i wonder if the 45 in the other hand had anything to do with it g.
Alan
Cotty wrote:
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed
3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to
hand it all back to her,
The problem is that people are never taught the tricks of arithmetic
anymore. I worked in a store growing up, and I learned that the correct
way to make change is to start with the purchase amount and add up to
the amount given, e.g., 8.59, give a penny 8.60, give a dime, 87.0, give
a nickel,
Does Pentax Photolab make a better job of conversion to TIFF than the camera, or are
they equivalent? I use Photoshop 5LE and Elements.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: alex wetmore[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16/02/04 18:51:50
You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it
On 18 Feb 2004 at 21:25, Nick Clark wrote:
Does Pentax Photolab make a better job of conversion to TIFF than the camera, or
are they equivalent? I use Photoshop 5LE and Elements.
The advantage of post processing the file is that you have greater flexibility
and control. IMHO the quality isn't
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However the Photolab program is a dog, point it towards
a sub with a couple of hundred RAW images and it'll gag. It's just crap.
Are you referring to batch processing using PhotoLab or previewing with the
Pentax Photo Browser?
On 18 Feb 2004 at 17:11, Christian wrote:
Are you referring to batch processing using PhotoLab or previewing with the
Pentax Photo Browser?
Preview. I have set the preferences Folder at start to Last folder used (
which contained 200+ RAW files and have had to kill the process in order to
:22 PM
Subject: Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber
Photogs?)
On 18 Feb 2004 at 17:11, Christian wrote:
Are you referring to batch processing using PhotoLab or previewing with
the
Pentax Photo Browser?
Preview. I have set the preferences Folder at start to Last folder
(was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber
Photogs?)
Preview. I have set the preferences Folder at start to Last folder
used (
which contained 200+ RAW files and have had to kill the process in order
to
regain control of my system. The bloody thing has to read each and every
file
(to generate
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Simon King wrote:
At big sporting events (Olympics/world cup etc) you see literally thousands
of people sitting in stands hundreds of meters away from an arena taking
flash photo's with their PSs and SLRs set to auto.
Makes me wonder how many thousands of rolls of film
William Robb wrote:
[. . .]
Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it.
Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you Romeo
and Juliet, eventually.
You've been on this group long enough to know THAT's not true, William! g
keith
16, 2004 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack, but lets pretend for
the sake of argument that he was a master at the craft of playwright.
Was he a master because he used a quill pen?
Well, no. He was a master because he
William Robb opined:
Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack,
You've obviously never read him. What a bizarre notion.
William Robb wrote:
Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack,
H, actually I have to strongly disagree on that one. Not just 'cos
everyone else says so either. His prose may be difficult to the
modern ear, but many of his themes are so universally human that they
remain true 400 years
Shakespeare was certainly not considered a hack by the respected
critics of his day, although some of his contemporaries disparaged him,
perhaps because he was obviously striking out in a new and unique
direction. One need only read his peers to realize how significant his
achievement was.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Shakespeare was certainly not considered a hack by the respected
critics of his day
You're absolutely right, especially as can be seen in the way that his
contemporaries banded together to make sure his work was published after
his death. By
Quoting Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looks like I'm gonna have to subscribe:
PREVIOUS MONTH'S COLUMNS
Let's Make Test Tube Babies! May, 1979
Let's Make a Solar System! June, 1979
Let's Make an Economic Recession! July, 1979
Let's Make an Anti-Gravity Machine! August, 1979
Let's
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it.
Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you
Romeo
and Juliet, eventually.
You've been on this group long
We'll try again with my own opinion of the Bard and his work left
out.
Lets see if anyone gets the point of the post this time (other than
Shel).
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
It's the wishful thinking of the masters
This is my system. All of my photos go into one of two piles, those
containing bears and those not containing bears. Although after
following this thread for several days I am thinking about starting a
new category for pictures containing bagels. Lot of work to re-sort,
though . . .
Steven
:
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I still fail to see something here, don't I?
Well, yes, but not surprising.
Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but
all we are doing is re-enforcing
Maybe. But I think it is more likely that anyone that would have bene
good with a Spotmatic is also good with an *ist (the film one). After a
few rolls, you figure out you need to learn something about photography
or your pics are good enough or you put it in a closet. I don't think
that
No, the *istD is only semi-professional - you need to use Kodak Gold or Shops own
brand films only.
-Original Message-
From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 February 2004 15:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I can't
On the Pentax Digress Mailing List? HAA! The nest step in this thread will be that the
Bard was Un-American because he didn't belong to the NRA, and smart bombs took the
thrill out of war.
