On 7/22/04 9:51 PM, "R.Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is a good point, but I think the bigger point to me is that a lot
> of people are skipping the craft part of photography altogether and
> relying on automatic settings both in the camera and in Photoshop to
> get results for them. I'm all for making the process as transparent as
> possible, but I think it's really important to understand how things
> work, too.
How is this different from using a full-auto point & shoot and a poorly
maintained 1-hour mini lab run by a teenager that'd rather be out back
smoking with their buds? What about the millions of consumers that didn't
care how everything worked BEFORE digital started taking over? I don't see
how Photoshop can be blamed for that. Tools like PS may have accelerated the
acceptance of digital photography, and turned too many bad snapshots into
psychedelic trash, but I don't see how its any worse than it was 15 years
ago. Except for the film dying thing... That sucks :(
-mike
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|