Re: Art of photography

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> In my opinion, if new technology does not advance "forward progress" in
> all aspects, and
> compromises exist.....it's not justified or needed.
> When digital can rival film under this premise,
> I'll reconsider.  MARK DOTTLE

I honor your position, but I personally disagree.  I don't perceive
"advancement" to require a full superset of that which preceeds
in order to be a good advancement. 

It only needs to be better in at least one aspect (which could
be ease of use or even just price).   *When* that aspect is more
important than others, it's an advancement.  When it's not then
it's not.

Easy example:  For the stated purpose of providing artistic
photographic images on one's web page, an even halfway 
decent digital camera has a great advantage over a Leica with
Kodachrome film in it.  Quality of end-result is likely to be the
same, but the digital camera is faster/easier to use and 
publication of an image can be done much quicker.

Digital cameras are used commercially by pros under circumstances
which give them some advancement in what they are doing.

As the givens, assumptions, and situations change the resultant
judgements change.

For probably many uses, if not most, digital cameras currently
are utterly inadequate.  As time goes on, the ratio will change.  
There won't be a singular drop-dead date event.  It'll
move slowly as needs are slowly met. There will be a residual where
needs are too niche for the "big corporations" or even small startups
to fulfill profitably.  Those will stick with the old stuff because
it's still best (much like we are mostly all sticking with 50's
stereo cameras).  Whether 3D stereo cameras will make it in the
digital camera age remains to be seen.  I give it a better than 50%
chance.

What's best will not be universal, and applicability of "advanced"
technology won't be uniform.

Mike K.


------------------------------