BR
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We'll try again with my own opinion of the Bard and his work
Actually, one may say that they have, indeed, contributed to
taking the thrill out of war.
Speak to almost any veteran of WWII or the Korean war and
they will tell you that they've never felt so alive as when
they were in combat and dangerous situations. Smart bombs
distance the danger
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their
gallbladder removed...
Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could
set up a medical parctice.
I can sew - any help?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed
3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to
hand it all back to her, but she figured feverishly for a couple of
minutes and proudly added another dollar to the
Having read most of his plays, I can say reading them is easier after you have
done 4 or 5 for practice. However, Shakespeare's stuff is not meant to be read
but to be listened to. It is truely bardic prose when heard done properly.
As for adults understanding it better, I find that true of
I thought we had enough monkeys.
At 09:53 AM 2/17/04, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Or, you could do it like a team of monkeys does it.
Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and they will hand you
Romeo
Hi,
It took me a long, long time to get Shakespeare.
[...]
One of these days I will sit down and read as many plays as I can. Or find a
Shakespeare reading group. Or start one.
If you're really interested in Shakespeare you might find him more
approachable if you see one or 2 of the plays
Hi,
I thought we had enough monkeys.
you can never have enough monkeys.
--
Cheers,
Bob
Oh, a wise guy, huh!
How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly.
I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge,
wasn't there?
You, Bill, and me. The three stoodges do surgery. LOL.
--
Cotty wrote:
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack,
H, actually I have to strongly disagree on that one. Not just 'cos
everyone else says so either. His prose may be difficult to the
modern ear, but many of his themes are so universally human that they
remain true 400 years later. That
Joe (or Curly-Joe)
At 02:32 PM 2/17/04, you wrote:
Oh, a wise guy, huh!
How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly.
I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge,
wasn't there?
You, Bill, and me. The three stoodges do surgery. LOL.
--
Cotty wrote:
Oh, a wise guy, huh!
How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly.
I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge,
wasn't there?
Maybe you're thinking of the lady who named her kids Eeney, Miney and
Jack?
When asked
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Israel I think you would find yourself surrounded by few so called
mathematicians who would explain to her, probably all at the same
time, what the right amount for the change should be. My wife
suggested that each of
No wonder it didn't work for me, 50 pounds is not 110kg. It is more like
110 pounds is 50 kg.
Now I have to start all over again.
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 00:35, Jostein wrote:
And then this:
http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html
Enjoy. :-)
Jostein
--
Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe Curly replaced Shemp. Seems Shemp did not like doing movies.
--
Cotty wrote:
Oh, a wise guy, huh!
How interesting. I have three partitions on my desktop Mac: Mo, Larry, Curly.
I thought about Shemp but only needed three. There was another stooge,
wasn't there?
You, Bill, and me. The
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:21:40 -0500, graywolf wrote:
I believe Curly replaced Shemp. Seems Shemp did not like doing movies.
Chronologically, I believe it was ...
Curly - Shemp - Curly - Curly Joe
Curly Howard had a stroke and Shemp took over his role. At some point,
Shemp dropped out, but I
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their
gallbladder removed...
Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Of course, the next argument as rebuttal will be that in the
middle ages men engaged in hand to hand combat, and the wars
of the 20th century couldn't compare for thrills and
excitement
: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
With the greatest of respect, John,
(That's code for I disagree very strongly with your statement vbg - as
if you didn't already know)
Your camera user categories are so generalized, and overlap so much, that
they are absolutely meaningless.
An art
It's funny cuz it's true... :)
chris
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the Pentax Digress Mailing List?
Simon,
Didn't you mean With all due respect?
g
-frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Do Smarter Cameras
]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
This topic comes up from time to time on the list, and there always
seems to be polarization between people who say you can learn the
fundamentals on a wunderplastic camera and those who say that you
From: William M Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Otis,
I know this is getting a bit off topic, but I need to step up on
the soap box here:
Yes, the school system is churning out many students who can't do
what is described below, and I will be the first to admit that.
However, what you
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:29:49 +1300, you wrote:
The only question is whether there is, among that number,
a photographer who would bother to go through the effort
of learning how to do things the hard way, and who would
then be able to produce better photographs.
IIRC, the wildlife
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs.
Herb Chong wrote:
all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn
is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let
it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
An aisde: Stylistically, I think that use of font and color in an
article is ridiculous. It's a piece of prose, not a deodorant ad.
