They came out OK, and if you look closely you can discern the plops, but I can't help but think that while the photos themselves have a better quality than mine or my small point-and-shoot, that the composition would have been better on the latter two. I can remember a photo we all took (there are several versions) at St. (Good King) Wencesslas' tomb in Prague. We were standing in line to catch a glimpse of the dead guy, and there was gargoyle dripping down on us (it was, as are many days in Europe, raining), and we all looked up and snatched a shot of the drops falling from the jagged teeth of some leper or whatever, and those shots, for the most part, came out really cool. And we only had point-and-shoots. And then I struggle to get a shot of splashing water with a nice camera and I can't. Why is technology making things harder to do?
Like this conversation Jonmikel and I had last night. In 1969, we could go to the moon. In 2008, we can't. Why? Because the technology has become so complicated, that we just can't. Or penicillin. When it was discovered in 1928, it could have cured everything. And now, because of "improved" technology, penicillin doesn't kill anything at all. How is it that we've managed to improve things to the point where they don't work anymore?
1 comment:
Dude I know! I was just playing with a shiny "advanced" camera, and every picture was worse than what I had on my little cannon... it was sad. They really sucked, and now I don't want that camera!
Post a Comment