Shel opined: > More and more I'm seeing flower pictures Shel! It's Spring! Get out there and smell the roses <vbg>. Seriously, for those of us in northern climes that may well be a seasonal phenomenon.
Would > some photogs be choosing their subjects and framing with a better eye > towards composition if they's be shooting film where they'd be paying per > exposure, and perhaps limited in the number of exposures they could make on > a walk about? Yes. Although I think the "shoot everything in sight" digital mindset is a temporary thing. I now shoot about the same as I do with film. I've gone out for walkarounds with the *istD and returned without exposing a single frame -- or I should say -- without recording a single image. However, since I don't pay for film, I will tend to experiment more with digital. That's a good thing. And I confess to having posted a few things that were more on the order of experiments than work of which I was proud. But sometimes input on those experiments is a good thing, and it sometimes leads to interesting conversations here and on other venues. > > Again, I don't know the answers to all these questions, but I did want to > share what may be some valid observations. > Duly noted and appreciated. Paul > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Shel Belinkoff > > > I'm not sure about "here," but I do recall a few people mentioning that > they've either returned to film or are using more film rather than shooting > all digital. Of course, that changes nothing: crap is crap, good work is > still good work, and digital is going to be around a long time. I'd just > like to see a higher level of quality produced, regardless of the format. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From Rob Studdert > > > > > Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap > > > either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to > > > shooting 35mm film? > >
