Harry Krause  wrote in message ...
 basskisser wrote:
   (basskisser) wrote in message .  com...
  Cleesturtle1  wrote in message .  ..
   On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
    wrote:
  
  
   Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
   decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
   your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
   lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
   damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!
  
   Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?
  
   You are such a moron...
 
  Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
  done in the "mid 80s"?
 
  You are such a moron.
 
  Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
  read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
  was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
  80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
  the moron.
 Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
 photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
 annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
 graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
 directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
 the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
 professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
 originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
 you have because of screen resolution limitations.
 There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
 photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
 designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
 layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
 typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.
 But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.
 My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.
I have always had a *hobby* interest in photography. It's the only
artistic type of thing I'm any good at. I've taken a few classes at
junior colleges, etc. I still like the artistic bent of 35mm
photography, that is, being able manipulate things at the point of
contact, rather than doing it at the computer, although there are a
lot of advantages to digital. I may at some time dabble more and more
with digital, I have a camera, and decent software.