RE: Luddite posting.
Dave Miers wrote: I suppose the biggest thing you should take into consideration is that when people look at your picture, they're not looking at your darn camera. No-one will give a stuff about the camera that took the picture except the photographer. I assume you were not counting the people on this list because if you were to post a really good image with out including the equipment and settings used..that would be most of these characters first question I'd bet...lol I take what you say with the spirit it's intended, but I find with digital, most of the 'magic' has gone; all the poor shots simply won't be saved. I certainly wouldn't place anyone here in that category, but no one will explore why it's a poor shot. It will all be a case of 'that's good enough for...(add e-mail to relatives or look good enough for a website)'. Of course, it may be a good thing to get more people involved in photography, in that some have some real talent and enjoy it for the hobby it is, rather than a computer add on. The simply fact is that most new camera sales fall one of two ways; digital or single-use. I don't like that much but tough, I've got to learn to live with it. Malcolm
Re: Luddite posting.
- Original Message - From: Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take what you say with the spirit it's intended, but I find with digital, most of the 'magic' has gone; all the poor shots simply won't be saved. I didn't save my poor shots when I shot transparency film. Right into the trash! How has the magic gone? What's magic about keeping crappy pictures? I certainly wouldn't place anyone here in that category, but no one will explore why it's a poor shot. Yeah, I'd look at a slide (or now a digital image) and see that the exposure was off, it was out of focus or just (usually in my case) crappy composition, and then toss it right into the trash. There's no point keeping it if you are never going to look at it again. Periodically I go through my keepers and find shots I kept and think to myself: why the hell did I keep this one? ew! and into the bin it goes. I am my own worst critic and I am ruthless with myself. (The only exception is pictures of my children. Unless it is so bad as to be unrecognizable, I keep EVERY picture of my kids). Christian
RE: Luddite posting.
Rob Studdert wrote: I see there has been an avalanche of responses thus far.. Maybe you can enlighten us to the reasons for your feelings? OK, reply as follows. There are many contradictions, but please allow this one off, as thinking out loud. I suppose the biggest thing you should take into consideration is that when people look at your picture, they're not looking at your darn camera. No-one will give a stuff about the camera that took the picture except the photographer. The *ist D isn't built to the same manufacture build as an LX, but then what would it have cost if it had? The *ist D isn't my favourite camera to use, but, aaargh!, it gets the results. I am not it's greatest fan, but it does the business. Camera shops are full of people buying digital cameras - but as an addition to their computer; not necessarily because of any interest in photography. Many are they who have left their (35mm) cameras to rot in a cupboard. The thing that concerns me is that my three children live in the world of now - and they, their friends and most of their parents exist in the world of digital photography. Everything is click, send you the picture tonight or show you the print tomorrow. I go into a shop now and regardless how I think, most of it is made over to digital photography. Much as I would like to say no to the loss of film, it's happening. Now, do I accept the fact that digital is the way (?), and start to sell my film gear on eBay (keeping at least a couple of film cameras), or do I accept that the cameras I really enjoy using myself will be collectors items or bookends? Malcolm
Re: Luddite posting.
I suppose the biggest thing you should take into consideration is that when people look at your picture, they're not looking at your darn camera. No-one will give a stuff about the camera that took the picture except the photographer. I assume you were not counting the people on this list because if you were to post a really good image with out including the equipment and settings used..that would be most of these characters first question I'd bet...lol
Re: Luddite posting.
On 8 Dec 2003 at 11:38, Malcolm Smith wrote: How do I like the *ist D? So far, not a lot. An LX it ain't. I see there has been an avalanche of responses thus far.. Maybe you can enlighten us to the reasons for your feelings? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Luddite posting.
Rob Studdert wrote: I see there has been an avalanche of responses thus far.. Maybe you can enlighten us to the reasons for your feelings? I'll reply this weekend. Malcolm
