The point is, you'd be hard pressed to find shots of that quality, despite the claims that the technology is taking the quality of the art to a new level. I'm not saying great pictures aren't being taken, I'm saying that the technology isn't responsible for those pictures, and much more to the point, the pictures being taken now are not clearly better than those being taken then, even in the hands of a pro. Would Ansel Adams be a better photographer now with all the modern gizmos at his disposal??? I think in many instances technology hurts more than it helps even. You can browse pbase for hours and not find anything truly noteworthy. Sure, there is a lot of decent to pretty good stuff on there. But, the great shots are just as rare as they've ever been. What's really changed is the volume, and the ratio of in focus shots IMO.
-Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs cameras On 6 Jun 2004 at 19:52, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Touche. I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't images to rival St. Ansels in on- line galleries (considering the capabilities of the media). Why there seems to be such a belief that only the past photographers like Ansel and HCB were capable of art is beyond me? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
