there's a lot of truth in what you say. Although I don't think I've tumbled quite so far as to do flower pics, I have photographed a lot of things with digital that I wouldn't have bothered about with film, and had some results I've been pleased with even though they're not really my kind of thing really.
I think the explanation is that the marginal cost of digital photography is much lower than that for film photography. -- Bob > > <LMAO> > > Hi Frank, no, it doesn't "work," but getting the hang of > flash is sometimes > difficult with new gear. Why am I laughing? Well, it's not > at you or the > pic, but for the longest time I've contended that since the > advent of the > popularity of digital many photogs who were shooting > documentary or street > photos all of a sudden starting showing flower and macro > pics. So many > have told me that there's no difference between what subjects > they shot > with film and the work that they are currently doing with digital, yet > looking at their body of work I saw a greater frequency of > "cute" photos > and flower pics. Welcome to the club ... you're a real, > official digi-head > now. > > Shel > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
