To: orkrious who wrote (8133 ) 11/16/1999 8:09:00 AM From: Art Bechhoefer Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 60323
I must respectfully disagree with Jim Clark for the following reason: Using an intermediary to convert the camera's digital image to a final print eliminates the creativity and personality of the photographer in preparing the image he or she wants the rest of the world to see. It is the very ability of the photographer to manage each step of the process from the original shot to the final print that makes digital photography unique and compelling. Let me give an example. You take a fine photo of the family and want to send it to your friends. When you view the image, you see that there is a lot of extraneous stuff. The photo should be cropped. A particularly contrasty shadow obscures one of the faces. The flash exposure was fine for some of the subjects but overexposed an important object in the foreground. Each of these imperfections can now be fixed rather easily by the photographer working with his or her own computer, color printer and imaging software. Letting an intermediary do the thinking on this simply leaves you at the place where old fashioned film and photofinishing prevail and does not open up new opportunities. The market for digital, in my view, centers on allowing the individual to determine exactly how that photo should look. No longer do I e-mail the original camera image, nor do I print it. First, I crop it, adjust the brightness and contrast if necessary, eliminate undesirable flaws, and only THEN do I send it or print it. I store two images, the original and the reworked in order that in case I missed something in the original, I can go back and work on that again. This is the future of photography for everyone except professionals, who do exactly the same thing, but with lots more equipment, lots more expenses, and a chemical based technology that doesn't lend itself to the average person's capabilities, space, or bank account. Art