The author is talking about depth of field here. He thinks the shallow depth of field that makes the image more pleasant is a function of analog vs. digital; he of course does not know the lenses used, has no idea of lens speed, etc. Comparing apples to watermelons.. Veli Izzet > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > karl shah-jenner > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:12 AM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: digital future - was something else. > > out of the blue, someone who has no connection with this > group just sent me a link to this: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/technology/circuits/08schiesel.html?ex=127 5883200& > > :-) > > "On the screen was a ..picture of a John Kerry rally ..which > Mr. Burnett shot with a Canon 20D digital camera, the same > camera used by thousands of other professionals around the > world. Not surprisingly, the picture looks like thousands of > others that were shipped around the globe during the campaign. > > The colors are bright. Every part of the image is crisp, so > crisp that just picking the minuscule figure of Mr. Kerry out > of the huge crowd takes a "Where's Waldo?" moment. > > And then Mr. Burnett flipped to a photograph taken seconds > later with the ancient Speed Graphic. Suddenly, the image > took on a luminescent depth. The center of the image, with > Mr. Kerry, was clear. Yet soon the crowd along the edges > began to float into softer focus on translucent planes of color. > > The effect is to direct the viewer's eye to Mr. Kerry while > also conveying the scale and intensity of the crowd. In > accomplishing both at the same time, the old-fashioned > photograph communicates a rich sense of meaning that the > digital file does not." > > > > k > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.7 - Release Date: 10.06.2005 > >
