Both SLRs and most digital cameras are WYSIWYG, but I don't think it is accurate to term most digital cameras as SLRs. SLR stands for single lens reflex and involves a mirror in the light path towards the film. When you press the shutter, the lens moves out of the way to allow an exposure.
Beyond this technical detail, there are a few big advantages to being an SLR rather than having an LCD display:
- instant response to conditions. All the digital cameras I've worked with have some lag in updating to the LCD. This will of course improve, but never go away completely (in the foreseeable future).
- higher detail. To display on a reasonable-size LCD screen, image detail must be sacrificed, even if it is caught with the sensor. In time, this will become neglible, but for now I'd still love a digital SLR.:) (Then again, it is very nice to have the portability I get with my Dimage X.)
Overall, though, I agree with you. Film will go the way of vinyl. The analogy between the transition between film and digital cameras with the transition between painting and photography miss an important point. Painting and photography have drastically different interfaces; digital and film photography don't. There is an intrinsic diffence in appearance between paintings and photos. Painting is like playing an instrument; photography is more like conducting.
With digital vs. film, on the other hand, the choices of the artist and the effect on the audience need not be different than that of film. Whether this is currently the case, or if we need to wait another 5, 10, or 15 years, I don't know. All in all, a very exciting time for photography.
I see your point, but I find it ironic that the author of your first link also makes a "proof by assertion" by not providing details and citing sources.
While it is true that everyone certainly does NOT know that "any ozone hole data means nothing. Including the data that termed it a hole in the first place", it should be noted that there is some ozone in the ozone hole. Whether or not you see a hole depends upon what concentration you count as the transition between there being a hole and there not being a hole.
Also, your links provide some support to the previous poster's assertion that ozone hole data is meaningless. Your links claim 8 years of fundamentally flawed data. Obviously, there is other, more sound evidence, but your case would be much stronger if you cited different evidence.
You make a valid point. Arguments of this importance should be based upon the merits of the arguments and not demagoguery. But that takes much more work, and tends to be less fun.
"Carbon dioxide - greenhouse gas. (One of several.) Emissions up. To reduce CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels."
I agree in principle, but I'd like to bring up a couple of points:
If we are talking about gross CO2 emissions, to reduce CO2 emissions we have to REDUCE (not stop) burning fossil fuels.
If we are talking about net CO2 emissions, reducing/ nearly stopping the burning of fossil fuels would certainly reduce net CO2 emissions.
However, engineering solutions should not be wholly discounted. For example, I seem to remember some plan for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by storing it in the oceans. I don't think this is practical (or probably desirable), but the same effect could be obtained by growing fast-growing weeds and burying them in abandoned mining shafts, etc. Or, simply increasing the total mass of plant-life by creating more acres of forests.
However, interest in organic farming has increased greatly recently, and organic farming uses much more land per pound of food grown than conventional high-yield farming. Organic farming's need for increased farming acreage may prevent more land from being devoted to forests.
The secondary (and tertiary, etc.) effects of plans such as the Kyoto Protocol are myriad and difficult to predict (or even attribute after the fact). It's a shame that these complex and far-reaching issues are so often reduced to soundbites and headlines.
However, as mentioned in an earlier post, you are allowed to cite excerpts of the work under fair use.
It would be legal, though not wise, to sell the correspondence on E-bay as "Documents showing the ignorance of [insert company name here]'s CEO. Depending on the profile of the company, you might be able to make a reasonable amount of money.
Of course, I don't advise this.
Ask for an appointment to discuss the matter at his convenience. Then, before the appointment, call the CIO or equivalent at the company, and explain what happened, politely. If he's on the ball, he'll bring up the fact that From addresses can be faked without specifically mentioning your case. At the appointment, let the CEO save face about being wrong, and you are in good shape.
Throughout this thread people seem to be assuming that the whole picture will be printed out at a reasonable size. While there certainly is a limit to the number of useful megapixels in printing out a picture at 8 1/2 by 11 (I don't have the technical expertise to say where that limit is, and it will surely change as printer technology progresses), I look forward to being able to get good quality printouts from a small cropped portion of a picture. For example, taking a group shot of 20 or 30 people, and then printing out close-ups of each of the people photographed rather than taking 30 separate photos.
While I wouldn't pay thousands for this capability, I'll love having every megapixel I can get. It's like hard drive capacity, who could ever use 40 megs, I mean a gig, scratch that 20 gigs.:) (Though I still haven't filled my twenty gig hard drive, and it's on it's last leg.) But I digress, my main point is that like many computer components, we are approaching quite comfortable, but more is always nice.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually, most digitals ARE SLR -- use the lcd!"
