Why digital cameras = better photographers

Agreed. Clue: Look no further than "Mike Henley".



TP... quit it; get off my posts.

(Sabineellen) wrote:

TP... quit it; get off my posts.

LOL!!!

Now **** off, Mike.

(Sabineellen) wrote:

I do not post with any names other than the two known to
you and most others.


Sabine and Henley? Mike and Ellen?

Perm any two from four ...!

;-)

LOL!!!

Now **** off, Mike.


:-p

Matt Clara wrote:


No, but a word processor sure makes editing a breeze!



Only if you know that it needs editing. It's no different then instant
feedback from digital. If you can't tell good colour from bad or for that
matter lousy focus from good then instant feedback isn't worth much. The
people that benefit from all this stuff tend to be the same people that need
them the least.

Nick

Sabineellen writes:

Actually, Gordon, and Mxsmanic, the article somewhat hit a raw nerve for me.
Some of the budget I had set aside hesitantly over the past few days for the
gossen lightmeter and the Epson 4870 i just used to order an HP photosmart 945;
a 5.3 megapixel with an 8x fujinon optical zoom lens and a DIMA 2004 winning
image quality, aperture priority, shutter priority, exposure compensation up to
-/+3 in 1/3 steps, few metering options including spot, takes AA batteries so i
can use my uniross 2300mAh and SD card so i can use my two 512mbs (last two are
the main reasons i chose it over others). I have an odd feeling i'll be using
it a lot once it arrives.

I have an odd feeling you'll feel obligated to, after spending all that
money on it. You'll be able to print your own photos of sunsets, tree
bark, old men, and cats in only half an hour so with nearly 50% of the
resolution of film and chemical prints, and it will only cost you twice
as much as traditional methods.

1) the shoot-in made me acutely aware of how much easier it is with digital to
go out and shoot endlessly and have results immediately

If that's your objective in photography, I agree.

2) the lightmeter and the scanner were somewhat costly and made me hesitate
about the mounting costs of film, as i was wanting the meter because i wasn't
entirely satisfied about in-camera ones' results in some of the images i got,
and i was wanting the scanner so i can just have my films processed without
prints to save on running costs, but with the digital i'll just see it on LCD
and then compensate for exposure if it doesn't look right, and i won't pay for
film or film related fees or equipment

With Photoshop you can just shoot a picture of a gray card and then
retouch it to produce whatever image you want.

5) I can easily see how i can do photo essays/series/stories with a digital;
i've been somewhat inhibited with film and limiting myself to certain
"worthwhile" subjects. Now i can more freely experiment with "abstracts",
animals, "street", "journalism" ... etc

Tree bark, cats, sunsets, old men ... be sure to post the location of
your online gallery when it's ready.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

brian writes:

Many people who use both large format and SLR cameras will tell you
that its easier to compose with the former because you're looking *at*
a 2D image of the scene.

You're doing the same thing with a 35mm SLR. The scene is being
projected in two dimensions onto a ground glass screen, just as it is
with large format cameras.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Justin Thyme wrote:

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

I just stumbled on a BBC article titled as subject line

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3409155.stm

Not better photographers, just makes their duds less expensive. People who
get their photos back from the lab and only have 2 or 3 decent shots per
roll will still only take 2 or 3 decent shots per 24 shots, so they are not

They will have less. Because they will be pushing "the button" more often.
chances are they do prints of half the bad ones anyways so they don't even
really end up saving (as notably, film was free to them before as part of the
free film when you process here deals).

better photographers. With digital they only pay printing for those 2 or 3
photos, not for all 24. It also means they have fairly instant feedback when

you are way too optimistic about peoples ability to delete 20 out of 24 images
or similar ratios.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Hi,

There is a parallel in the art world for the digital/film dichotomy in
photography. We have about 200 works by Rembrandt, something like 50
by Vermeer. All priceless. When these artists painted, production
and quality control of paints and grounds was carefully controlled by
the artist if not actually performed by the artist himself. Even
though many works are lost, not too many were produced in the first
place.

By contrast, we have over 18,000 works by Picasso. During his life,
materials and substrates were largely mass-produced and available in
quantity. So Picasso spent relatively more time painting and drawing
than Rembrandt or Vermeer. But it is hard to make the arguement that
Picasso could handle light or subject better than the two Flemish
painters. (If you get to the National Gallery of Art, see the
Rembrandt collection and The Girl with the Red Hat by Vermeer. You'll
see what I mean.)

The large volume of work by Picasso is more important as a history of
his development rather than a collection of great works. Individual
pieces are 20th century benchmarks of artistic genius but on the
whole, the impression is one of sheer volume.

So also with those who wield a digital camera like an AK-47 in the
hands of a Jihadist. Many email in boxes bear witness to the illusion
of photography masquerading as jpg files.

Tom

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

With Photoshop you can just shoot a picture of a gray card and then
retouch it to produce whatever image you want.

LOL! - Why bother with a camera at all?