>I don't know about you, but I am seeing a lot more of this approach now. >.Sadly, it means people are spending a lot of time trying to fix something >because they were to lazy or stuoid to learn how to do something else. >Sadly also, you can't fix a lot of stuff in Photoshop. If you bugger it up >badly enough in camera, you have pretty much screwed yourself.
Yes, this is very evident from numerous threads that have appeared in this mailing list. Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Waller" Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >What you are in fact saying is that exposure doesn't matter! Because the > printing/editing can allways make up for bad negs or files. > > Sounds alot like the way some people approach Photoshop. I don't know about you, but I am seeing a lot more of this approach now. Sadly, it means people are spending a lot of time trying to fix something because they were to lazy or stuoid to learn how to do something else. Sadly also, you can't fix a lot of stuff in Photoshop. If you bugger it up badly enough in camera, you have pretty much screwed yourself. The saving grace for the "fix it in Photoshop" mentality is that most films or digital capture devices have more range than most scenes. However, this mentality tends to take an ever sloppier approach to things, so eventually their pictures suffer for it. Then, they generally start blaming the camera for having a faulty program line, and go and waste their money on a newer, better camera that won't be screwed up like the old one was. I have seen this tendency time and again. People like to blame the inanimate for their own stupidity. William Robb ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
