Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 12/07/2013 01:20 (12/06/2013 16:20) |
| Message-ID | <2013120616200732124-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
On 2013-12-06 23:52:02 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:
Eric StevensI believe we are talking about photography for everyman, which came to pass when George Eastman made his films and cameras available to anybody who could aim them and push a button. Even in those first days, the entire camera was returned to Kodak for processing as it could not be opened outside of a darkroom, most people did not have a darkroom or understood the required chemistry. Home processing was a truly rare thing in those days, and for the masses in the digital age still is.
On 6 Dec 2013 08:46:31 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:SandmanEric Stevens
In article <5r13a9p8a7o0ks3slqfbd8kof0r694hbit@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:Sandmannospam
no they do not, nor did film users need to know how to process their own film.many people know how to use a computer and some did their own darkroom work, but it is not a requirement to use a camera.Eric Stevens
But knowing what can be done in the dark room is an essential part of the skills of a top photographer.
So there are no young top photographers? Only oldies know what can be done in the dark room.
According to your logic, when dark rooms fade into nostalgic memory even more, we will no longer have any more top photographers.
Nonsense. All of this discussion has been in the context of film photography. That's why I didn't mention digital photography or the processing of daguerreotypes for that matter. I was staying in context.
Perhaps I should have said 'were an essential part ... ' but even that would not be entirely accurate.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
11/30/2013-
-
