> > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The test photos I made in the garden showing the tree leaves that were shot > raw and presented unaltered, showed the difference that 1/3 stop of > exposure could make. Overall, I'm seeing a decline in what many > photographers and editors consider acceptable quality. Is this a result of > digital? I suspect that it is to a degree. I also attribute it to other > factors.
The biggest factor is probably time. People thought that digital would be a "press and forget" experience, rather like they had with film when the processing was done by someone else. When it turned out that it meant, in fact spanding a lot of time in front of a computer fiddling, suddenly "good enough" became the standard to reach. Thus frazzled highlights become, not just acceptable, but the norm. > > However, I'd like to see more photographers taking greater care with the > photos they present, learning more about what makes a good photo (at least > technically), and spending more time correcting small details. I'm > disheartened to see what I perceive as an overall decline in the quality of > photography. It's only a decline because people are doing their own work and do not know, because they have not been trained, what they should be looking for. My father sent me some pictures he took with his Canon digital whilst we were on holiday. They look like cartoons. Oversaturated, missed focus, you name it, the faults were there. He is over the moon because he is doing his own colour work. I _think_ he will be able to learn what is needed to make the system function properly. I don't know if he will _want_ to. mike ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
