Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Hoey
Stephen,
Although you say it is generally accepted, I think you may be supposing some of us know more than we do about digital. I have been treating it as I would have slide film, knew no different until yesterday/today. There is more to digital than first meets the eye. I am learning here, as I would guess are others.
|
Stephen,
I will for the purpose here use an anology I saw yesterday to describe my digital knowledge.
For Henri Cartier-Bresson the picture was the most important. Whereas with Ansell Adams it was to an infinite detail the whole process.
I only got my D100 because I forsaw the collapse in residual value of my Bronica kit so I did a straight swap. Photography was no longer a primary interest. That was traction engines and model engineering and last year a bit of bird watching. With the advent of this site I started taking a few pics again other than traction engine rally ones. Processing the image was not the priority as it takes time to learn all the processes.
I had never looked at a histogram as I did not understand them. Today I have read up and had a bit of a play.
That should tell you a bit about my knowledge of digital.
My sceptiscim about some things comes from reading inumerable contradictory comments on the web. Digital is not like film. That would be easy. Someone making extravigant claims could be easily and cheaply checked out.
Don