Wanna know my second biggest gripe about digital? Quality is first, of course,
but I'm not going to get into that now. Some people are simply incapable of
seeing it.
Here goes, the #2 gripe:
I've probably had a digital camera longer than 90 percent of the people on this
list, a Camedia C-2000Z. It's been "in house" since November of 1999. Since
then, we've (mostly me) taken probably about 500 photos with it. They come out
of the camera as a file with a meaningless gobbledygook name made up of
numbers. So, am I supposed to rename every one with something meaningful, a
name that'll jog my memory five years later so I'll instantly say to myself,
"Oh, yeah, self, this is the picture of the female Martian eating a peach"?
So, with only this paltry number of digital photos taken, I today don't know
what most of them are and don't have the patience to wade through them to find
out, nor do I have the inclination to waste my rapidly decreasing brain power
by thinking up memorable names for them.
But the camera is a very good instrument, all things considered. Now that I'm
retired and have time to kill, I'm going to embark on a career as an *Bay
entrepreneur. Although we live in a poor and deprived neighborhood of
30-year-old homes, a veritable slum in this area, we are becoming surrounded by
the million-dollar McMansions of the affluent (mostly Republicans, I would
guess) who seem always to be having garage sales -- probably to try and make
this month's mortgage payment or keep the cable connected. In an effort to
perhaps delay the opening of the day's first beer from 10:00 a.m. until maybe
1:00 or 2:00 p.m., I plan to drive about (in the OM-4Runner, of course) and
check out what obviously must be high-end cast-offs, just the fodder for an
*Bay auction with a high starting bid. Of course, I'll be confining myself to
photographic and stereo gear, stuff I know something about, and not books and
bric-a-brac trash.
And the little Camedia C-2000 Z, with its measley 2mp, plus an old set of
Vivitar close-up lenses, coupled with the right lighting (which nobody seems to
know how to do anymore) is way more than good enough for photographing the
one-of-a-kind, never-to-be-seen-again items I shall offer on line as I make
enough money to buy one of those McMansions. And I won't even have to rename
or archive the damned files, just upload 'em and wait for the money to roll in.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Regardless of your preferences, this is nothing new. There have been
> bah humbug articles, by professionals, periodically ever since the
> advent of digital. I expressed my own share of bah humbug opinions as
> well. What is has changed is that they are less frequent now. The
> little blip in film camera sales is a result of the issuance of two new
> professional 35mm film cameras. If Olympus issued a modern OM system
> you would see a bunch of sales to people on this list. It does not say
> anything about which way the technology is going.
>
> The grousing below about digital problems are things that most are are
> capable of dealing with. Migod, no one ever had to change a sparkplug
> with a horse! I think you are right in your move to medium format. I
> think it will be the photographic art medium for a long time. I think
> if you actually had the sales figures the professional film sales
> increases would be in medium format to people like you.
>
> Digital is about 10 years old. Amazing isn't it? Don't you think that
> 10 years later in the 1930's people with their 60mm wide film in
> folding cameras were still pooh poohing Oscar Barnak's silly Leica
> camera?
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
> On Mar 13, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Walt Wayman wrote:
> >
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|