The level of what is considered "high quality" has dropped, IMO, so, perhaps by the lower standards there are more people taking high quality pictures (but are there more high quality pics, or just more people taking fewer high quality pics?)
David, I don't think you realize how automatic exposure and exposure-coupled built-in light meters has corrupted the making of quality photographs. I can't tell you the number of good lab techs, both B&W and color, have lamented about how poor the exposures are that they're seeing these days. Mostly they're all over the place, or reduced to some common denominator. You can thank the guy at the lab (the one who knows what he's doing) for most of the quality you see. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Zaninovic > I feel that opposite is true, there are more people taking high quality pictures now than ever. Learning curve with digital is much > faster because there is no penalty for taking more pictures. I am talking about people who actually want to learn photography. > > People who take snapshots are at the mercy of auto everything in camera as they were before with film when processing in Wal-Mart or > similar store which does not even look at the pictures. If they are used to processing in pro lab and want better pictures I am > sure these same labs would be happy to take care of their jpg-s and make them look right, it would be best if these people would > shoot raw and let pro labs do the processing like they did with film. Maybe that is what you are talking about ?
