Hi Bruce,
You certainly showed me that when we got together a few months ago ;-))
The results were better when exposing with a "digital" frame of mind than
when using a B&W frame of mind.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton
> I do agree that you will need a different frame of min
s desireable.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 7/28/2005 11:34:52 AM
> Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>
> Hi,
>
> > I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my
> >
Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29. juli 2005 01:04
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
>I don't get th
you know, like Little John.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Little???
: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29. juli 2005 00:45
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
> Bill.
&
Little???
Cotty wrote:
On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark
at this list), or what?
You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to und
On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
>I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark
>at this list), or what?
>You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain
>Norweg
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Bill.
Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are
saying,
is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
p
egian.)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28. juli 2005 23:02
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photogra
--
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28. juli 2005 22:54
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Interesting analysis. I agree mostly with the concepts but don't I believe
there's enough cause/effect relationship to say tha
On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
>(If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last paragraph,
>or do something else)
Mark!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
r photographer?
Tom C.
From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:28:20 +0200
Despite of what I've said earlier, about the camera being just a recorder,
not
restimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28. juli 2005 19:36
To: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hello S
Hi,
> I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my
> reflexes, or teach me much about composition, although it
> will affect the way I see and work with light.
in what ways will it affect the way you see and work with light?
--
Cheers,
Bob
I said nothing about being less cognizant of the light ... working with
conventional B&W requires a different use of light than with color or
digital.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In regard to working with light, I think you'll find that all the
same relatin
> much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with
> light. That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when
> going from digi to B&W film.
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PRO
Hello Shel,
Certainly for me, what constitutes desired exposure is not exactly the
same for digital as it was for film. Not having been one to have my
own lab when shooting film, I really relied on the consistancy of the
lab to produce from my exposures.
With digital, I am now my own lab (develo
osely when
going from digi to B&W film.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 7/28/2005 8:51:29 AM
> Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>
> Bill.
> Reading your post I find myself th
e?
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27. juli 2005 16:40
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject
iginal Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss"
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, I
I am a new member to the Pentax list and after one day of reading post
thought I would provide my 2 cents Canadian worth on this topic. Will also
send a new email introducing myself.
The only piece of equipment I have ever owned that made me a better
photographer has been a tripod. It has forced m
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
However, if one has enough self discipline to continue to approach
photography in a mindful fashion, the immediate feedback and post
processing flexibili
laces that i want
to revisit. nothing gets deleted except completely blank frames.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Isn
Agreed. As I said in my initial response to this post, I'm not sure if digital
has made me a better photographer, but I'm absolutely certain that it allows me
to produce better photographs. It's a facilitator not a teacher.
Paul
> > I think the term 'better photographer' as used in the orginal
> I think the term 'better photographer' as used in the orginal
> post is a
> loaded phrase. Does it help one produce *better
> photographs* may be a more
> pertinent question.
Those are two very different questions.
--
Cheers,
Bob
Interesting, and I love that "digital is a tempting little whore" line!
I wasn't really talking about the same thing in my previous post, I'd guess.
But you're describing a particular approach here, and the fact that
digital works against that approach doesn't mean that it necessarily
makes on
he same way as a skilled darkroom person
can.
For me, it's been liberating in that respect and I can now apply the same
mindset to film images.
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: "Pentax Discuss"
Subject: Re: Ha
Bill opined:
> It enforces nothing on us, it requires no discipline in approach, and no
> skill in operation; the two main ingredients in becoming a better
> photographer are missing.
>
However, if one has enough self discipline to continue to approach photography
in a mindful fashion, the immed
I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, I
think digital has, if anything, made me a worse photographer, rather than a
better one.
I find myself making a dozen exposures when I only need to make one. I find
myself taking pictures of things that are inherently unphot
A more serious response to this thread-
Whatever technique one uses to make art is likely to become
intimately a part of what you end up making.
The Portraits of the American Dead are tied to digital methods in a
number of ways and it seems to me unlikely that I would have come up
with this p
Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing,
>because I am happier with what I shoot. A curse,
>because I take out the slides from a trip 10 years
>ago, and my favorite pix don't please me as much
>anymore.