Steve the Teacher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/14/04 08:14PM
http://www.cameraquest.com/photog.htm
A not so tongue-in-cheek commentary by Stephen Gandy
I think the folks that would have done well 30-50 years ago will still
do well with automatic cameras, whereas folks that used to get
instamatics can now buy a Rebel. Most of us learn when to turn off the
automation. I have found that I trust AE but have increasingly gone to
MF. When I do use
no. people who don't want to learn won't.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs.
Herb Chong
]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs.
Herb Chong wrote:
all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to
learn
is falling. there is too much temptation to turn
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I think the folks that would have done well 30-50 years ago will
still
do well with automatic cameras, whereas folks that used to get
instamatics can now buy a Rebel.
The reason those
Shel ...
I shot a roll of BW in the PZ-1 yesterday,not a cloud in the sky and my main subject
were
trees
against the blinding white snow.
I could not tell what the inside was doing,my glasses were blacked right out by the
brightness.I just set
the camera
This topic comes up from time to time on the list, and there always
seems to be polarization between people who say you can learn the
fundamentals on a wunderplastic camera and those who say that you
probably won't.
I fall into the latter category because that is what I see happening.
But
No 'ergo' about it.
Even if you accept Herb's claim that the number of people interested
in learning is falling (rather than just being swamped by the increase
in numbers of people without much motivation) there's still no proof
of a causal relationship - just a correlation.
Perhaps people got
I'd suggest that there are a lot of snapshooters on this
list. There are about 600 list members, but only a handful
that frequently participate in discussions/arguments. What
kind of photography do those other 500 or so people do?
As for singing pigs, well, I'd like to suggest Ricky Jay's
book,
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I still fail to see something here, don't I?
Well, yes, but not surprising.
Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but
all we are doing is re-enforcing what we
Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously,
the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it
make them dumber? I doubt so very much.
Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought
for less than that (*with* a $400 lens
Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs.
Herb Chong wrote:
all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to
learn
is falling
Hi Shel,
Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you
would love the *ist D. Because with a K or M lens, it's exactly that: a
manual camera with a center weighted meter. You turn your aperture wheel
the old fashioned way, by hand. You push a button to stop down and
But John, that doesn't make you dumb. It shows clearly that
you're a leader and an innovator ...
To which lens are you referring?
John Francis wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought
for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness.
Hmmm very interesting
As you may gather from all the questions I've asked about
the camera, it does interest me. The idea of a manual DSLR
sounds great. Having used a digicam for a year or so, I've
come to enjoy the instant gratification of being able to sit
down and immediately work
The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably
want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean
investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm
not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it
would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use
Or maybe.. dumber cameras make for fewer (brighter)
photogs. :-P
I like to the auto features. I run auto when it gets or should get me
the results I want. I run manual when auto isn't going to cut it.
Some days I run auto most of the day, some days the camera just stays
Boris ...
Of course, to a point, everyone is right in this discussion.
I was actually being a little facetious when I made the
comment about everyone here being ... dedicated to getting
the best results from their cameras. While that may be
true for many people who actively participate in these
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably
want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean
investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm
not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it
would be RAW
I hear you ... thks!
alex wetmore wrote:
Yes.
TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though
(bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs
13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG.
You don't need to use Photoshop CS
Hi,
you can't blame the camera for this. A smart photographer (no insult intended for
your father)
would have learnt the limitations of their gear.
yes, I agree. I wasn't moaning about automation, I was giving a counterexample to this
claim:
And, to repeat, by the time one bought a ttl
The DA 16-45. With the current pricing incentives a *ist-D + 16-45
outfit can be purchased for somewhere around $1500, I believe.
But John, that doesn't make you dumb. It shows clearly that
you're a leader and an innovator ...
To which lens are you referring?
John Francis wrote:
Hello Alex,
What might be considered the next best implementation of raw
convertor? I don't want to spend the money on Photoshop CS just yet.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, February 16, 2004, 10:51:50 AM, you wrote:
aw On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The only thing about moving
For those who want to eliminate most in-camera processing,
I now have a small utility that will extract the image bits
from a RAW file and perform only the simplest Bayer interpolation.
(No sharpening - you have to do all that yourself).
I hear you ... thks!
alex wetmore wrote:
Yes.
Hi,
Toast exposure compensation?
my toaster has a button marked 'bagels'. A light comes on when you
press it.
I did some experiments.
A bagel was placed inside the cold toaster. The toaster was switched
on and the 'bagels' button was activated manually.
Time passed.
The toasted bagel was
Hello John,
With that utility, sharpening, color correction and what else would be
typical to be done?
What is your normal workflow with this utility?
