John, I was going to chide you for being too fussy about the Your Correspondent thing, but then I hit this in the very first paragraph ...
"True, digital single-lens reflex (D-SLR) cameras can be switched to give a modicum of manual control, while letting the user see a pretty good visualisation of the image that is about to be recorded. But your correspondent always feels the manual experience with a D-SLR is artificial—as if the device is providing a mere semblance of control filtered through simulation circuitry." WTF? What in hell is he talking about? Certainly not any dSLR I know about. And citing "D-SLR" as if it's in common usage -- yikes. Hit the x and move on. Nothing to see here. On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM, John Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:04:21PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/07/digital-photography?fsrc=nlw|newe|7-23-2012|2867084|36077652| >> >> Dan Matyola >> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > I guess the Economist pays by the word. > > The facts in the entire article could easily have been expressed in > maybe one quarter of the space. > > Maybe I was pre-conditioned to dislike the example by the pretentious > use of "your correspondent" where "I" would have sufficed - it was a > twee affectation when it was done in the gossip columns of 50 years > ago, when it at least had the excuse of protecting the identity of the > pseudonymous authors. > > -- > 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. -- -bmw -- 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.