True. But oddly enough, every once in a while
This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing,
because I am happier with what I shoot. A curse,
because I take out the slides from a trip 10 years
ago, and my favorite pix don't please me as much
anymore.
Rick
--- Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My pictures are
> improving all the
>
On 27 Jul 2005 at 10:23, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> Crap, Rob, you don't need a meter and you know it.
True, but only after I've been travelling with the same camera and same film
and generally using the same lens for three months or so. It was refreshing.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My pictures are improving all the time but my percentage of keepers is
>about the same. As I improve, I become harder to please. My bad pictures
>are now better than my previous good ones.
Couldn't sum it up any better than that.
--
Mark Roberts
Photogra
Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would add that a student of photography should also study
>art to improve your sense of color, proportion and perspective. Study
>the principles and techniques of composition in art. Study composition
>as it relates to photography.
And not just as it rel
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From an aesthetic point of view, I often haven't sufficient
>distance from the picture taking experience to be objective about the
>results for a month or more ...
Isn't that the truth! I often take multiple versions of the same shot
with slight di
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26 Jul 2005 at 19:31, Herb Chong wrote:
being able to operate a film camera.
Oh yeah, forgot about that, fully manual of course and with an external meter.
Crap, Rob, you don't need a meter and you know it.
Kostas
On 27 Jul 2005 at 7:43, Bob W wrote:
> which book is it?
Man and Machine, Thames and Hudson, 1972, ISBN 0500540063
http://www.bookkoob.co.uk/book/0500540063.htm
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/p
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:36:02 +0200, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Define ordinary!
-a judge of a probate court.
-a clergyman appointed to prepare condemned prisoners for death.
-an early bicycle with a very large front wheel and small back wheel.
-a simple geometrical figure on the arms, wi
On 27/7/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
>They much be wearing HCB coloured glasses then, I have a photo book byHCB
>full
>of very ordinary images.
Define ordinary!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
Hi,
> > People who have seen his contacts say that one of the most
> remarkable
> > things about them is that every frame is a good photo.
>
> They much be wearing HCB coloured glasses then, I have a
> photo book byHCB full of very ordinary images.
>
which book is it?
Bob
spot!
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
"Alan P. Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Digital cameras have made me a pho
William Robb wrote:
If you are not analyzing every single frame that you shoot, and discovering
why a picture works or not, and quantifying the reasons, you are shooting
too much.
If all you do is pull up a directory of thumbnails and go through them,
sending the ones you don't like to digi
On 26 Jul 2005 at 19:31, Herb Chong wrote:
> being able to operate a film camera.
Oh yeah, forgot about that, fully manual of course and with an external meter.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/pu
These are my opinions only.
William (The Wise) Robb wrote:
The way to become a better photographer is to educate your eye.
The way to do that is to look at pictures, not necessarily take them.
Look at them, see why the work, and more importantly, what causes them
to fail, which they inevitably
IV
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: "Pentax Discuss"
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:06:55 -0600
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" &l
being able to operate a film camera.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
It's too easy to make many shots in digiland s
Cotty,
With my Fuji S5000 digicam, you can record a voice
message to attach to the pic if you want. (never used
the feature)
Regards
Albano
--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >But I never would have recorded the data in a
It probably boils down to money. If I had plenty, and could get my
tri-X developed and scanned by the time I return home, I might still
be using my Leica.
I also liked having time between shooting and editing. I still do, but
editing on the fly at least keeps me shooting more. I think that's the
r
I find the photographic experience has two aspects in this regard:
- I want to see my results, from either film or digital, as quickly
as possible to see what I did technically. This helps me reinforce
what I'm doing right in terms of exposure and camera operation ...
"Did I get the focus r
On 26 Jul 2005 at 23:51, Bob W wrote:
> How do we know that unless we see all the unpublished frames?
