> I don't see that anyone has privileged one method over another so far. > Digital imagers are sooo sensitive :-0 > > Seriously, Seriously too Alan: They really can be so sensitive (and ergo so easy to wind up - baited hook and all that) I'm guessing theat underneath all the defenses is a realisation that the medium isn't all it's cracked up to be. Heck, it's quite fantastic what it's done for photography and all that, but it truthfully does not match some of the bloated claims ... I must post about my first experience with a digital camera some time: took some fantastic shots (as judged by the LCD screen) but when viewed on a monitor (or worse as a print) they were blubby awful. Frankly, as a group the results were technically the worst "roll" I've ever taken ;o(. Now though, here's the rub, the people at the BBQ, I'm told, absolutely loved them. It does not matter that the tree is in focus instead of little Johnny; it does not matter that the "decisive moment" I wanted to capture was lost in the aeons between when I pushed the sutter and the camera decided to take the shot ... The "customer" loved the result because they were available that day:now.# If I'd taken my film camera (instead of being pursuaded to borrow the 3MPixel thingy) the pictures might have pleased me but would have missed the boat with aunt maud etc. Heck, the father of the triplets had ordered one of my images over the internet and had it back on a coffee mug in three days - must talk to him about copyright some time ;o) Bob
