View Single Post
  #23  
Old April 23rd 18, 01:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default The last days of analog

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:44:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example.

here it is again:
Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

see my other post for more.


I originally wrote: "Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will
result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats
of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing."

You have completely ignored the point I made in that paragraph.


nope. i haven't ignored anything.

as i said:
don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.
learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.


in other words, *you* screwed up and are blaming everything *other*
than yourself.


And for reasons known only to you, you are ignoring the technology
which does away with the need to guess and estimate.

just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it can't
be done.

it simply means *you* personally can't do it and for some reason, you
don't want to learn.


You have misjudged the situation. I know perfectly well how to do
something. The problem I had was the need to guess and estimate the
extent of the correction. I would much rather use a camera where
estimation and guesswork was not rerquired and the image could be
properly constructed before being recorded.


Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong.


that's the fault of the photographer, not the technology.


The need to guess and estimate is the result of a deficiency in the
technology.

But if you can make the
adjustments in the camera you can see the result before you take the
photograph and this is an advantage that a suitable film camera has
over almost any digital on the market.


except that with digital, the adjustments can be done afterwards (and
in many cases automatically), rather than spend time on site fiddling
with the camera, hoping to get it right.


You have a short memory unless you have a hitherto undisclosed method
simulating all possible camera adjustments.

if you get it wrong with a film camera (which *will* happen, nothing is
immune to mistakes), you have to *go* *back* to the site to *retake*
the photo, which may not be possible, or at best, a pain in the ass to
lug the 8x10 camera, set it up again and redo all of the adjustments.


True. But then the adjustments built into the camera still give you a
chance of getting the result you actually want.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens