On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:05:25 -0700 Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I bring this up as a real world experience of someone using a DSLR - > they are not the silver bullet to solve all our problems. Seems they > solve a set of problems and create their own set. Just different - > not a full blown replacement, I think. Last week I saw a real world example of someone using digital. At an eisteddfod the photographer was using a canon 35mm to photograph every performance. Between each section of the day he would run outside the main theatre and unload the media onto a computer and run back in for the next section. On the computer parents and grand parents could proudly see their offspring and grand children on stage and marvel at how wonderful they were. Then for the low price of $8.95 they could purchase one of more of prints of the digital images. The prints were 6x7. On closer inspection the images were blurred and often out of focus. This is no fault of the camera but of the photographer. The lens he was using was far too slow to capture anything moving without blurred hand or foot or head.. It seems this photographer is one of many who believe if you simply pay mega dollars for a camera and a computer, you can call yourself a photographer. I can paint a fence, but I am not an artist. My sympathy lies with the parents and grand parents who have to pay these people to recieve second class prints. For the folk that payed up to $30.00 for and 7x10 (A4) or purchased the images for $20.00 per image I lament that the archival quality will be less than they expect and will lose the images quickly as the archival quality of the prints comes to the fore. Kind regards Kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Byron Bay, Australia
