Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
A few weeks ago, a member started a thread to talk about how someone had found a way to use a common device, already carried by millions of people, as an accurate incident light meter. I thought it was wonderful: carry one device instead of two, and take the money you would have used on a separate meter and spend it on a lens, or film, or to help pay the mortgage. Alas, the device in question was "digital", and was therefore anathema to any "real" photographer. The idea was ridiculed; apparently you're not a "real" photographer unless you carry a "real" light meter. I'm still trying to understand why a device that does exactly what a light meter does, with the same level of accuracy and ease of use, isn't a "real" light meter. Apparently there's some kind of "Turing test" for equipment that I'm not aware of. Maybe the digital-haters run in packs, and I've been unlucky enough to cross their path more often, but the pack seems to be growing in size.
That questioner was me. And that questioning had nothing to do with "digital" anything. Or pack animal behavior. Or what it takes to be a "real" photographer. Or even, at its root, photography at all.

It had to do with making a conscious decision to choose screwdrivers with which to pound nails when excellent hammers are readily available.

Why would someone do that? Just because they can?

If you were faced with major surgery would you prefer the surgeon use a chain saw or a scalpel? They can both cut, you know.

Sorry you missed the fundamental point...



Ken

(Apologies to David for this OT detour.)