On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, tom wrote: > I agree. A couple of years ago, the naysayers all provided faux > mathematics to prove that digital would never compete with film. Now > they're going to say digital costs too much.
-shrug- Don't care, either way. Regardless of talent I may or may not have, I do it because I find it fun, and I find it to be my own "artistic" release. Part of that artistic release includes money on supplies, fingers in chemicals, and forumlas I don't fully understand to give me a prodct that in the end pleases me. Film gives me that pleasure, a digital camera turns, in my eyes, away from that. It makes it easier to preview and see. Makes it easier to complete what you need, and to me takes just a bit of that artistic approach out of it.. FIne, it makes it quicker, cheaper, faster which is all fine and dandy for those of you who rely on this to make your salaries. I do not, so I do not care. Not to mention, when digital becomes the common place, those of us who do continue to produce "fine art" (FWIW) on film will be that much more exotic, and hey, I'm all about the image of myself as some sort of artiste. ;) A computer can simulate almost any other musical insturment, too, but somehow people are still going to see orchestras and support muscians who use real insturemnts instead of a synth. Painters still paint. Hunters still shoot with bows and with blackpowder. People still buy vinyl. They all just get the term "purist" applied to them.