Thanks,
Bruce
Monday, February 16, 2004, 11:34:07 AM, you wrote:
JF For those who want to eliminate most in-camera processing,
JF I now
You've confused technician/camera operator with photographer. Photographers make
visually compelling images. Many full time working photographers just have enough
technical knowledge to get what they want. (Many of them don't even have that and hire
assistants/camera operators to handle the
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I had a customer last week bring me her fifth blank film in a row.
I guess she didn't learn anything from the first 4, and probably
didn't learn anything from the most recent one either.
It's sad, because I know she drives a car.
You know when you drive
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer
better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat
like greedy kittens.
Oh boy, is that a keeper.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
Yes, it will save as jpeg (three quality levels), tiff, or RAW. I've been
saving as raw, using the Pentax software to convert to tiff without any tweaks.
Then I do the final in PhotoShop 6. I'm going to upgrde to CS when I can,
because it has a great RAW converter that allows resizing at the RAW
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with
computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner
and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their
gallbladder removed...
Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could
set up a medical parctice.
William Robb
Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I'd suggest that there are a lot of snapshooters on this
list. There are about 600 list members, but only a handful
that frequently participate in discussions/arguments. What
kind of photography do those other 500 or so people do?
LOL
Bob W wrote:
Conclusion:
The 'bagels' button is a device for informing bakers via wireless
internet connections when people are toasting bagels. This helps with
their just-in-time replenishment baking. As such it is of no direct
benefit to the bagel consumer.
--
graywolf
Since a week ago Thurday at 7:45pm.
Herb Chong wrote:
since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography
mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability?
Bill Owens wrote:
I'll try and duplicate this experiment to confirm the hypothesis.
However,
the bagel button on my toasting device appears to turn off one side of
each of the containers which hold the bagel for toasting.
I assume that if my experiment confirms yours, we must have
The change should have been $84.00+ but I was given
$64.00+ shortchanged by $20.00. Bringing this to the
attention of the cashier, I was told the amount of change I
received was correct. That's what the computer in the
register said. I asked her to do the math, to subtract
$85.00 from
IOW, since you got to decide what constitutes photographic ability.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Since a week ago Thurday at 7:45pm
this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Alan Kerr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:24:02 +1300
Frank, AEL-auto exposure lock
Hello John,
With that utility, sharpening, color correction and what else would be
typical to be done?
What is your normal workflow with this utility?
Thanks,
I've just realised that at present it's hard-wired to daylight white
balance - there's still a little more I need to do here
Earlier Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only thing
about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade
Photoshop to CS ...
Shel -
I don't have an alternative is you want to upgrade Photoshop CS, but I'm
pretty sure you don't need to make the upgrade.
My bargain
happening...
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 16 February 2004 8:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs.
Herb Chong wrote:
all that tells me
Automation has nothing to do with light, form and composition, and
everything to do with being a photographer. If anything, automation has
permitted photographers to concentrate more on light, form and composition
rather than technical
minutiae. The strength of an image is what counts and the
Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Owens wrote:
I'll try and duplicate this experiment to confirm the hypothesis.
However,
the bagel button on my toasting device appears to turn off one side of
each of the containers which hold the bagel for toasting.
I assume that if my
need to care. a photograph with identifiable content is a good photograph.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
At big sporting events
Well, I'll tell ya, William, I would NOT enter a doctor's office whose
sign outside said,
MEDICAL PARCTICE.
Sorry. . .
keith mbg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Of course, I do own
On 16 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Herb Chong wrote:
holding the
average public to the standards of artistic photography is stupid and a waste of
time since they don't care about art and and don't need to care. a photograph
with identifiable content is a good photograph.
This is exactly why digital
Things change fast in the digital world...
At 01:08 PM 2/16/04, you wrote:
Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously,
the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it
make them dumber? I doubt so very much.
Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
It's the wishful thinking of the masters of an arcane craft that
the
pcitures created by photographers who have started since the early
80's are
inferior to older photographers
Earlier Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a few things about
various software
Shel
The PS Raw plug in is great, the only drawback is you need Photoshop CS,
and CS requires Windows XP or one of the later Mac versions. I can't
remember which. Good excuse to upgrade though.
Asset
- Original Message -
From: John Mustarde
Subject: Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right
change,
would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line
behind
me?
Yes. They wanted in on the lottery
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
But, it's nice to know what it is. So if I'm at a dinner party or
something, and someone starts talking about AE L, I can blurt out
things
like, AE Lock? I don't need no stinking AE
On Feb 17, 2004, at 09:32, Cotty wrote:
You know when you drive down to the food supermarket, and negotiate the
zillions of people bumping and banging around with there food shopping
trolleys, thoughtlessly leaving them at odd angles so you can't get
past,
taking the skin off your ankles when
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
