I'm not being judgemental of anyone's preferences or of film as an art
form. I'm very fond of it myself and practiced it for more than thirty
years. What is, in fact, bullshit is Kevin's original premise that
digital is nothing more than composition. Go back and read the thread.
Yes, Shel, that is bullshit. And I'm not being judgemental, just
honest.
On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
No, it's not bullshit, Paul. Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of
"them," prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the
results
that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets
from
the process.
I once spent a weekend sanding a table by hand. A friend brought me an
orbital sander and suggested that the job could be done in an hour or
so.
He didn't get it - the process was important, spending a few hours in
the
sunshine in the backyard was important, the feel of the wood on my
hands
was important - more so than getting the job done quickly and
efficiently.
Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin.
I
sometimes feel the same way.
There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
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.
