In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point <datapo...@someisp.org> writes
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's >>in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are >>more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S
>No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use,
Your comments were on environments camera were used in. The military use them in harsh environments with often hard treatment and require them to work.
> or what >you have learned from only reading reports about cameras.
Who said it was in reports? I have used cameras in deserts, rather damp wooded environments, cold snowy places and urban areas.
>Military >photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their >term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography >on an entry test.
May be where you are but not where I am... where are you as an anonymous person with a fake email address you have no credibility until you identify yourself.
> So that's what role they might assign to them, whether >they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the >military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem >too bright anyway.
It depends whose' military.... Some are not as bright as others.
>(My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
Min too :-)
>The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell. >There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same >model of camera.
So it is not one of the normal high street ones then... but a specialist one.
>military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using >being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even >saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being >carried by the men.
Rugged P&S are always useful as they are small and light
>DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly >never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms.
I have with both types.
>The main >DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have >to stop to clean the sensor.
Yes and no. It is one of the main drawbacks with DSLR's or SLR's in any event. The answer is not to chance the lens any more than yo have to. It all depends on what you are doing, where and why.
>are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion >and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.
But then again I do read that datapo...@someisp.org has lots of experience. With a fake name and email you have ZERO experience untill you identify yourself. There are very many deluded kooks onthe internet making out they are experts.
>I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature >photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near >cameras.
Only for the last 30 years... in hostile environments as much as comfy ones.
> I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many >keepers.
It depends on what you are shooting where and why.
>An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when >I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment.
True.
>I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right >for the job.
So you say
>Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >opinion.
But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I have is greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem identifying yourself.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's >> in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are >> more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S
> No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what > you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military > photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their > term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography > on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether > they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the > military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem > too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".) > The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell. > There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same > model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline > crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using > them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model > was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the > military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using > being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even > saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being > carried by the men.
> DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly > never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main > DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have > to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all. > Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp > environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on > the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops > below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and > dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in > DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in > position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into > cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs > are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion > and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.
> I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature > photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near > cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many > keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when > I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In > particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is > not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid > species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where > few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than > that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours > around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You > have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that > day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again > during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure > that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation, > including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for > those nocturnal species.
> I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right > for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced > opinion.
On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point > <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> <-------------------------------------Le >>> Snip------------------------------------------------> > So you say
>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >> opinion.
> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I have is > greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem > identifying yourself.
He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of many names.
>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>> opinion. >> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>have is >> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >> identifying yourself.
>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >many names.
I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van.d...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Hallo Data point, >please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right >for your job. My job is similar one. >Thanks.
For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender. The best in any cameras and optics that I could find that year. They had no equals for durability, dependability, image quality, and the widest range of capabilities with its included macro, IR imaging, and higher EVF resolution than many present-day cameras. As well as the unique and extremely handy swiveling body that allows you to also use the EVF, not just the LCD, in awkward framing situations. I wish they'd make cameras like that again. Few cameras even today can beat the images from that model. Newer is not always better. 5-megapixels is more than anyone needs for 11"x14" prints (and larger, subject dependent) if the optics and sensor are good. 3 megapixels was already shown to compete with the finest-grain 35mm films many years ago.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>> opinion.
>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I have is >> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >> identifying yourself.
>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >many names.
And you're just a useless poorly snapshooting DSLR-Troll of one name(?) this year.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >>> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>>> opinion. >>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>>have is >>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >>> identifying yourself.
>>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >>many names.
>I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would >be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like you were stealing them. One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to useless DSLR trolls like you.
Boo hoo.
Too bad.
As if any self-respecting person on earth would ever want to enrich your basement-living trolls' life for free. LOL!
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van.d...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Hallo Data point, >>please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right >>for your job. My job is similar one. >>Thanks.
>For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many >more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used >a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender. The best in any cameras and >optics that I could find that year. They had no equals for durability, >dependability, image quality, and the widest range of capabilities with its >included macro, IR imaging, and higher EVF resolution than many present-day >cameras. As well as the unique and extremely handy swiveling body that >allows you to also use the EVF, not just the LCD, in awkward framing >situations. I wish they'd make cameras like that again. Few cameras even >today can beat the images from that model. Newer is not always better. >5-megapixels is more than anyone needs for 11"x14" prints (and larger, >subject dependent) if the optics and sensor are good. 3 megapixels was >already shown to compete with the finest-grain 35mm films many years ago.
It actually takes more like 12 MP to best the best 35 mm film images. What was famously shown is that 3 MP digital can edge out film in 8x10 prints, but not at larger sizes.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >>>> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>>>> opinion. >>>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>>>have is >>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >>>> identifying yourself.
>>>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >>>many names.
>>I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would >>be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like >you were stealing them.
