Thanks, John. Really no surprises in your response. As I suspected, it's the post picture-taking experience that you find "better". "Better" is such a subjective word that I simply couldn't let it go by without putin' up a hoop for you. ;-]] I too enjoy some PS activity and disk re-burning (almost without exception) when initial scans are back from the lab. So, I "get it". I do, however, covet the slides.
Jack --- John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As well as immediate feedback ;-) , I think the two biggest > advantages of > digital are the much greater control that you have over the image > (I'm > talking about colour here, it's not the same with b&w), and the fact > that > the cost is zero until and unless you want to print. > > On top of that is the fact that there is no processing house to ruin > your > prints with bad colour balance. > > I might feel differently if I were a b&w or slide shooter, but I'm > not. > For people who used to shoot colour print film, the ability to > experiment > (at no cost), to alter the final picture in a million ways (though > usually > in just a few), to have prints made with better results than was ever > the > case with negative film, are all major advantages and I cannot > conceive of > returning to film. > > At the moment of capture, the immediate feedback is obviously an > advantage, but the other ones are much greater. By "picture-taking > experience" I meant the whole thing, not just the decisive moment. > > John > > On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:40:13 +0100, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > John, > > Because you seem firmly convinced of your position, please clarify > for > > me in what way digital provides you, "a much better picture-taking > > experience". At the moment of capture? > > This is in the serious hope that I'll read something other than > > "immediate feed back". > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > --- John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> The continual negativism on this forum doesn't make it a better > >> place, and > >> it certainly doesn't HELP Pentax. What is does is to distort > >> people's > >> assessment of Pentax's true position. > >> > >> You wouldn't think so from some of the posts, but Pentax is a > >> profitable > >> company. It clearly went through a hard time when it was forced to > >> abandon > >> the MZ-D, and I personally think it has bounced back from that > rather > >> > >> well. A company with less financial muscle, and less commitment > to > >> photography, would have given up then. The fact that it didn't > >> speaks > >> volumes. > >> > >> As the more level-headed members of this site point out, the > current > >> DSLR > >> range (the D, incidentally, is still available) meets the needs of > >> most > >> people, even most PDML members. Yes, it would be nice to have > extra > >> bells > >> and whistles, but most of us don't actually need them, and many of > us > >> > >> wouldn't pay very much for them. That's not to deny that there are > >> some > >> photographers whose needs are clearly not well served by the > present > >> > >> line-up. However, they are a small minority, and with luck (and a > >> little > >> time), the D replacement will address their problems. > >> > >> It is noteworthy that there are now very few list members left who > >> have > >> not bought a Pentax DSLR. Clearly, there must be something good > >> about > >> them. > >> > >> In my view the Pentax DSLRs provide a much better picture-taking > >> experience than any 35mm film camera, and I expect my two D bodies > to > >> be > >> active for some time to come, whatever the future of Pentax. That > >> means I > >> will continue to buy lenses. > >> > >> John > >> > >> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:20:45 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > In answer to your last question, yes I've perceived that to be > the > >> case > >> > sometimes, but not with the Chongwagon comment. However, it's > not > >> all > >> > whining and negativism. Some of it's an ongoing analysis and, > yes, > >> > >> > speculation regarding the future of the brand, and therefore the > >> wisdom > >> > of future potential 'investments'. > >> > > >> > I single-handedly, and others who tend to share the same views, > >> will not > >> > make those views come true. Pentax, having marketed and > produced > >> in the > >> > manner they have, are responsible for their image, ranking in > the > >> > marketplace. > >> > > >> > Tom C. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Reply-To: [email protected] > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax... > >> >> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:38:16 +0100 > >> >> > >> >> Which is a pretty big market if you think about it, in MF > terms. > >> >> > >> >> Why don't you post a lot more negative messages about Pentax? > >> That > >> >> way you'll make your worst fears come true. > >> >> > >> >> It seems to me that in life we need a certain amount of > optimism. > >> > >> >> People who get things done are optimists; people who whinge > and > >> >> bellyache are not nice to know and tend not to amount to much. > >> >> > >> >> Have you noticed that the most prolific posters of pictures on > >> this > >> >> site, and the best photographers, do not as a rule jump on the > >> >> Chongwagon. They just get on with life and take pictures. > >> >> > >> >> John > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:33:47 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Yep. I can't see the market for a 645D being too much more > than > >> > >> >>> owners of a film Pentax 645 system. > >> >>> > >> >>> Tom C. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>>> Reply-To: [email protected] > >> >>>> To: [email protected] > >> >>>> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax... > >> >>>> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:45:48 +1000 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 30 Sep 2005 at 15:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Formats are only names now. A 645D would probably be no > larger > >> or > >> >>>> heavier than > >> >>>> > the current Canon D1s Mark II, and Pentax has already said > >> it's > >> >>>> sensor won't be > >> >>>> > true 645 dimensions. Most prosumers cameras and some pro > >> models > >> >>>> will probably > >> >>>> > remain APS-C. It's all just semantics. Paul > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The difference is that in reality by the time the 645D comes > to > >> > >> >>>> market (if at > >> >>>> all) there will likely be very little advantage between a top > >> end > >> >>>> Canon DSLR > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
