Kevin, Bruce, ----- > 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.
When my brother played Junior A hockey here in Ontario, they had a young (18-21yrs?) 'serious amateur' take pictures of them on home games.. He had quite a long telephoto (300-400mm?) and fast, probably 2.8, used an older Nikon. As some of you know, it's a fast game and getting that great shot of a player in an indoor venue and small ice surface with action without others around (in the picture) is no small feat. The parents and fans would buy them, he did the developing out of a van. They were framed, with a nice mat/border? and the pictures were probably something around 8x10. They cost $50 a shot, but they were amazing. We have a couple hanging around the house. Well worth it. Real quality. I suppose I shouldn't call him a serious amateur, more of a professional. No digital could compete with that IMHO. > 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 >
