Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > At 12:16 AM 4/9/2005, karl shah-jenner wrote: >>I have a B&W print that *never* fails to elicit gasps of 'wow, that's so >>sharp!' > > When someone tells me that a print looks sharp, I look to see what I > did wrong. It's the exact opposite of what I want in terms of a > reaction. Then I may be your perfect audience -- because my reaction is fairly often "that's not sharp". :-) > I had an opening for a solo show last weekend with sixty to eighty > people. Not one person asked about the technical origin of the > images, which were a mix of film and digital. People asked how I > saw specific shots, why the light looked the way it did, how I > captured the feeling of the shot. I found this a total success. In > the end, all this "digital vs film" discussion happens when the > photography itself doesn't matter. Those are more important issues. They're also issues that most photographers, even fairly serious ones, aren't well-equipped to discuss. I can put myself forward as an example of that. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
