John Morton wrote:
> Wow, those are great images, Moose.
>
Thanks! I ran out and shot them just to convince you. ;-)
>
> Well, I wasn't trying to be overly cynical - but let's face it, the average
> snapshot taken by a casual user of a point-and-shoot film camera generally
> leaves a lot to be desired - even from the point of view of the person who
> took the photos. Thus, point-and-shoot digital for the general market does
> not have to go too far ahead to look a lot better than the film alternative.
> If someone can build a point-and-shoot digital that gives better results than
> a point-and-shoot film camera does in the hands of an inexperienced user...
> then it can grab a very large market share. And it can do so without even
> having to approach what an experienced photographer could potentially do with
> a point-and-shoot film-based camera; because, an experienced photographer has
> a good idea what their photos will turn out to look like... and an
> inexperienced photographer has no idea, unless they are using a digital that
> has a view/review screen!
>
And yet... Even rather early P&S digitals were capable of excellent
image quality in the hands of someone who has half decent technique. My
first digicam was a Canon S110, 2001 vintage, 2 mp, consumer oriented,
all auto P&S. Blow 'em up as big as 35mm? Nah, but nice 8x10s. Wouldn't
stand up too well to your close-up scrutiny but lovely at normal viewing
distances, and gorgeous 5x7s.
No, I didn't PS in the insects!
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/14-1075_.htm
These are just casual snaps at family gatherings, but like film snaps,
they can be quite good. http://galleries.moosemystic.net/S110Portraits/
I'd cut out some of these as the photographer, but they were posted for
the participants' enjoyment.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Girls/index.htm
My sweetie knows nothing whatsoever about photography on her own,
although she is quite a good photographer in her own way, i.e. "Say
Moosie, isn't that pretty?", and she gets the shot. But she took these
herself. I do admit to contributing some post shot processing, but that
doesn't do any good if the image isn't there.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/CarolAnne/Lotus.htm
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/CarolAnne/San%20Simeon/pages/IMG_1171.htm
And as long as I'm at it, early DSLRs weren't too shabby either. Some
blown highlights due to my lack of experience, but some fine stuff too.
This was my first experience with a DSLR, doing what you are talking
about, but in a practical way, using a borrowed camera with my OM lenses
to see if the image quality was there. http://galleries.moosemystic.net/D60/
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|