RE: benefit of digital camera

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/13/04-05:47:50 PM Z
Message-id: <a06020400bca22a7ad41e@[]>

I purchased a digital camera a couple of years
ago and it was one of the best investments of my
life. It is really great to have when you have
something that you want to put on ebay for sale
and need a quick .jpeg. I have managed to unload
quite a bit of photographic equipment that was no
longer in use and just taking up space around the
house. I also recommend them highly for real
estate agents and they come in real handy at
Christmas parties.

As for making images with it that I would want to
print I really have not done that. Not that I
have anything against doing so but I find it much
easier to be organized at storing negatives than
digital files.

But who will be interested in buying this digital
camera when its day has passed?


>>, I have 9 separate frames that I need to work
>>with ( tilt/shiftís left/middle/right frames,
>>then a shadow, midtone, highlight exposure for
>>each one). Iím finding that Iím enjoying a lot
>>more freedom with the digital camera, and itís
>>resulted in many more keepers. But even with
>>all that work, I still find I spend less time
>>with the digital darkroom getting my final
>>image, than I did in my chemical darkroom
>>(contrast/color masking was always a pain, and
>>separation negatives even more so)
>It's pretty amazing to see the different methods
>that each person chooses to work in.
>I have images that I'm working on that I'm
>fairly sure will make a complete circuit by the
>time I'm done with them.. film capture, scan,
>photoshop, digital output, rephotograph then
>enlarge the neg for printing...
>Where do these crazy ideas on how something *must* look come from anyway??
>Sometimes I too want to go back to just one
>camera, one printing method and live life a
>little simpler.
>>Do we make value judgements on the quality or
>>legitimacy of an image based on the format or
>>medium that it's made with? Rhetorical
>>question. Is an 8X10 original of a mundane or
>>mediocre image inherently more legit than a
>>35mm original of a really inspired image? If
>>the process is simple is it less artistic than
>>an arcane and labor intensive one?
>>questions, questions, questions....
>> Jim
Received on Tue Apr 13 18:05:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:31 PM Z CST