But Dave, the difference is that you are a real Photographer who likes film but shoots digital for buisness, not shooting digital for buisness and claiming to be a real photographer. Also the flip side is, people are willing to pay more for reduced quality, Dave you might not sell the blurry, out of focus images but others do!!!!! I actually have people not liking my work because it's to sharp, I have to intentionally soften prints ( B&W ) and make them grainy cause thats what they are used to. Digital is a great tool but it is reducing the value of the image, and placing more importance in technology.
--- David Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I shoot my horse action stuff with both the Nikon D1 > and usually a K1000 of > SF-1.I'm getting around to finding faster Pentax > glass,but my 2 Nikon zooms > are both F2.8'. > I 'm one of these guys setting up computers at shows > and selling prints for > $20.00.If any are out of focus its because i'm not > paying attention and > shooting to late. > I dont sell those ones. > I inform every buyer about archival tests etc.Noone > has canceled an order > yet. > > Dave > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:06 AM > Subject: Re: DSLR - I know, I know > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
