Actually, not. Soft pictures and poor metering is more akin to raw food. Such as setting the wrong temperature in the oven or leaving the food in there too long. In the same way that MSG cannot really help with a carbon garnished slice of toast, or a raw turkey, Photoshop shouldn't be used to help in this situation either. Hence the photographer still needs to strive for in camera perfection.Originally posted by spilot
(Photoship is) Of course useful in touching up softness and poor metering. But wouldn't this be like MSG, used to spice up averagely cooked food?
I do not see any quotes about photoshop im my above post .Originally posted by syncmaster
I voted Auto Focus , but if were was one option as computers , i will was vote on that .
The power of the computers have change ,and will continue to change the ways that people do things .
At the bottom line or the DCs is computers , and all the computers does have common language OS , and they cooperate together , easy as that .
The DCs got boarn to work with computers .. Its so simple .
The old fashion photographers , does admire the power of the digital cameras , but they hate computers ..
Well that's theyr biger problem mostly , simply becauce , they think that its too late to learn how to use them .
Bump .. it took me some time to find out what did mix me up .Originally posted by Jed
Erm, that wasn't me? That was spilot?
i wouldn't say they're basic but more of an advancement?Originally posted by zhoufang
these are really basic but useful technologies
yes, i've seen pictures taken without all what you stated in the first paragraph. i'm sure they are decent with respect to the time they are taken, ya can't just compare images take with the EOS range with those taken with cameras in the 50s. our equipment has come a long way, but things do get better with advancement (from no coat to mono coat to multicoating, apochromatic lenses, bla bla bla), but i believe in the photographer itself, not the equipment.Originally posted by Jed
Not basic? Goodness me.
Have you ever seen any decent pictures taken at all with lenses with no coatings, no aspherical glass, no low dispersion glass, no floating elements, and most importantly, no form of internal stabilisation?
Absolutely shocking. It's a pity Ansel Adams didn't have any of those basic technologies, otherwise he'd have been a great photographer. Curiously enough, I'll swear his pictures are far better in quality (image quality) than anything a Canon user churns out with the latest multicoated, aspherical, fluorite ridden, floating element, and most importantly, image stablised (what, no USM!?!?) lens.
Sigh, the joys of technology. I suppose in five years we'll be calling DO a basic technology too.