[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>With a CCD however, it seems that this element of bias or control willWhen we choose *anything*, thinking of the choice as a form of editing or
disappear. Will digital manipulation then become a more generally accepted
practice among those like myself that have purist leanings? Is there a
difference between controlling this in camera with film, and out of camera
with a computer?<<
"manipulation" seems to be a bit harsh, as if our choices are a form of
censorship or suppression. By choosing one detergent over another, or one
newspaper over its opposite, we are exercising *choice* only.
We choose a film, as you noted, to fit the situation or image we want to
produce, "saturated" with Velvia or muted, medium contrast portraiture when
we chose Portra. Both are purely choices and by our mere choosing, we do not
"manipulate" the final image, just choose the final image form we want to
produce. Nor do we, when we isolate one flower from a field of flowers,
manipulate the scene, field or other flowers. Imaging, be it chemical or
digital, is a matter of choices, not an adversarial process. Do we
"manipulate" or simply choose when we select the paper we will use to make a
print on? No.
To apply your principles further, if by choosing a 3 megapixel digital camera
over a 1.4 megapixel model, or an SLR over a point and shoot, do we by
preferring to use one or the other "change" or manipulate any image we are
likely to make with either? Certainly not.
Perhaps, as has been suggested, we should look for the virtues in both
instead of thinking about the two exclusively different imaging techniques as
competitors, as an either/or condition?
I recently underwent surgery. A hospital technician, Sony Mavica digital body
in hand, took shots of me, the operation site and its laser markings, my
wristband and in minutes, my folder contained color images of me, the site
and the wristband. No way chemical can compete with that!
Digital has already found its way and place: hospitals, insurance agents and
agencies, law enforcement (at arrests), during depositions, on the web,
sending "grannygrams," photographing products for ebay ads, on family
websites and the applications list goes on. Any place an instant image is
needed, digital is pushing chemical imaging, especially Polaroid and Polaroid
sales, out of the way.
"Serious" Digital imaging has become the domain of medium format and 4 x 5
field cameras. But that kind of digital is way beyond the reach of ordinary
people. A digital back for a Hasselblad can cost as little as $15,000 or as
much as $85,000.
"Ordinary" people may get a 6 megapixel small format digital camera sometime
soon, but I contend that to produce the "proper" photorealistic digital
images from it, our ordinary person would have to own an equally serious
computer, printer and expensive software-digital imaging program and the like
to get truly "photorealistic" images in sizes at or above 11 x 17, the
current limit of most *medium* format backs.
*8 x 10 digital images have been blown up to near grainless 20 x 50 feet! But
the millions of dollars in equipment required to produce such an image is of
course beyond all but multinational corporations.
I also contend that as long as "Mr. ordinary" can produce astoundingly good
images with $7.95 one-use disposable cameras, photorealistic "small format"
digital, as the contemplated serious competitor to film as depicted here, is
years away, if then.
*I am tickled by the fact that a "lowly" Pentax K-1000, shooting any Pentax
"limited" lens (in manual of course), can stomp the stuffings out of all but
the best and most expensive medium format/4 x 5 digital cameras.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
