Hello Shel, I think you are quite accurate here. I'd like to add that not only are people accepting lower quality, they are de-valuing good quality. There is a labor/time element, along with acquired skills to getting good quality. I see more and more, where people initially want good quality and then when they get a price for it, they decide that they don't think it is worth it. Then turning to lower quality choices, which may even mean doing it themselves. Digital has made this worse, because it allows the person to take a few hundred images in an attempt to get one good one by accident. A real common practice around here is that wedding couples are doing their own announcement pictures. They are ok with lower quality and are willing to accidentally get a reasonable (by their standards) picture through playing the numbers game.
-- Best regards, Bruce Friday, May 6, 2005, 9:59:15 AM, you wrote: >snip< SB> I don't think it's at all about control so much as it is about style and SB> technique and preferences. I also think that a lot of people shoot digital SB> because they are lazy. They want the camera to think for them, the SB> computer to solve their exposure problems and fix any defects in the image, SB> and they want a quick output so they can use the results immediately. Of SB> course, there are certainly plenty of photographers who don't take that SB> lazy approach, and work on their images diligently and with great care, but SB> by and large - and i think this is part of a greater trend in society - SB> fast is more important than good. Acceptable has become good enough. And SB> what is acceptable quality is also diminishing - there's a moving bar, and SB> it's moving lower and lower. Let's do the Quality Limbo, mon! >snip< SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: Kenneth Waller >> Yep, we're all control freaks. (Control of the image which I didn't SB> directly have before).
