terry_vetrono

<p>I've sold cameras and equip't., been a photog for 'bout 43yrs., was a lab tech and while it is fun to chase these kinds of incidents for the technical aspect of it, simply the route to have taken was to ask the lens condition, the user's level in understanding "clean", etc. It would have shortened the chain considerably. That is part of the process of elimination which is what has just occurred.</p>

<p>Actually, I've seen numerous sites for several yrs. now displaying a basic division between those that naturally attune to computers, digital cameras, cell phones, et cetera and another group who do not and the afore mentioned never seem to understand the nature of the complaint voiced by the latter. But they do defend their position with vigor. My idea, if(and I believe many are)they are as they claim why not teach those who have yet to embrace the learning fully? Now, that would be a worthy challenge! Mark replies, "alot of it is tedious...". Then Erik adjoins with the one feature I truly love, the review. I no longer need to go back another time when something was not as I wanted it. Yet he finds review a distraction. The simple, yes simple, question still remains, why so complex? Mark's analysis is spot on and something I would expect from an engineer. I believe part of the answer lies where we find it in other machines and devices. If it is not necessary as a safety priority or as a design feature of the bottom line why take the effort to build something with simplicity when complicated is so easy, menu after menu, after menu? And if you truly think you need these features to produce quality then I would assume(I know the caveat)you think today's photography is head and shoulders above the preceding decades. As it plays out I do not think we have to concern ourselves that simple will be on those menus anytime soon. It simply would be to great a challenge for today's manufacturers to rise to, beside they sell all they can make as is. In addition, the suggestion to use a film camera and a scanner although solving one problem will present others which digital has eliminated. A major one is finding a decent processor and it will become more problematic as the years go on. For those who process their own which I highly recommend chemicals will phase out soon as well. Another difficulty, film has become more expensive and the selection less extensive, it really is no solution for the long term. I won't even bring in the environmental issue!</p><div></div>

<p>I have a few ideas which may fly, perhaps not. First, I agree completely w/Mark. Second, I'm going to stick my neck out of my shell a bit further and venture a guess that could be entirely offbase, is it possible that there is a basic age difference between the thought pattens swirling around here? My position in siding w/Mark is that I feel as he does, in fact I will take a step further in asking, what's wrong with simplicity? Those of us that have managed to endure 'til now do not have the same skill set(generally speaking)as 2-3 generations later. Many of you will see that catch up to you some time in the future. Is anyone getting my drift here? I have come to the digital age kicking and screaming because it took something away from me without providing adequate return. Granted, I'm still trying but it is frustrating to see children master things beyond my level, a level that requires extreme dedication to learning a process that is foreign to my mind. I worked in a pro lab and have shot seriously since 'bout '66. I could do things with film and paper that I have yet to master in a digital environment and my K/M 7D is 4-5 yrs. old. I have taken tech school Photoshop, I read extensively, and support my lack of knowledge with numerous technical books, yet I still stumble along. If my idea is correct here this is parallel to authors who write how to's on computer use claiming if they can do it anyone can, except they forget to realize the idea I've presented above, age. Don't get me wrong here, it is not that I can not do this I just need a different teaching method than is being popularly provided. I suspect that there will be comment on this and in fact am looking forward to it but remember this is not the whole story, of course!! Terr.</p><div></div>

I have a little different problem, I recently moved and am unable to locate my CD rom of Dimage Viewer, sooo none of the updates are viable. Perhaps I should start prior to the lost CD. I came into digital kicking and screaming but finally made the plunge a couple or 3 yrs ago. Popped for a 7D and a Tamron 180 macro. I have an abundance of Minolta equip't. including a 200/2.8 w/converter which was the main reason for following Minolta to Konica, that and the reviews. Anyway, I signed up for a course to learn Adobe Photoshop CS at the local tech. I knew I was in trouble when at the first class everyone knew the instructor and he knew them. Many of them were on the 4th go around and while the scope of it is not impressive to oldhand darkroom guys like me it was to them. Needless to say I failed to make a connection between manipulating pixels and dodging burning and the like. I had never really explored the Dimage thing in fact I was unaware of what it did until recently. It has become important to me to send images and I have problems for several reasons, 1, dial up service, that is all that is available here. I can go to the library and use their WIFI for downloads, etc. 2, I need to compress my images and switch them into JPEG for most people to see them, I shoot in TIFF and I'm not even certain that is what I should be doing. 3, is there a way for me to get a CD rom or download of the original Dimage Viewer? Would it be available through Sony? I appreciate any help you may be able to offer, thanks Terry.