> Tell me Karl, since I was last here, what has changed with digital? for what it's worth, I've seen knowledge evaporate, reliance on technology take a stronger hold and interest in the underlying principles decline. I've seen my pet hate, myths, perpetuated, I've seen manufacturers spreading lies and I've seen good people decried for their lack of 'insight' in regards the future. I've seen photographers working harder, taking more pictures yet getting less successful 'hits'. I've seen good cameras and lenses being swapped for annually disposable auto-everything's. I've seen frustration and confusion over software and a dependence of *graphic design* software being used by photographers. I've seen graphic designers, multimedia types, mums and dads step into the arena depriving photographers of work. I've seen jobs simply cease to exist. I've seen people passing through college who leave with advanced diplomas who know nothing about exposure, light, optics, calibration.. nothing about rendering and realism. I've watched a steady increase in colour casts appearing at all levels of photographic output. I've seen green people, asphyxiated blue models, magenta kids playing with magenta dogs.. sometimes I've seen magenta parents in the same ads as their green parents! Looking at the increase in small headed folk with huge feet appearing in images with those cursed with noggins of gargantuan proportions one can only conclude that the rate of birth defects is up too with the prevalence of digicams! > I consider myself to be neutral and unbiassed in this matter. In the > past I expressed some reservations about digital, but I always retain an > open mind. > > Has anything improved with digital that can't be expressed in one word > -- resolution? That's the grounds on which the digicam manufacturers choose to mount their campaign and on that ground they have won. they could have been drawn to other territories and rational debate could have followed, but no, it was not to be. Where is the IR photography these days, stuff anyone could have managed with a 50 year old camera? Of IR only the Sony's seem to have had the foresight to allow one the full advantage of CCD's inherent IR sensitivity, but at the cost of relying on autoexposure. One can mimic it digitally, but heck, it is NOT accurate across the spectral range *known* to film. Where are the manufacturers specifications?? I see the newest HP digicam no offers inherent red eye removal.. I suppose the algorithms look for red dots surrounded by white set against a certain range of skin like tones. itd be interesting to see what else these cameras 'correct'. Algorithms can pop any level of detail in an image, and they frequently include stuff that was not there. interpolation is a wonderful thing :-/ > In the past I have expressed my concern over the loss of quality, > digital was always a poor cousin, unable to compete with the negative. > Now, alas, with increased resolution things are so much worse. I now > turn off all images when I use the World Wide Web because they all look > digital to me. Since that was all you ever saw Bob I see no point in following this line of reasoning other than to increase download speed. The images you've seen on your monitor are digital. > Karl, how can the public know that the image they see is truth, not > falsified with photoshop? Remember the National Geographic shoot that raised havoc some time last year when the kingfisher was deemed to have been imposed on the image? It is in the eyes of the wider public a legitimate shot. A carefully crafted shot will confuse many to the point that they will not question it.. but it has to be so carefully crafted that doubt will not exist. >How can the experts tell? And the > professional photographers -- where are they now? Do they send out the > assistants to shoot thousands of digital images while they are a slave > to their computer? Laugh.. some do ! k
