That was only part of what he said. Go back and read the original post.
I like both film and digital, but I would never disparage either. This
is turning into another silly film vs. digital discussion. How trite
and boting. It's another thread for the kill file.
Paul
On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:16 PM, graywolf wrote:
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
