Tom Rittenhouse wrote: >If editor's still demand lots of shots to chose from, as most do, the whole >argument is moot. Besides those slide photographers throw out more slides >than they keep. Then there is the question of accessablity, do photos stored >in a box in my attic add anything to the record of history? > >The whole article seems to be another luddite trying to justify her luddite >fears. It was also a vehicle to generate ten thosand uninformed answers just >like this one.
Agreed. It seemed to me a deliberate and rather weak attempt on the part of the writer and the BBC editors to stir up controversy. A) The photographic record has always been edited in one way or another. B) Digital photography will eventually result in more, not fewer, photographs being taken to record any given event. C) As storage capacity increases, the number of images saved digitally will equal or surpass the quantity that could be done on film. And finally... D) More does not equal better. Anyone who's ever had to sift through hundreds of slides in notebooks or hundreds of files on a hard disk can attest that a few good images are better than a sea of data. Personally, I think that B, C and D together represent the real problem: That someday we'll be so overwhelmed by the volume of data (images, in this case) that it becomes a nearly impossible task to separate the wheat from the chaff. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
