Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, Dave, shooting digital is NOT like using a machine gun - unless YOU are shooting that way. Shooting with digital is precisely like shooting with film - except that there's no cost-per-image. Some people shoot with total abandon, forgetting what photography is all about; some people shoot as they would with a film camera. If you don't want to have to deal with terabytes of images, don't shoot them. As to needing 4 gigs of ram - I wonder why I'm comfortable with 1? ;-) -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of drodgers7798@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:59 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: [Leica] Changing face of photoraphy I was just following a Nikon D2X thread another list. I had the chance to test drive one yesterday. It is indeed an amazing camera. But..... I remember when we the LUG included hot debates on whether or not a Lieca M was worth the price (around $2K at the time). $5K is a lot for a camera body. Lots of discussion on the above mentioned thread about file size, downloading time, etc. Getting so I can develop a roll of film faster than I can download files on a large CF card (up to 30 min). Digital files add up. How can a person even manage terabytes of files? Who would want to? Bigger files demand more computing power. (sorry to state the obvious! But I just upgraded my system to 4GB of ram and I wonder for how long that will be adequate.) I sometimes struggle deciding which image to put effort into from a roll of 36. 3,600 on the same subject is overwhelming? Shooting with film is like shooting with a sniper rifle. I put in a decent amount of effort before each shot. I usually come close to a bullseye. Shooting digital is like using a submachine gun. I think I'm more effective as a sniper. Or maybe I need to spend more time chimping and deleting. DaveR > Indeed they do, and sometimes get into problems when they don't pay > attention to > the > details! I for a > commercial printer, and quite often we point out images that have been flipped > where > letters, numbers > and other details are obviously wrong! But designers do like to have a flow to > their > visual layout and > will take liberties. > > Here is the image in question from the pottery barn. > > http://ww2.potterybarn.com/cat/pip.cfm?src=shpcfurbeddrs%7Crshop%2Fshp > cfurocc%7C > rshop% > 2Fthmafur%7Ccthmnft%7Cnshop%7Crgift%5Cfthm%2Fshpcfur% > 7Crshop&pkey=cfurbeddrs&gids=p5048 > > > > Often editors prefer a shot reversed. An example is they may want a > > person "looking into" the center of a magazine rather than out > > towards the edge of the magazine. Product shot perspective, etc. I > > think it's an "artsy" thing > > > > "Frank F. Farmer" wrote: > > > > > I suppose you could. But wouldn't that require and affirmative effort? > > > Not the sort of thing that would happen on accident. I'm > > > asking, I don't know. > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > On Mar 3, 2005, at 12:03 PM, islaymalt wrote: > > > > > > > Couldn't you just flip a digital shot in photoshop? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information