Cotty wrote: > > On 19/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >What I mean is the limited lightvalues a film can take. It can soon be too > >light (my K2 only has 1/1000), but more sooner gets too dark to get any > >decent image on film. With a camcorder I can go till I have only the light > >of a matchstick. Of course the image changes in quality dramatically. But > >were I to be ready to take pictures in all of those extreme situations, I'd > >have to be carrying an awful lot of equipment and what's more, keep changing > >it to suit the situation. > > > >A digital camera can and has overcome these light problems. Bless them. That > >is certainly what I feel to be a very weak point of taking photographs. > > When an artist picks up a pencil, will it be hard or soft? What informs > that judgement?
[...] > When a photographer shoots digitally, he or she has to know all the > technique that the camera allows, has to understand the processing of > that image, the way it is delivered onto a medium of storage, and even > sometimes editing that image and printing it. Techniques learned. Results > expressions of self and ability and desire. > > All these techniques involve tools, from carpentry to cake-making. They > are as easy or as difficult as you make them. They all involve effort in > studying the technical aspect. Art hurts! Precisely so, Sir! And to say that because the artist didn't grind his own colors, with mortar and pestle, and personally mix it up with virgin juice and a hen's albumin, he's hardly the artist the dead guy is... well that's just pure B.S. > Cheers, > Cotty (Sell your CL yet?) <g>
