>But Ken, we always had control of our images. With B&W, for example, one >could choose from numerous emulsions, many ways to expose, a wide choice of >developers and development techniques, many paper choices and paper >developers and developing techniques, and an almost infinite number of ways >to make the final print. Plus there was toning with many types of toners.
Shel, I'm speaking from a color slide standpoint. Never did a significant amount of photo processing of any sort. >What you're saying is that now with digital we have another set of controls >to learn and master. For me it's the first set. >I don't think it's at all about control so much as it is about style and >technique and preferences. Okay, control & preferences. >I also think that a lot of people shoot digital because they are lazy. >They want the camera to think for them, the >computer to solve their exposure problems and fix any defects in the image, >and they want a quick output so they can use the results immediately. No argument . >Of course, there are certainly plenty of photographers who don't take that >lazy approach, and work on their images diligently and with great care, but >by and large - and i think this is part of a greater trend in society - >fast is more important than good. Acceptable has become good enough. And >what is acceptable quality is also diminishing - there's a moving bar, and >it's moving lower and lower. Let's do the Quality Limbo, mon! Again no argument. Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digital profligacy But Ken, we always had control of our images. With B&W, for example, one could choose from numerous emulsions, many ways to expose, a wide choice of developers and development techniques, many paper choices and paper developers and developing techniques, and an almost infinite number of ways to make the final print. Plus there was toning with many types of toners. And even with color film there was control, albeit perhaps not quite as much. What you're saying is that now with digital we have another set of controls to learn and master. I don't think it's at all about control so much as it is about style and technique and preferences. I also think that a lot of people shoot digital because they are lazy. They want the camera to think for them, the computer to solve their exposure problems and fix any defects in the image, and they want a quick output so they can use the results immediately. Of course, there are certainly plenty of photographers who don't take that lazy approach, and work on their images diligently and with great care, but by and large - and i think this is part of a greater trend in society - fast is more important than good. Acceptable has become good enough. And what is acceptable quality is also diminishing - there's a moving bar, and it's moving lower and lower. Let's do the Quality Limbo, mon! I think it was Calvin Trillin who, many years ago, wrote an essay entitled "The Decline and Fall of Breakfast." I'll never forget the first sentence of that essay:: "Gone is the butterball, gone is the rightly crisped rasher." I was thinking of those words yesterday while trying to enjoy a bran muffin and a cup of coffeee at one of the local breakfast places yesterday. I got a hard little piece of butter wrapped in foil to go with the muffin and the warm coffee. The coffee was warm, not hot, because the restaurant was concerned about law suits should some careless dolt spill coffee on themselves. Serving this type of food would have been unthinkable at this place a few years ago, and now it's acceptable for the sake of expediancy and cost. And it's now acceptable to the customers as well. Well, I better get off my soap box before being pelted with virtual tomatoes and eggs. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kenneth Waller > Yep, we're all control freaks. (Control of the image which I didn't directly have before). ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
