Boris Liberman wrote: > Jaume, I most respectfully disagree with you. I think a big part of it is a change in the mindset of the "photographically aware", if you'll allow me a neologism.
In the "age of film", the primary differences in captured quality occurred due to the film and glass chosen, given equal exposures, and ignoring all of the fancy stuff you could do /after/ you captured the original image, a la Saint Ansel, if you were an acolyte or a masochist or a perfectionist. It the /post-film/ world, we've added the variable(s) of the camera body and sensor, since that aggregation roughly approximates the film+body situation /pre digitalis/. In the "digital world", you can't just change film, but you can invoke Photoshop. You can't switch from a roll of Provia to a roll of Kodacolor, but you can use different filters in post (processing). But, I think the defining part of the equation is economic as much as it is technologic ... people view digital cameras through the same "price-performance-Moore's Law" "lens" that they use for computers. I don't think that same psycho-dymamic is at play with film cameras, in large part due to the explicit and irreconcilable separation of the capture medium (film) and the capture "vehicle" (camera) that no longer exists with digital capture. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
