Re: MAX demonstration on kodak.com

[aimcompute]

What a load of RUBBISH!  You are exactly right.  Why not just say that you should use the right film for the conditions?  Not that this "new" film will solve your problems.   I noticed the term "Depth of Focus" was used as opposed to "Depth of Field".  Is this an acceptable term?  If not, does there marketing department understand basic photography? Or was it a deliberate attempt not to use the normal terminology?   And to beg the question... If a person with a camera didn't already know this, do you really think they would take the time to research the issue on Kodak's website?   It reminds me of my phone company's long recorded introduction when you call their customer service number.  It kindly lets you know that you can now report phone line troubles using their corporate web-site.  Ha ha... My phone doesn't work so I guess I'll just log on using my analog modem and let them know...   Tom C.  ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:03 AM Subject: OT: MAX demonstration on kodak.com has anyone seen this? Here's url: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/pictures.s html? This is just plain manipulative IMHO. Show someone an underexposed photo, and then one properly exposed. For anyone who can spell ISO and knows the difference between 100 and 400, this is just wrong. Kodak might not be intentionally "dumbing down america", but they sure are telling some creative lies to get a product off of the shelf. Brent (listed name here was formerly bigtoeno2 in case someone cares)