> Methinks that Jay Maisel was perhaps quoted out of context here, as he is a > master at getting the best out of 35mm film. I think what he was probably > saying is that hand-held digital capture has improved beyond the point of > being merely better than 35mm film, and so 'image quality' as such, means > very little to him any more.
Actually the discussions in these public speeches are yet unbeliavably centered on on asking photograhers if digital is REALLY providing satisfactory results, and I am talking about the US. I guess I mentioned that in the NY Expo in NY (Nov) there was this presentation of the "Day in the Life of Africa" and the guys did everything on digital, covering some 50 african countries with almost double the amount of photographers. Many of the participants had not shot anything previously on digital, so they had to lear to shoot fast with Olympus E20 cameras. No film, no negs no sildes. http://www.ditlafrica.com/ The Q&A section of the presentation was the same crap: Is digital really working fine? Did you not take a hidden film camera with you just in case? Really?? Main subject was why digital? Not a question about Africa, only asking why digital? Many people are still blocked against digital and almost every speech on any subject ends up with the same basic Q&A crap. Maisels's words reflect this situation. > the inevitable next step is f...k the shot as long as you got the idea > ...followed by f...k the idea Nice reduction method. If don't mind I will use it to prevent my wife from elaborating on poor arguments . All the best. Jorge Parra =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
