I thought he said it wasn't rewarding to him. Nowhere in his post did I
get the idea that he felt he was presenting "TRUTH"; but just the way he
felt about it. Why are his feelings on the matter wrong, and yours right?
Some people like to sit out for hours doing a water color, others like
to do a quick scetch with a soft pencil, some prefer oils. Digital, b&w
film, color negatives, slides all are different media. Any of them are
OK. Only digital seems to be "THE GOSPEL TRUTH". Sorry we belittled your
religion.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology.
b
But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film,
fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably
with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there
was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great
darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider
Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks
with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I
even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography
isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and
subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet
invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit.
Paul
