Shel Belinkoff wrote: >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.
This is absolutely right. I still vastly prefer the darkroom to the computer for B&W work, for example. However, this earlier statement from the thread: >>Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed >>and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. >>All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely >>different technology. is absolutely wrong. Computer-based digital imaging isn't, in and of itself, a *simulation* of the darkroom (though a subset of digital techniques, like unsharp masking, are). It's only the accident of history that chemical photography was invented first that makes people think so. If digital had been invented first there would surely be people complaining that chemical photography was just a simulation of digital. Yes, the computer is entirely different technology. That's why the techniques are different rather than a simulation. It's going to be interesting when, in a few (not too many) years, people who have grown up knowing only digital photography start to discover film and darkrooms. The ones who are open-minded enough to do so will be excited by it *because* they are so different, and won't assume for a moment that one is a simulation of the other.
