It was thus said that the Great Zane H. Healy once stated:
>
> > > Another factor is cost, for a parent with a young child a digital
> >> camera is great because you can afford to shoot tons of photos. In
> >
> >NO!. Many times I've read letters and articles in photographic magazines
> >that point out that because you can take dozens of pictures with a
> >digital camera and not worry about the cost, then delete the duds later,
>
> You raise very valid points (that I've cut), however, the photo's I'm
> talking about are the ones you don't have time to compose. The ones
> where you might have time to quickly grab the camera and shoot the
> picture, but only if you're lucky.
Heh. I've found it simply impossible to get a clear picture of a kid on a
digital camera---the camera is simply too slow, which is one of my major
complaints about digital cameras. Due to that, I've found that unless I'm
taking a picture in bright light (or using the flash, which isn't always
desireable) then a tripod is mandatory.
Oh, that, and strapping the kids down if I want a picture of them (or
cats, but they're a bit more ornery when I'm strapping them down).
> A slightly off-key counter argument to this might be that a Digital
> Camera can be a good learning tool for a person, in that it doesn't
> cost anything to learn what does work well. Thus allowing them to
> shoot better pictures with both digital and film cameras (the problem
> with this argument is that film cameras react differently).
That is true, and the first thing I do when i get a digital camera is take
a picture with each possible setting (the same picture, by the way) to get a
feel for what the camera can do (say, pictures of fireworks [1]). Also,
because it's digital, I'm open to attempt really silly things, like taking
pictures of the moon through a telescope [2].
-spc (Who has never deleted a picture he took, even if it was bad ... )
[1]
http://boston.conman.org/2003/7/4.2
[2]
http://boston.conman.org/2004/04/05.2
Received on Mon Apr 19 2004 - 14:22:14 BST