>>4005908That I think I need more is a very weak and moot statement, isn't it? It relates strongly to my preferences and makes virtually no general statement. It's bound to conditions easily. I'm not helpless using rudimentary gear either, but feel limited.
I added later that technological progress is enabling.
I defended myself directly, since this request to see my photos in a proof can only be an attempt to denounce or doxx me, since obviously the least suitable gear somehow (i.e. also worse, in more effort) also allows a shot of the same situation. I wonder how I could conclusively prove or disprove the points. The fact that it makes no difference to the points in dispute whether I show pictures or not is ignored. On the contrary, however, it's falsely pretended as I contribute no images in this discussion, this would be an indication that my interpretation cannot be valid. For my examples likewise, with which I already see some guile confirmed. The bad faith only encourages me not to even try posting photos, because it compromises my person and again changes nothing in the discussion.
I appreciate your photos and will have a look independently.
>>4005907False insinuation. The answer, however, is that people put more effort, at that time even more for scientific purposes in the development of photography, rather than taking photos for the later mainly artisanal users, rather than snapping for everyday use today.
My father shoots for the local newspaper. In the 90s, he would take the few shots needed for the job, develop them, and take them to the press that same evening. To get the photos in on time he often had to come early and leave as soon as possible. For sports shots, he had to use the early evening light. Today, even writing journalists are encouraged to take the odd shot with a digital camera on automatic or even with their own cell phone. An extra photographer is only commissioned where it's difficult to photograph.
