Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

"Bill Again" <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
> > completed with just a P&S.  However, your point is well taken:  the
> > key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
> > utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.
>
> You remind me with that comment of an article I read
> recently by Jane Bown... I quote:
>
> <quote>
> I'm not very particular about equipment: ...
> I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
> usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
> usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light
meter,
> I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the
picture
> work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls
on
> the back of my hand.
> <unquote>
>
> Try putting that on a function menu!


This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good
photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of
their equipment to make them irrelevant.

In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the
technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing
the lighting is far less im****tant today than years ago.

As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and
there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function
dial.

And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and
exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is
invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression
options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an
asset.


-hh