At 13:23 10/29/02, Winsor Crosby wrote:
My feeling too. I am not averse to a digital system if it produces
better images, but there is no way I am going for an autofocus, three
button menu driven computer for my main camera, film or digital. I am sure
that the next step is to be able to plug the camera into a lap top to set
the controls - so far from what a photographer needs as to be a parody.
To borrow a term from Linear Pogramming, you don't understand the
"objective function." It's not maximizing better photographs or yield rate
"Wall Hangers." It's maximizing two other criteria:
(a) Outward display of opulence to impress others with all the expensive
electronic gadgetry that you can [supposedly perhaps] afford.
(b) Display of wizardry with said gadgetry to further impress others with
your mastery of complex electronic gadgetry.
Remember, if you own a very expensive, flashy, complex Rube Goldberg type
device that can allegedly do anything, and can give the appearance you have
mastered it, it implies you can do anything and you will be accorded
adulation and admiration of others. This is predicated on the widespread
assumption that there is nothing one cannot master if only one throws
enough money at buying a device[s] to do it all for you.
There's another approach to this that Stephen Gandy suggests; if one cannot
be a Master at it, at least one can look the part:
The Problem:
http://www.cameraquest.com/NuProPhog.htm
The Solution:
http://www.cameraquest.com/imagecon.htm
IMHO, someone who can do [nearly] anything with a simple box Brownie is the
true master and the person who should be accorded adulation and
admiration. Plain simplicity is elegance.
-- John
< 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 >
|