Please: either top post or bottom post. Mixing the two styles is
difficult to follow.
The ability to use the LCD to evaluate exposure even if when actually
shooting people and situations you only have a one-shot chance. I
often take a few test exposures and take a quick look at them, look
at the histograms, if the lighting is variable or difficult, make
some adjustments, so I know what settings to use when the real
moments are in play.
This does not disparage the notion of fully understanding a camera
and its idiosyncracies/controls so as to be able to pick it up
'running' and get great shots immediately. "The better you know a
particular piece of equipment, the less significant its flaws
are." ;-) It's why, this year, I have taken virtually every
photograph I've made with the *ist DS. I'm getting to know it and the
lenses I've bought for it very well, much like I knew my Nikons and
Leicas in the past. I use it in much the same way now: it's an
extension of my hand and eye, not a device to come to grips with.
Godfrey
On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:40 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
I'm with Shel on this one. Much of what I photograph can't be
repeated. The only time that instant feedback helps me is when I'm
doing a series of "mug shots" but mostly I capture moments in the
activities of people. Presumably Mr Forbes normally pursues a
different area of photography.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
When I finally get to feel comfortable with the camera, and use it
like the
Leicas and the Pentax film bodies, there are rarely second chances
for much
of what I photograph. That's why it's so important that I fully
understand
the camera and its idiosyncrasies.
From: John Forbes
It depends. Another difference between using digital and film is
that digi gives you instant feedback, in the form of the image
and the histogram, so getting it right first time isn't always
as important as it is
with film.
