Re: Digital profligacy

[Tom C]

I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, not having read all the posts, 
risking ridicule.

I personally doubt that autoexposure, autofocus, etc., etc., etc, has led to 
a decline in quality of photographs taken.  Sure some people, alot of 
people, who take photographs don't ever learn exposure for example.   
Technology makes it easier for more people not to learn it, I agree.  But so 
what.  Would they have otherwise?  Probably not.  Alot of people just take 
pictures and it's not because they consider photography to be a hobby or 
passionate pursuit.  They just snap the shutter, never mind composition.  I 
would guess that exposure for exposure, there are more good, correctly 
exposed photographs taken now than 30 years ago, 40 years ago, ad infinitum.

If it is a passionate pursuit, then they will learn.  OK, take away the in 
camera light meter, matrix, spot, center.  Is anyone seriously stating they 
would get more accurate exposure by not using the meter (don't think I'm 
stating that one should always believe the meter)?  That they would get a 
better exposure more often by not using the meter?  I find that pretty hard 
to believe.  I agree that one may learn how to judge exposure better, having 
acquired a sixth sense after viewing many many *poor* exposures.

It's all a moot point pretty much, right?  If the printer has the ability to 
compensate for exposure variations that fall within a range of acceptable to 
bang-on, and they have that ability *by design*, then that's just the other 
side of the coin, so to speak... exposure can be controlled in camera first 
and out of camera second (don't anyone think I'm saying exposure in camera 
doesn't count, I shoot transparencies almost exclusively when using film).  
From what I've read on this list, there's a huge shortage of 
printers/processors that are willing to spend the time and effort to produce 
properly exposed prints.

Tom C.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: "Pentax Discuss" <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: Digital profligacy
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:42:35 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Zaninovic"
Subject: Re: Digital profligacy

Maybe that is what you are talking about ?
I'm talking about what I have observed over 35 years as a 
photographer/photofinisher.

William Robb