IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Damn straight.
If a digital camera can compensate for my ignorance in a field about which I have absolutely no desire to learn more than necessary, then amen, brutha. I'm there to take pictures of things I'd like to remember and share with others, not spend 5 minutes per shot fiddling endlessly to get the Perfect Settings.

Case in point: my grandfather was an amateur photographer par excellence. We have very, very few photographs of him as a result as he was always fiddling with his damn camera during get togethers. I actually have a chance of being in a number of pictures now since this camera is usable by even my wife -- smart as she is in her own way, mechanical and visual things are as beyond her as gymnastics is beyond me.

Another case in point: my father has an old Canon nearly-professional quality camera (can't remember the model). He knows all about f-stops, and exposures, and ye verily even unto the manual focusing and many many different lenses. He's preparing to let the old dinosaur rest forever in favor of a digital after seeing mine. Same with my mother, and she's the type that used to develop her own film...
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New There need be no actual argument about 'better'.
Both have their uses; they just aren't the same uses.

As you say, for 'documentation' - where's the need for "art"? Was grandpa here? Yep - here's what he looks like.. And a photographer can very well augment his real camera with digital, to see about a proper perspective, or to document the means of some complex project. (Still. and always - the eye + brain do not 'see' as does a camera.. a topic on which volumes have been written.)

Photographs we see on walls - always tell some story. So does the occasional fortuitous snapshot; but that's usually a happy accident.. no?

As to the inefficiency you describe.. that's the photographer, not the availability of options. Yes, lore helps you to exploit those options / or not, just as most Pros keep a camera set at reasonable exposure, depth-of-field, etc. for an instant shot, today made even simpler by the automated exposures which you may switch on/off. ie a few seconds of setup is most often enough - if you know what you are trying to do; if you aren't sure: you 'bracket' the shots. Ditto with transistors, if there's time for more than one shot. Seems many digitals now facilitate multiple exposures. Much cheaper too than motorized film, where cheap matters.

Still, ignorance of the effects upon any picture of a knowledge of depth-of-field (and its psychological effects in the viewing) or of film-gamma - a more subtle factor determining available tonal gradations via special development actions - that ignorance will always limit results. Older digitals provided choice in neither speed nor f-stop; no doubt expensive ones will now approximate everything but.. the film characteristics.

Finally, the gross difference between snapshots and say, a final print of A Adams - is that many of his nature pictures required days to weeks for "that object and its lighting" to become realizable on that piece of film. It would be foolish to imagine homogenizing All That into anybody's one-size fits all. I think.

Just as, there will be no transistorized Bach Stradivarius trumpet as will enable me to play like Sergei Nakariakov (or amplified guitar that will sound like Segovia).


Vive la diff\ufffdrence !
New Wasted shots aren't all about bracketing.
I took 10 shots of my wife holding my son the other day. Every single damn one of them, other than the last one, had her doing something funky with her eyes or her expression.

With respect to depth-of-field: granted. With respect to film gamma: that's what the Gimp is for. ;-)

As you said, they both have their place. For snapshots, IMO, digital rules.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Pentax Optio 550 - (admin) - (29)
         Does AF work in low light? - (Arkadiy) - (4)
             Seems to work fine. - (admin) - (3)
                 Re: Seems to work fine. - (deSitter) - (2)
                     Not in this case. - (admin)
                     In my case, I think, it's a different issue - (Arkadiy)
         Bought my wife a Sony 5 Meg. - (mmoffitt) - (23)
             I take much better pictures with this - (admin)
             Prima donna :-P - (drewk) - (21)
                 Ha! - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                     Famous last words. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                         Re: never be able to fly. - (mmoffitt)
                     Canon AL-1 - (Ashton) - (12)
                         Damn straight. - (admin) - (2)
                             There need be no actual argument about 'better'. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 Wasted shots aren't all about bracketing. - (admin)
                         Re: Canon AL-1 - (deSitter) - (7)
                             Today's $10k digital rig will be $400 on eBay in 10 years - (drewk) - (5)
                                 Right. - (admin)
                                 Subtle, important differences.. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                     Re: Subtle, important differences.. - (admin) - (2)
                                         Not really - (deSitter) - (1)
                                             Again, that's the photographer, not the tools. - (admin)
                             Kodak DCS Pro 14n - (static)
                         The world is analog. - (Arkadiy)
                     Just figured out what I was trying to put into words - (drewk) - (4)
                         But that's not what the anal-ogists here are saying. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                             Also, there's Kodak. - (a6l6e6x)
                             Re: But that's not what the anal-ogists here are saying. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 Vorsetzer = lit. "sEtter-in-front", actually... - (CRConrad)

No, no. We have to provide potential hostages over there so they won’t look for potential hostages over here.
148 ms