No problems here, Maggie: Slainthe Mhor!
Thing is: while I feel innocent, I do in fact agree to your general
analysis: there IS a lot of fossil feeling about digital vs film
bubbling up right now.
Try to see it this way: when most of us fossils started in photography,
it was a difficult and expensive craft that you learnt and then liked
to show off.
You invested a small fortune in heavy metal (!) gear that you thought
would last your lifetime, you tested materials and processes, and all
was well with the world...
Suddenly people without training can buy a small, convenient camera and
produce lots and lots of decent pictures. Your investment in brass
gears and glass falls enormously in value (I still almost cry when I
see what e. g. Hasselblad gear is going for now; luckily I sold before
that), and even big companies that produced your favourite materials go
bust (Agfa),
Your world falls apart, you feel like the dinosaurs looking at the
falling asteroids...
Some fossils do what I did: try the new, and try to find out how best
to use it. Others just sit down and MOAN. Can you really blame them?
Per Öfverbeck
http://foto.ofverbeck.se
2005-05-30 kl. 15.54 skrev margaret lucas:
On May 30, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
Hey Maggie,
It's not Per. He's got no digital problem at all! Digital Heaven
has arrived for him.
But you have to google Andy and find out who he is....
How are you doing with your RAW files, incidentally?
cookin' thanks Emily.
okay, so i shot without teh focus (again...). please accept my
apologies Per. one single malt coming your way. my question remains.
why is there so much dick'eadery about digital? or am i hallucinating
again? it never happened? no one pokes fun at digital? no implies
there is some sort of character defect if you don't use film?
sheesh...i suppose you're all gonna run away and cry like little
schoolgrrls now...
maggie
