> > Shel, > > I've been thinking about this rant of yours, and why it doesn't ring true to > me. I think I have finally hit upon it.
I think you've totally missed it, actually. Presuming to speak for Shel (I'm sure he'll correct me when I get it wrong): I wouldn't put Shel in the "image is everything" camp - far from it. It's important to end up with a good image, of course, but part of the process is the pleasure you get from using the tools to produce that image. If a tool doesn't feel good in the hand, then you're not likely to produce your best work when using that tool. Not because the tool isn't capable of it, but because the tool-wielder isn't motivated. Shel understands the nuts-and-bolts of how to wring the last possible iota out of the 'traditional' (or is that 'legacy'?) photographic process, probably better than almost everybody on this list. It's interesting to him, and so he excels at it. He's not interested in the digital manipulations, and so he hasn't invested the effort to understand the details of the process. And even if he did understand the technical complexities it wouldn't have the same emotional connection for him to the image-production process. If I were to read any subtext into Shel's "rant" (other than the sheer pleasure of playing Devil's advocate and deliberately overstating a case) it would be the angst of someone seeing his favourite pastime sidelined by the inexorable march of "progress". > Discussing digital technology is embracing a new medium that has a lot of > potential, something which I find extremely moving and exciting. The > principal elements of getting the data onto the medium haven't changed > (much), but what you do with the data HAS changed. John Francis appears to > be considering creating a RAW to JPG converter (JF, if you were to come up > with such a product, I for one would buy it). This is the rough equivalent > of formulating your own developer. Have you ever done that? Talk about > control over the nuts and bolts of the process! I was an early adopter of digital technology for precisely this reason. I've done my own darkroom work, but found it unexciting. The digital stuff, though, I understand extremely well, and feel confident of my ability to vary the tools to see the effects. This is an area where I feel I can more than hold my own. That's nice - here, at any rate, is an area where I can do something better than Shel :-)
