In article ,
"William Black" wrote:
> "Martin" wrote in message
> news:nfb204hqjmbhmq67insf5m4jhilj5tbdta@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:08:31 +0100, "William Black"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Martin" wrote in message
> >>news:9qr104d2pn6kn52o14r4mgio29a5cspviv@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:19:34 +0100, "William Black"
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Yeah.
> >>>>
> >>>>I already looked at that.
> >>>>
> >>>>It says the interface is 'challenging', that's geek speak for 'it's
> >>>>bloody
> >>>>impossible to drive'.
> >>>>
> >>>>The droid in Jessops wasn't much help either and Dixons tried to sell me
> >>>>a
> >>>>posh Kodak because 'The expensive Canon compacts aren't terribly popular
> >>>>sir, we only stock the Ixus'...
> >>>>
> >>>>Like I said, lack of any choice is driving me back to film...
> >>>
> >>> Do you think you can obtain better results manually than using it in
> >>> automatic?
> >>
> >>Better?
> >>
> >>Probably not.
> >>
> >>My cheap digital automatic takes wonderful snaps.
> >>
> >>I want to play with the aperture, depth of field and shutter speed to
> >>produce photographs that are interesting rather than just a record of my
> >>travels.
> >>
> >>Photography as art rather than photography as an aid to memory.
> >
> > Some can make artistic photos in automatic mode. If you can't you are
> > probably
> > wasting your time and your money.
>
> Now you can explain exactly how I can simulate changes in depth of field on
> an automatic digital camera.
Possibly he doesn't understand what changes in depth of field can DO?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
|