Disservice or not it is true. The reason they are converting is for speed of getting the results. I am not saying, and never implied, that the digital pictures were not of sufficient quality. What I am saying is that 'ultimate quality' is not as important as usability of the medium in many situations (and I did mention the situations) when getting the images supplied quickly is the difference between news and old-news. Ultimate resolution for example is not relevant to newspapers as the dpi is so low that you would never know. I did not say they are not concerned with quality, simply that convenience is even MORE important. I know several pro photographers where dpi, bokeh and all that stuff is of no interest - what matters is getting the shot.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paris, Leonard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 29 August 2002 17:06 > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? > > > To make a statement like, "For many pro photographers, > quality is less of an issue than convenience" does a serious > disservice to professional photographers and the editors, art > directors, and others that select and publish their work. I > don't know any professional photographers that are not > concerned with quality. Just because some news photos were > shot under appalling conditions and the editors decided to > publish what they got does not mean quality was not an objective. > > Len > --- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? > > > For many pro photographers, quality is less of an issue than > convenience. News and Sports snappers need the shots fast > and details like this don't matter. Studio Photogs can > control the lighting and avoid the situation. Where the > problem is more prevalent is for landscapes and architectural > photography I would think. Interiors of churches and the > like can be a real problem even with film, where natural > light coming through windows 'whites out' and/or shadows > block up. Many digi cameras can be set to partially avoid > this by shooting with massively low contrast and then > correcting later. I think this often results in more noise > and/or loss of detail in shadow areas though as everything is > recorded as 'a bit grey'. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paris, Leonard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 29 August 2002 15:56 > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? > > > > > > The digital photographers that I correspond with, on the > > PHOTODIGITAL mailing list aren't having these problems. Most > > were pro film shooters for many years but either have > > converted to digital completely or are in the process of doing so. > > > > Len > > --- > >
