technology just ain't improving them that much. Sure, I can talk to all of you guys at PDML via the Internet, but I would MUCH MORE like to talk to few of you guys in a local or distant pug. NOT via the internet. The more complex things get, the more hard one can live among them. > Chaso DeChaso > "Less is more cheap" - Osvaldo Valdes, Architect In computers, I still think less is more. And in life, it's the SAME! Frantisek
