That is exactly the point. And let me add: Digital allows people to modify their pictures. You can easily add the date and time (no need for data back any more), you can even include thoughts or feelings into the image (don't need to write it in the album), and what is more you can hide disturbing details (takes some time), extend depth of field (overlay several images wiht different point of focus), extend or lower contrast and dynamic range (overlay several images with different exposure settings), ...
The creativity you can spend on digital imaging is much bigger. Those People who are mocking about digital, they are obviously fallen in love with the obstacles conventional photography is suffering from. Never forget: We are photographing because painting is that difficult. Cheers, Hans. --- Matt Bevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:10 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote: > >> These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras >> are >> status symbols, not photographic tools. >> > >I actually don't imagine these stats are much different from film >cameras. I mean, how many people do you know that still have a roll of >film in their p&s from last Christmas that won't get processed again >until next Christmas. Furthermore, I'm not surprised that a relatively >small proportion of pictures get printed. I know I don't print every >single frame I expose on a film camera. I think digital has done two >things for photo-taking behavior: > >1) Increased the number of shots people (both the average consumer and >serious photographer) are willing to take > >2) Allowed the average person to evaluate their shots before making a >print. Consumers used to just get prints of everything at the one hour >lab because it was the easiest way to see what they shot. I think >evaluating images on the monitor is the same as looking at a contact >sheet or at slides on a lightbox. Rather than being status symbols, >digital cameras have made people evaluate their pictures more carefully. > >For example, now that my wife has a fairly good digital P&S (Nikon 885, >3.2MP) she takes it anytime she thinks there might be a reason to take >a picture. She keeps just about everything she takes on the computer, >but only prints the best ones or those with particular sentimental >value. I'd say the percentage of shots she prints from her digital is >similar to the percentage of B&W or slides that I scan and print. > >-Matt _____________________________________________________________ 23a mail
