Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear ...

Photography is one of my favorite things in the world to do (people are the best subject, and kids in particular) so I subscribe to Popular Photography and Imaging. Which is, like most other photography publications, devoting more and more articles to digital stuff. I'm not a die-hard film advocate - I mean, I'm not one of those, "You can have my film when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands!" people - but I think film pictures look so much better. It could be that I'm being stupid here, but isn't a 35mm negative equivalent to 35MP? It seems like I read that somewhere. So until there's an affordable 30+ digital camera, I'm sticking to my Canon Elan 7e. I luuuuuuurve it.

The digital/film debate gets really heated, I've noticed. It's a phenomenon similar to the low-carb crowd vs. the I-heart-carbs crowd (that would be me.) People defend the low-carb diet very vehemently, almost like it's a religion or something, when you wonder aloud what all the extra protein is doing to their kidneys.

But anyway, the point of my post is a monthly feature that Popular Photography has, called The Fix, where they highlight pictures that weren't chosen for the monthly Your Best Shot, and they point out what could be corrected to make them better photos.

This month, there was a picture of some bears with the usual comments in red, and one of them struck me as funny:

"Too fuzzy"? It's a bear! It's supposed to be fuzzy! Unless, of course, it's a shot of the famous Fuzzy Wuzzy:

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear
Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?

Was the photographer supposed to shave the bear? Hose it down with Bear Nair, which makes bears bare? Start a brushfire to singe the controversial fuzz? I wonder if the Pop Photo people meant for that to be humorous.

Also, that says "crop", not "crap".