'Twas my second thought, after reading it through. :-)
The entire article was a pointless argument based on a false premise. The
premise was that the product one is buying is the photographs. In reality,
the product one is buying is the photographer's expertise. If one is
satisfied with Aunt Tilly's digicam shots, then one doesn't need a
professional photographer in the first place. The guy just wanted more
delivered than he'd contracted for.
<RANT>
It's all part of the general "dumbing down" of the world, IMHO. On the
whole, it appears to me that people are less and less willing to pay for
anything done in a quality manner, as well as less and less willing to
believe that anyone has an ability or skill worth paying for. Years of
intensive marketing and advertising of cheap crap and shoddy service have
worked: it's not whether one has anything of quality in one's life (material
or otherwise) merely that one has at least one of everything and preferably
more of at least one thing than anyone else.
</RANT>
Today I saw a site touting a (non-photographic) device's, "High Resolution
240x120 display." By what particular stretch of the imagination is anything,
"high resolution" at only 240x120 pixels?
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: Winsor Crosby [mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [OM] Professionals and digital photography on Slashdot
Maybe he was confused with "canard": a false or baseless, usually
derogatory story, report or rumor.
Sorry, but I think this guy is a self important idiot.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|