At 07:44 AM 18/04/2005 -0400, Bob wrote:
>Okay, I'm a newbie here, but I can only sit by and read so much of this
>stuff before I just have to jump in. (I was an editorial writer in a
>previous life, and shooting from the lip is just, well, bred in the bone.)
>
>Digital vs. film. What's the damned issue? I thought the object of the
>exercise was the bleeping image. Whichever way gets you the image you're
>after is just fine and dandy. Some days I shoot 4x5 and get downright zen in
>my approach. Other days I shoot with my E-1 and get, well, downright zen in
>my approach. It's possible for either of these approaches to be flinging
>dynamite into the river, or long slow casting into quiet, shaded pools. It's
>the _fisherman_ that's critical, not the pole. <ouch! sorry!>
Point taken! I'll desist from making any more film vs digital comparisons,
it really is a waste of time. I don't really know why I started in the
first place, probably just to make conversation...
Andrew McPhee
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|