> Cartier-Bresson reputedly shot some 16,000 rolls of film during his life -
> that's about 800 a year over the 50 most active years. We only ever see a
> few hundred of the photos. This doesn't m
On 26 Jul 2005 at 15:42, Mark Roberts wrote:
> In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way
> to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos.
> I don't see any reason that would have changed with digital, but some
> people think it has.
It's too
Juan Buhler wrote:
Well, I took it as success rate--how many good pictures over how many
total pictures you took.
I don't know if that works either. My pictures are improving all the
time but my percentage of keepers is about the same. As I improve, I
become harder to please. My bad pictures
On 26 Jul 2005 at 14:18, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Oh wait... you're referring to digital?
> Right. I took over 500 shots this weekend and got aperture, focal
> length, exposure compensation and lens data on every one. No pencil or
> notepad involved. Couldn't have done it with a pencil and notepad.
>
> How do we know that unless we see all the unpublished frames?
> Cartier-Bresson reputedly shot some 16,000 rolls of film during his
> life - that's about 800 a year over the 50 most active years.
>
Er, not it's not. It's, um, 16 over .5 times 1000 plus the
number I first thought of... twelvt
I don't think that it's digital per se that's helpful here. I think it's a
matter of your preferred or self imposed style of working. If you could
shoot TX and get the processed film back to you as conveniently, would one
way or the other matter? I'm the opposite, even when I've shot digital. I
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 July 2005 23:07
> To: Pentax Discuss
> Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom C" <>
>
>
> Well, I took it as success rate--how many good pictures over
> how many total pictures you took.
>
> With that criterion though, Garry Winogrand was a terrible
> photographer.
>
How do we know that unless we see all the unpublished frames?
Cartier-Bresson reputedly shot some 16,000 rolls
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Well it was at noon... BTW did I tell you that ...I no
longer drink?
Really?
What do you do to keep from dehydrating?
b...
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
"Alan P. Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Digital cameras have made me a photographer.
Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photogra
On 7/26/05, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I scribbled:
>
> > A better photographer is, I guess, one who takes fewer bad
> > photos, or more good photos per exposure,
>
> I don't really mean more good photos per exposure, since you can only take
> one photo, good or bad, per exposure. I mean
"Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Shel never uses a pencil. He is always accompanied by his amanuensis.
Watch your language! This is a family-oriented list!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:03:41 -0400
I would suggest that since you get an image review with digital
you not only learn with di
On 26/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>But I never would have recorded the data in a notebook. No time for
>scribbling.
A voice note attached to a frame would be nice ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps
Yes in some cases, no in others. There's only so much one can see on a 2
inch screen.
Tom C.
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 20
digital cameras made us better photographers?
"Alan P. Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Digital cameras have made me a photographer.
>Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer.
In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best
Shel never uses a pencil. He is always accompanied by his amanuensis.
--
Cheers,
Bob
>
> >Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a
> >simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure
> >parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would
>
I scribbled:
> A better photographer is, I guess, one who takes fewer bad
> photos, or more good photos per exposure,
I don't really mean more good photos per exposure, since you can only take
one photo, good or bad, per exposure. I mean more good photos per something
else. Damned if I know what
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple
device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It
was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write
down the details on a page of a small notebook.
"Alan P. Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Digital cameras have made me a photographer.
>Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer.
In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way
to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos
Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos
simply as a function of volume?
--
Cheers,
Bob
Digital cameras have made me a photographer.
Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer.
Is it simply a function of volume?
I think not, but the counter ar
from digital, and seeing
if your success rate with film has improved.
--
Cheers,
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Juan Buhler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 July 2005 12:50
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hey... I have succinct moments! :)
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:39:18 -0700
I think you've captured in a s
the digital image, that has made me focus more on
*WHAT* I produce vs. *HOW* it's produced.
