<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Millimetering: The Death of God&#8217;s Own Light</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rising.blackstar.com/millimetering-the-death-of-gods-own-light.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rising.blackstar.com/millimetering-the-death-of-gods-own-light.html</link>
	<description>Professional Photography Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:54:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://rising.blackstar.com/millimetering-the-death-of-gods-own-light.html/comment-page-1#comment-7901</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:21:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-7901</guid>
		<description>Digital photographers have increased creative reponsibility than film photographers because of the post-capture editing. We have more creative control than any film-shooter. Why did many wedding photogs hate digital at the onset? Because they lost the ability (and simplicity) of shooting an event and sending that film to the processor. No more lab to do the processing for you. With digital, YOU have to add the creative element to the image. Choosing film is inherently choosing the light, how can that not be understood? If PS allows the digital photographer to make changes, just as dramatically then does the variety of film allow the film photographer to make changes. There is no difference in &quot;change&quot;; the only difference lies in the digital photogs increased ability to be creative with the image, not the lab&#039;s ability to do all of the processing for the photog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Digital photographers have increased creative reponsibility than film photographers because of the post-capture editing. We have more creative control than any film-shooter. Why did many wedding photogs hate digital at the onset? Because they lost the ability (and simplicity) of shooting an event and sending that film to the processor. No more lab to do the processing for you. With digital, YOU have to add the creative element to the image. Choosing film is inherently choosing the light, how can that not be understood? If PS allows the digital photographer to make changes, just as dramatically then does the variety of film allow the film photographer to make changes. There is no difference in "change"; the only difference lies in the digital photogs increased ability to be creative with the image, not the lab's ability to do all of the processing for the photog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mohsen al-Dajani</title>
		<link>http://rising.blackstar.com/millimetering-the-death-of-gods-own-light.html/comment-page-1#comment-7862</link>
		<dc:creator>Mohsen al-Dajani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-7862</guid>
		<description>As a nature photographer...other than fixing image problems created by lens/digital such as softness, dust, vignette, etc...a photographer shouldn&#039;t change &quot;anything&quot; in the picture if he want to truly enjoy the beauty of our nature. Changing image light is pure cheating in my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a nature photographer...other than fixing image problems created by lens/digital such as softness, dust, vignette, etc...a photographer shouldn't change "anything" in the picture if he want to truly enjoy the beauty of our nature. Changing image light is pure cheating in my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stan Rose</title>
		<link>http://rising.blackstar.com/millimetering-the-death-of-gods-own-light.html/comment-page-1#comment-7520</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan Rose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-7520</guid>
		<description>I can sympathize with some of the author&#039;s points, but I disagree with the basic premise. As with any revolutionary technology, there is the potential for both good and evil in digital photography. I choose to celebrate its strengths, which is the ability to overcome the limitations that film constrained the phtographer with. The idea that film somehow better captured &quot;God&#039;s light&quot; is grumpy-old-man-talk. My eyes are my best judge, and I trust them in guiding me towards a result that is true to my vision. We are a part of nature, not a mere spectator.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can sympathize with some of the author's points, but I disagree with the basic premise. As with any revolutionary technology, there is the potential for both good and evil in digital photography. I choose to celebrate its strengths, which is the ability to overcome the limitations that film constrained the phtographer with. The idea that film somehow better captured "God's light" is grumpy-old-man-talk. My eyes are my best judge, and I trust them in guiding me towards a result that is true to my vision. We are a part of nature, not a mere spectator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
