Re: [OM] "I am so, like, totally, not impressed."

[Albert]

Yes, but the thing is, I can always make a digital version of an analog 
picture or music; I can only come close to making an analog 
representation from a digital source...  That's the difference.
I'm all for having film, digitizing it, and then maniuplating it.  But 
I'm not that hot on have a lower quality original to begin with.
Which leads me to the question; why do people worry about image quality 
and resolution, and then save them in jpg's and other lossy compression 
algorithms?  It seems to me, a 20ut on resolution caused by jpg'ing 
them, would have translated to a much cheaper lens that you can buy...
Albert

> Because I never just "want analogue."  I want analogue plus, which means I want 
> the ability to manipulate it, which I used to do quite imperfectly in the darkroom.  At 
> my best, what I can do in Photoshop simply annihilates whatever I did in the darkroom.  I 
> can express myself better.  And digital = analogue when your perceptual system (eyes, 
> ears) no longer can tell the difference.  We're getting there for digital photography -- 
> I've been there for some years with digital music.
>
> Garth
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>  


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >