--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Regular Photography serves as a true representation
> of life captured
> by a photographers agility and imagination. Whereas
> digital
> photography is a representation of an artists
> creative imagination.
Not really. Capturing the image needs the same skill
for regular as well as digital photography.
> In regular photography a person is trying to capture
> an existing real
> life image on film in the best possible way.
> However, in digital
> photography, the image is captured and then it is
> polished by the
> artists creative imagination using sophisticated
> tools.
That you can do with regular photography as well. It
just involves one step more which is scanning. The big
advantage of digital photography is to avoid this
additional step.
> Both types of artists are trying to portray their
> creativity and
> imagination to a wide receptive audience. In regular
> photography the
> resulting image is entirely dependant on the
> situation and the talent
> of the photographer. Whereas in digital photography
> the results
> obtained are enhanced by means of softwares and the
> artist relaxing
> in a AC room.
Digital photography does require at least the same
amount of talent then regualar photgraphy. For both
capturing the image is a very important act.
Manipulation at the computer takes as much skill as in
the darkroom. It allows you to do it easier (like
dodging, removing subjects, etc) but it still needs a
big amount of skills. As a matter of fact, the
increased freedom and possiblities to change a
photograph requires more skills to get an astetic good
picture.
> Not to mention the cost of equipment. The equipment
> used in regular
> photography has greater shelf longevity, which means
> you buy the
> stuff today and you won't feel that you were a
> jackass at the end of
> the year. However, you spend money on digital
> equipment today by next
> christmas you feel your equipment is obsolete.
That is true for now and for most of us. In a few
years digital cameras will be cheap enough and good
enough that most snapshot photographers don't need to
upgrade because their cheap digital camera give all
the resolution they need. For the professional
photgrapher digital often is already cheaper although
the camera body is expensive and is soon absolete.
> So can we call pictures that were enhanced digitally
> as true
> representation of the art of photography or are
> these digitally
> enhanced pictures out of the perview of photography
> as an art.
The art is to portrait what the photographer has seen
at the point when the pictures was taken. This is true
for regualar as well as digital photography. The later
gives some more freedem including its challanges.
> After having said all this, my question is which one
> is superior? My
> opinion is regular photography is always superior
> than digitally
> enhanced photography. Hope we can build
> constructively on this
> discussion.
If you look for the ultimate resolution out in the
field you are better of with regualar photography. If
you look for high quality for a 'cheap' initial
investment regular photography is better, too. There
are many other advantages. But there are also MANY
advantages for digital photography. Each one has its
own applications. In the long term digital will be
superior in almost all regards. Again, that doesn't
mean that the photographer doesn't have to have good
skills anymore to take great photographs.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
