Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:19 PM 4/5/2003 -0600, \(SonC\) Sonny Carter wrote: >....Huh? My degree is English, but I had to go to the Dictionary for that >one. (see below for a definition, if you are not an English major) I shot >probably the same number of exposures I would have in film for such an >event. I culled the shots, and one stood out. I shared it, because I >thought it showed a capability of digital that no one else has shared. If >it were a good shot, despite the digital-ness of it, I might have posted >without comment to the camera source. However, it shows a capability that I >was not aware of until my camera delivered the image. > >AND, I did not have to process the film. I did not have to scan the film. >I did not have to worry about the noise of the scanner. Judge the shot by >Minor White standards? hmmm, why not by Minor Wisdom (also an English >major) standards? >... My English sucks :-) but for FWIW, I like the picture. As I said before, I rather see pictures, perferrably good ones :-), regardless of what frigging pieces of equipment are used in taking it. Nice inspiring pictures are worth 10 times more than endless (repeating) talk of Monkeys Firing Photographers Testicles or some such nonsense any day. Face it, we all having overpriced expensive equipments, that's why we are on this list. Don't have to be snobby about it. Leica glass is nice. RF is nice. I am a believer. // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com> <http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo> On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site. [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ] - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html