:) (Then again, it is very nice to have the portability I get with my Dimage X.)
Both SLRs and most digital cameras are WYSIWYG, but I don't think it is accurate to term most digital cameras as SLRs. SLR stands for single lens reflex and involves a mirror in the light path towards the film. When you press the shutter, the lens moves out of the way to allow an exposure.
Beyond this technical detail, there are a few big advantages to being an SLR rather than having an LCD display:
- instant response to conditions. All the digital cameras I've worked with have some lag in updating to the LCD. This will of course improve, but never go away completely (in the foreseeable future).
- higher detail. To display on a reasonable-size LCD screen, image detail must be sacrificed, even if it is caught with the sensor. In time, this will become neglible, but for now I'd still love a digital SLR.
Overall, though, I agree with you. Film will go the way of vinyl. The analogy between the transition between film and digital cameras with the transition between painting and photography miss an important point. Painting and photography have drastically different interfaces; digital and film photography don't. There is an intrinsic diffence in appearance between paintings and photos. Painting is like playing an instrument; photography is more like conducting.
With digital vs. film, on the other hand, the choices of the artist and the effect on the audience need not be different than that of film. Whether this is currently the case, or if we need to wait another 5, 10, or 15 years, I don't know. All in all, a very exciting time for photography.
I see your point, but I find it ironic that the author of your first link also makes a "proof by assertion" by not providing details and citing sources.
While it is true that everyone certainly does NOT know that "any ozone hole data means nothing. Including the data that termed it a hole in the first place", it should be noted that there is some ozone in the ozone hole. Whether or not you see a hole depends upon what concentration you count as the transition between there being a hole and there not being a hole.
Also, your links provide some support to the previous poster's assertion that ozone hole data is meaningless. Your links claim 8 years of fundamentally flawed data. Obviously, there is other, more sound evidence, but your case would be much stronger if you cited different evidence.
You make a valid point. Arguments of this importance should be based upon the merits of the arguments and not demagoguery. But that takes much more work, and tends to be less fun.
"Carbon dioxide - greenhouse gas. (One of several.) Emissions up. To reduce CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels."
I agree in principle, but I'd like to bring up a couple of points:
If we are talking about gross CO2 emissions, to reduce CO2 emissions we have to REDUCE (not stop) burning fossil fuels.
If we are talking about net CO2 emissions, reducing/ nearly stopping the burning of fossil fuels would certainly reduce net CO2 emissions.
However, engineering solutions should not be wholly discounted. For example, I seem to remember some plan for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by storing it in the oceans. I don't think this is practical (or probably desirable), but the same effect could be obtained by growing fast-growing weeds and burying them in abandoned mining shafts, etc. Or, simply increasing the total mass of plant-life by creating more acres of forests.
However, interest in organic farming has increased greatly recently, and organic farming uses much more land per pound of food grown than conventional high-yield farming. Organic farming's need for increased farming acreage may prevent more land from being devoted to forests.
The secondary (and tertiary, etc.) effects of plans such as the Kyoto Protocol are myriad and difficult to predict (or even attribute after the fact). It's a shame that these complex and far-reaching issues are so often reduced to soundbites and headlines.
However, as mentioned in an earlier post, you are allowed to cite excerpts of the work under fair use.
It would be legal, though not wise, to sell the correspondence on E-bay as "Documents showing the ignorance of [insert company name here]'s CEO. Depending on the profile of the company, you might be able to make a reasonable amount of money.
Of course, I don't advise this.
Ask for an appointment to discuss the matter at his convenience. Then, before the appointment, call the CIO or equivalent at the company, and explain what happened, politely. If he's on the ball, he'll bring up the fact that From addresses can be faked without specifically mentioning your case. At the appointment, let the CEO save face about being wrong, and you are in good shape.
That's my advice, at least.
Throughout this thread people seem to be assuming that the whole picture will be printed out at a reasonable size. While there certainly is a limit to the number of useful megapixels in printing out a picture at 8 1/2 by 11 (I don't have the technical expertise to say where that limit is, and it will surely change as printer technology progresses), I look forward to being able to get good quality printouts from a small cropped portion of a picture. For example, taking a group shot of 20 or 30 people, and then printing out close-ups of each of the people photographed rather than taking 30 separate photos.
:) (Though I still haven't filled my twenty gig hard drive, and it's on it's last leg.) But I digress, my main point is that like many computer components, we are approaching quite comfortable, but more is always nice.
While I wouldn't pay thousands for this capability, I'll love having every megapixel I can get. It's like hard drive capacity, who could ever use 40 megs, I mean a gig, scratch that 20 gigs.