Convenience is certainly part of the appeal of digital. You may eventually find
other aspects of it that will please you as well, but to be free -- even just
some of the time -- from the burden of processing is very nice.
In regard to working with light, I think you'll find that all the same
relatinships apply. There is no reason why anyone shooting digital should be
less cognizant of the light than someone shooting film. In fact, having
rudimentary feedback on the preview screen will sometimes remind me that I
haven't looked closely enough at the light and need to find a different camera
position or return at a different time.
> Hi Tim,
>
> I've been considering why I'd want a DSLR, and it comes down to mostly one
> reason: It's not for quality, it's not for how nice shooting RAW might be,
> it's not for any of the camera's features ... nope, it's because there are
> times - more and more often these days - when I'm just too lazy to process
> film. I've never gotten much enjoyment from agitating a development tank.
> So, it's laziness, pure and simple. Not laziness in shooting or composing a
> photo, but just too damned lazy to process film or drive it to the lab.
>
> A secondary reason is for snaps ... family, friends, maybe shots around the
> neighborhood.
>
>
> I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me
> much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with
> light. That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when
> going from digi to B&W film.
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Date: 7/28/2005 8:51:29 AM
> > Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
> >
> > Bill.
> > Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are
> saying,
> > is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
> > photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
> > about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.
>
>
