You are correct. We no longer make photographs. We make inkjet prints. Bill
> You've been gone way too long! If you'd have been here, you'd know that it > was arbitrarily decided that photographs cannot be made with digital > cameras. I won't say who made that decision. They know who they are. <VBG> > > Len > --- > * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > > > > >From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston > >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:47:08 -0800 > >I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to > >find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had > >little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that > >I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, > >bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot > >see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with > >traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v > >film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very > >much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I > >believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties > >of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion > >- or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send a QuickGreet with MSN Messenger > http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_games > >
