On 10/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Saw a piece on ABC News (U.S.) about how some valuable images might be lost >to history because of digital. A photo editor for a national magazine cited >a case where a photographer took a picture of President Clinton hugging >Monica Lewinsky. The news of their affair had yet to be revealed. The >hug was captured by a photographer using film. The others probably deleted >the image on their digital cameras because it didn't have any value. The >developed film had everything on it. No deleting in the field. >So there is justification for film after all.
The incident is well documented and has been mentioned here before. Any PJ worth his or her salt will not delete any pic in such a situation, it just isn't done. A PJ may delete multiples of the same scene in order to save space, but this is no longer as critical as it once was, what with larger storage mediums available. If you see a PJ 'chimping' it is because they are reviewing the shots and checking focus - they will not be deleting much, if anything. A PJ's business is having a photographic record of a scene. It's importance or not may not be immediately recognisable.... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