Never stolen a photo in my life. Why would I want to?
> One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images >posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to >useless DSLR trolls like you.
Then you will have no trouble giving your real name. Otherwise you are just another wanna be troll
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H wrote: > In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >>> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>>> opinion. >>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>> have is >>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >>> identifying yourself. >> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >> many names.
> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would > be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the P&S troll to point out any of his work.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Data Point wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >>>> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>>>> opinion. >>>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>>> have is >>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >>>> identifying yourself. >>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >>> many names. >> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would >> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
> Totally removed from the net
Gee, what a surprise.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Data Point wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van.d...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hallo Data point, >> please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right >> for your job. My job is similar one. >> Thanks.
> For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many > more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used > a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender.
HAHAHahahahahahahahaha!
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:05:03 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Data Point wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van.d...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Hallo Data point, >>> please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right >>> for your job. My job is similar one. >>> Thanks.
>> For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many >> more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used >> a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender.
>HAHAHahahahahahahahaha!
I have a large number of excellent photographs I took with mine. I found it a very good camera.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:05:03 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Data Point wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <van.d...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Hallo Data point, >>> please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right >>> for your job. My job is similar one. >>> Thanks.
>> For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many >> more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used >> a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender.
>HAHAHahahahahahahahaha!
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>Data Point wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >>>>> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>>>>> opinion. >>>>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>>>> have is >>>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >>>>> identifying yourself. >>>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >>>> many names. >>> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would >>> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>> Totally removed from the net
>Gee, what a surprise.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>Chris H wrote: >> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>> In message <jdr2f5lm8n2hf9trp4ojpvh4g2sl5t8...@4ax.com>, Data Point >>>> <datapo...@someisp.org> writes >>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced >>>>> opinion. >>>> But Datapo...@someisp.org has no experience so any experience I >>>> have is >>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem >>>> identifying yourself. >>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of >>> many names.
>> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would >> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>Don't hold your breath waiting for the P&S troll to point out any of his >work.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: > back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In > addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; > now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > ones some still manage to take.
There's an important factor that you appear to be overlooking...which is the sentimental value of snapshots.
Affordable digital photography enables countless people, many more chances to capture various moments within their lifetimes; conversely, the expenses and processing hassles of film tended to discourage such frequent picture-taking.
Allen wrote: > > In article > > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > > <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > >> photographs?
<heavily edited for brevity>
> And here is another question just for you, Mr/Mrs Grandepatzer.gmail: > Has the invention of paper, ink, and pencil reduced or improved the > overall quality of writing over stone tablets and chisels? Let's > consider just the post office, and the resources it would need to > deliver billions of stone tablets. How many people would read your > drivel if you had to hire a crew to carry your inane messages > individually to the millions who might see it now that the internet > exists? > Allen
Allen, why are you blasting the original poster ("eNo")? Whether you suspect he's spamming his Web site, eNo's messages are always on-topic and a relief from the irrelevant garbage posts, often littering this newsgroup.
> I make a good living working for a company who manufactures disk storage > systems. Every time I get a paycheck, I'm grateful for things like Flickr > and which encourage people like me to take zillions of mediocre images and > upload them for free. More images taken means more disk drives sold. As > far as I'm concerned, we should be giving cameras away for free :-)
This was essentially Kodak's strategy, in the old days. The greater number of cheap cameras the company released to the public, they more film it could sell and process, also. Market penetration, baby!
Polaroid had a similar idea, and took legal action when Kodak encroached on its exclusive domain, during the 1970's. It grew alarmed when Kodak began manufacturing and distributing its own proprietary instant film and cameras; Polaroid finally won its long court battle, in 1986. (Kodak was ruled to have infringed upon Polaroid's patents and therefore, forced to close down that segment of its business.)
Ironically, Polaroid later became a casualty of the digital revolution. Unlike the industry giant (Kodak), it failed to adequately adapt to rapidly changing conditions in modern photography...and as a result, Polaroid has existed in name only, since 2001.
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In >> addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take.
> There's an important factor that you appear to be overlooking...which > is the sentimental value of snapshots.
> Affordable digital photography enables countless people, many more > chances to capture various moments within their lifetimes; conversely, > the expenses and processing hassles of film tended to discourage such > frequent picture-taking.
Not just that, but the whole workflow has been much easier since the advent of digital. It's a lot easier to setup a digital darkroom, than a traditional wet darkroom. And you only need a generic PC and a generic photo printer! It's also a lot more efficient (including quantum efficiency of sensors) and cost effective, because you delete yourself the bad photos. And nobody else will see your personal phostos, I remember some of my friends in Kozani who were working in a photo lab showed me a photo of a girl in underwear, this photo was a part of a film they processed! I swore by then to have as little to do with commercial labs as possible.
-- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
|