This is a serious shift in mindset compared to the way I thought
several years ago.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-disc
I never bothered with a pencil, Shel. Notes and files are so easy to
screw up. I have eidetic recall of almost every photo I've ever
taken. I can usually just look at a photo, taken even 30+ years ago,
and remember the camera, the lens, and usually the film and exposure
data. Writing it all
Exactly. I shot about 300 frames at the Chevy event, and, like you, I have data
for all of them. All of them were shot with my two DA zooms, since I had to
work fast and light, so I didn't even know the focal length at times. Other
times, I would just spin the ap dial to reduce or increase DOF a
Well it was at noon... BTW did I tell you that if we meet in New Denver I no
longer drink? I can't believe I let you give me that stuff. ;)
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple
>> device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It
>> was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write
>> down the details on a page of a sma
Oh, I remember that discussion ;-))
How do you find these links in the archive?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Christian
> WOW! flashback to 2001.. I still remember a post from you about
> Pencils and ball point pens.
>
> I found this but couldn't find the original.
>
> http://
- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith"
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Can you still get the batteries for this pencil item?
All the ones I have seen, you stick the end into a recharger and manually
crank the recharger to put life
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
The tilted horizon for example.
A little less Wiser's may cure that problem, Tom.
William Robb
I've spent $2500.00 designing and testing a program that keeps track
of my pencils. Of course, I have some rare and hard-to-find models
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Don Sanderson
> Geez Shel, you're as bad as I am!
> My company has spent 100s of hours developing a program
> that keeps
Actually, it's a precursor to Photoshop's clone tool.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Malcolm Smith
> OK, right I see why photographers should have them now. Some are
disposable,
> some are manual with zoom nibs. Others take renewable media. I see some
come
> with some sort of rubber device
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
> Hi Malcom ... batteries are not needed for the earlier screw-mount
pencils,
> or the Speed
Hi Shel,
> Hi Malcom ... batteries are not needed for the earlier
> screw-mount pencils, or the Speed Graphites One of the
> classic 20th Century pencils, Dixon's Ticonderoga 405 No.2,
> is still available from many sources. Those sources will
> usually carry manually operated notebooks a
think it
may be. Certainly not for everyone. But, as ERN said, in camera info does
provide an extra tool with potential.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 7/26/2005 9:18:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi Malcom ... batteries are not needed for the earlier screw-mount pencils,
or the Speed Graphites One of the classic 20th Century pencils,
Dixon's Ticonderoga 405 No.2, is still available from many sources. Those
sources will usually carry manually operated notebooks as well.
For those who ar
Yep! Uses 5 "F" (finger) cells!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Malcolm Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:25 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>
>
> Shel
11:08 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>
>
> Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple
> device that helped the people remember things like exposure
> parameters. It
> was call
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there
> was a simple device that helped the people remember things
> like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A
> photographer would often carry one, and would write down the
> details on a page of a smal
Yep. Been there, done that. Now I'm just pleased as punch that the camera does
it for me.
Paul
> Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple
> device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It
> was called a pencil. A photographer would of
Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple
device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It
was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write
down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be
ref
ht several
years ago.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:43:31 -0700
On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote
danilo wrote:
I mean I'm a better photographer, since I've been able to learn from
my own mistakes.
Shooting a lot of pics gives you a lot of errors from which to learn ;)
It raised my photograph level, I believe it is something normal: the
more you do one thing, the more you learn on it, right?
On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought
provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or
are you a
technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted
horizons, better focus, and th
Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought
provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or are you a
technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted
horizons, better focus, and the like?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: danilo
> I
unction of volume?
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Bob
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: danilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 25 July 2005 14:57
> > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > Subject: Re: Have
Original Message-
> > From: danilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 25 July 2005 14:57
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
> >
> > The digital era made me a better photographer, yes.
> > B
OH but all the great things I've learned with the MX are priceless,
without it I wouldn't be at this level (which is still low, I have to
recognize it).
Those things manual lenses gives you, like total control on the
in-focus area etc. I still miss...( I know even AF lenses have them,
but I'm on th
I mean I'm a better photographer, since I've been able to learn from
my own mistakes.
Shooting a lot of pics gives you a lot of errors from which to learn ;)
It raised my photograph level, I believe it is something normal: the
more you do one thing, the more you learn on it, right? (of course
there
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
