>
> Perhaps I'm just too brainless to understand.
>
Perhaps, my attempts at over-the-top sarcasm were missed.
"Brainless twits" aren't necessarily everybody who shoots with Canons and
Nikons, but those who can't seem to photograph their way out of a wet paper
bag without full automation and gobs of "clean high-iso capability".
These "Brainless twits" have the attitude of "fix it in post" and don't have
a clue how to light anything, they just blast away (spray and pray) and when
something doesn't turn out, they get all "artsy" and convert the cr*p into
B&W which is the cure all for the incompetitent.
This isn't anything new. We went through it all when the Canon 20D gave us
ultra-clean ISO 1600 and suddenly we had to abondon everything to get this
amazing end-all-be-all camera. The camera became the answer to all our ills
and instead of quality lighting, we just crank things up higher and get away
with it because we have some Photoshop actions or settings in Lightroom to
save our bacon.
I am no expert in lighting. Never have been. But I understand bad
lighting.
All that said, I surely wouldn't mind clean ISO 102,400 for when I'm
shooting stage stuff where I can't use flash. But it's not like I make
enough money from that to justify the expense. The clients can live with
what I give them. If they want better, then they have to be willing to pay
for it.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|