Photogonow@xxxxxxx writes: > In a message dated 4/9/05 9:36:52 AM Central Daylight Time, > jeff@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > > 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. > > Jeff Spirer > > Well - hurray! Yes; as I've also said directly to Jeff a moment ago. > At least one or two photographers here on the list recognizes that > the visual is meant to stir the emotions -- & the technical -- is > not always important to the viewer. Well, the "technical", coming down to the dark and light areas on the paper, is the only thing the viewer actually sees. And I've seen *far* too many exhibitions of photos that would have been immensely much better if their technical quality had been improved (and whose technical quality *I* could have improved) to be willing to write it off as unimportant. -- 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/>
