--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would guess that exposure for exposure, there are more good,
> correctly exposed photographs taken now than 30 years ago, 40 years
> ago, ad infinitum.
I definitely agree. I was just talking to my wife last night,
remarking how the advances in camera technology means that it's very
rare to get a completely unprintable, unviewable snap. A long time
ago, using a rangefinder w/o a meter, I would expect to get several
frames on a roll that were so far over- or under- exposed as to be
blank.
I don't think technology per se drastically affects the quality of
photographs one way or the other. It still takes an eye to see the
possibilities and some skill to pull it off. Great photographs can be
taken with any sort of equipment.
Don't get too wistful for the good ol' days -- back then, there were
old farts, now long gone, sitting around talking about bad things had
gotten. I mean, what would Julia Margaret Cameron say if she saw long
strips of narrow film stored in a metal canister? Any photograph that
takes less than 2 or 3 days to set up can't be any good! Larf!
*>UncaMikey
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
