> > I think we have a few techno-nerds here who are overly concerned with nit > picking details. If I take a photo with my *ist D, size and crop in PS, and > print it on my Epson printer and the results suit me, I could give a rat's > a** about micro managing the hardware/software I'm using.
Didn't the nit-picking details started off coming from the film-based side of the fence, talking about picking films with different colour response as part of the whole process? That step, in and of itself, is just as much against the philosophy expressed above as the technical-based equivalent. But it was that step which led Herb to (incorrectly) claim that you could digitally transform your *ist-captured image to match the response of any given film; a claim which has now been qualified with the condition that this is only possible if you are printing on a device incapable of showing the differences (in which case any transform is completely pointless).
