As I read over various threads dealing with a number of digital questions ... and reflect on my own trek through the digital wilderness ... I began wondering if we have become so impatient, and that our eye and mind is on the future so much, that we never realize the promise of the now.
This struck me almost immediately when I got the Nikon D3X and the first files that I shot weren't immediately there. I was so pissed I thought to send the camera back. But I cooled down and kept at it ... low and behold, it began revealing its wonderful abilities, and continues to do so. So, the question is ... is the camera not there, or am I just to impatient?
I also observe this impatience concerning RAW software and all the debates swirling around different choices. Of course subjectivity comes into play, but I also wonder if people really explore the possibilities to any depth before making pronouncements?
When I harken back to my first plunge into Photoshop, I remember what one of the commercial retouchers told me (one of the best PS users I have ever seen) ... "Marc, you are just starting on a lifelong learning curve. You will never master this program, only parts of it." Yet, if some program we try doesn't deliver in a matter of hours, we declare it less than another we have been working with for years :wtf: I know for certain I am guilty of this concerning C1-Pro. I suspect it's also true for those condemning Light-Room (not to start that debate all over again).
I suppose part of it is that there's so much to grasp, how could you do everything to the degree that all the abilities are revealed?
Many of us had decades of experience using film, and most film cameras were basically the same ... where we could change its response by changing the film and processing. Pro Lab work was done by dedicated experts ... or, if we did our own darkroom work, we spent years mastering the basics and continued to refine it.
When I went MF Digital I used the same Kodak back for years and years, and really made that sucker sing. As I began jumping around, I was struck on how small the incremental improvement were ... $80K later, I was still wondering about this ... but now realize that I was too impatient with the next thing, and never lived with it like I did the Kodak back. Great for the manufacturers, but bad for my bank account.
My take on this is to stick with the now and try to get everything possible from what I have rather than jumping around from Lilly pad to Lilly pad. Rather than accept some so-called limitation, try to keep at it until I know for certain it's a real limitation ... not some product of my impatience. Only when I'm sure then make the jump to the next Lilly pad. BTW, it's a lot less expensive doing it this way ... I think
Your thoughts?
This struck me almost immediately when I got the Nikon D3X and the first files that I shot weren't immediately there. I was so pissed I thought to send the camera back. But I cooled down and kept at it ... low and behold, it began revealing its wonderful abilities, and continues to do so. So, the question is ... is the camera not there, or am I just to impatient?
I also observe this impatience concerning RAW software and all the debates swirling around different choices. Of course subjectivity comes into play, but I also wonder if people really explore the possibilities to any depth before making pronouncements?
When I harken back to my first plunge into Photoshop, I remember what one of the commercial retouchers told me (one of the best PS users I have ever seen) ... "Marc, you are just starting on a lifelong learning curve. You will never master this program, only parts of it." Yet, if some program we try doesn't deliver in a matter of hours, we declare it less than another we have been working with for years :wtf: I know for certain I am guilty of this concerning C1-Pro. I suspect it's also true for those condemning Light-Room (not to start that debate all over again).
I suppose part of it is that there's so much to grasp, how could you do everything to the degree that all the abilities are revealed?
Many of us had decades of experience using film, and most film cameras were basically the same ... where we could change its response by changing the film and processing. Pro Lab work was done by dedicated experts ... or, if we did our own darkroom work, we spent years mastering the basics and continued to refine it.
When I went MF Digital I used the same Kodak back for years and years, and really made that sucker sing. As I began jumping around, I was struck on how small the incremental improvement were ... $80K later, I was still wondering about this ... but now realize that I was too impatient with the next thing, and never lived with it like I did the Kodak back. Great for the manufacturers, but bad for my bank account.
My take on this is to stick with the now and try to get everything possible from what I have rather than jumping around from Lilly pad to Lilly pad. Rather than accept some so-called limitation, try to keep at it until I know for certain it's a real limitation ... not some product of my impatience. Only when I'm sure then make the jump to the next Lilly pad. BTW, it's a lot less expensive doing it this way ... I think
Your thoughts?
