Why digital cameras = better photographers

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.


Haha. I see.

Actually you're right. This is the feeling I get when i see all those digicam
cliches.

I'll still be using film. I think i'll be using both. Though more selective
with film and yet more experimental.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
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.

There is a distinct difference in perception, which I suspect is due
to the need for placing the pupil of your eye coincident with the
eyepoint of the viewfinder in the case of an SLR viewfinder.

I notice a similar difference with my Mamiya TLR camera. I use the
flip-in magnifier for more accurate focusing, but *never* for getting
a better impression of the composition.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

"Sabineellen" wrote ...

TP, i thought i had declared you a persona non-grata to my posts; quit it
please.

Sheesh, did I blink and miss where they had a vote and elected you queen of
the NG ?

Queen Mike . . . . well, it has a certain ring to it

--
I am in shape . . . . . . ROUND is a shape !!!

(Sabineellen) wrote:

Haha. I see.

Actually you're right. This is the feeling I get when i see all those digicam
cliches.

I'll still be using film. I think i'll be using both. Though more selective
with film and yet more experimental.



Mike,

Do you dress up in women's clothes when you post as "Sabineellen"?

The world needs to know!

TP

Tom E wrote:

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.

That last sentence is a doozy. Did you mean something else? Ah,
now I've read the other paragraph. You meant to say something
like "They did not produce very many paintings in the first place
compared to more recent artists such as Picasso."?


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.)

Picasso was not (as) interested in light as he was in form and
perception of form. Different artists do different things
(thankfully). Your point on materials is well taken; however,
Picasso's 'simpler' style also permitted a higher rate of production.

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.

Or sheer vision, or sheer genius, or sheer mediocrity. So many
judges, so many opinions.

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.

Most digital cameras are bought by people who want convenient
means to record a moment and share some happiness of the moment;
those are the e-mailed jpgs.

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article , brianc1959
@aol.com (brian) says...

I notice a similar difference with my Mamiya TLR camera. I use the
flip-in magnifier for more accurate focusing, but *never* for getting
a better impression of the composition.

One of the funniest things that ever happened to me was while I was
taking some shots with a TLR. One of my co-workers had never seen a
TLR, so I invited him to look at the focusing screen.

He recoiled in shock. "It's in COLOR," he said.

I assured him that the photos would be in color also.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell writes:

I assured him that the photos would be in color also.

I've been asked on a fair number of occasions if I can take both color
and black-and-white photos with my (film) camera.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Larry Caldwell writes:

I assured him that the photos would be in color also.

I've been asked on a fair number of occasions if I can take both color
and black-and-white photos with my (film) camera.



Hi,

maybe you can help. I wanted to buy my Dad a half decent digital
camera as hes always off on holiday! I have seen an HP R707. HP in my
experience make some quality gear! Can you confirm one way or another
as to whether or not this camera is any good??

If need be the link is:

http://www.epinx.com/Digital_Photogr...us/924053.html

Cheers

maybe you can help. I wanted to buy my Dad a half decent digital
camera as hes always off on holiday! I have seen an HP R707. HP in my
experience make some quality gear! Can you confirm one way or another
as to whether or not this camera is any good??

If need be the link is:


http://www.epinx.com/Digital_Photogr...Megapixel_plus
/924053.html

Cheers


The cameras are probably not made by HP themselves but by Pentax. I don't
remember much about this one but I have looked at it and decided against it.
It's likely to be good though. It's small. There's only one main thing that
puts me off it and that is the proprietary batteries. I personally ordered the
hp 945, which takes AA batteries (rechargeables or disposables). It's a bigger
camera but got a very nice zoom.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Larry Caldwell writes:

I assured him that the photos would be in color also.

I've been asked on a fair number of occasions if I can take both color
and black-and-white photos with my (film) camera.


Probably hold-over from times where snapshooters used b&w in view cameras
before P&S became widespread?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++