On 3/27/06 12:56 AM, "Keith McGuinness", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Much of what I read from film enthusiasts defending their passion > involves an implied or explicit criticism of the digital process > (and its enthusiasts) as lacking something. I do not think this is what people are saying. Definitely not. If you interpret this that the film enthusiasts making an "anti-digital" argument, then your view is completely skewed. I realize that there are enough self-claimed "artists" in this list who somehow feel challenged by this thread. It almost like touching their emotional code. I feel the danger so I have to digress. But before doing so.... :-). I never meant the "experienced people" as just the film enthusiasts. They are the people who experienced in BOTH film and digital. In fact, most, if not all of them are firmly embracing the digital photography. Make no mistake about it. That's why film photography is so much in decline now. But the fact that they are experienced in both film and digital, like most people here, make them qualified to take some objective views of both genre. What made me chime into this "dangerous" thread is because of my observation that some people started going obsessively to the "art" describing the digital post processing part as if it is some kind of art, while they themselves admit that they only spend 5 minutes or so on it. That's not art. That's just literally the post processing that everybody does. As I said in my earlier post, that most of the digital processing people are doing is to enhance the original capture and make it printable (presentable) or viewable on the screen. Unless one goes beyond it, it is just the "processing, not the art as those people seem to claim. I was just giggling that those people are actually side tracking into an obsessive "art" discussion, which is quite fine as it is one of the things this type of list takes up once in a while. However, if the 5 minutes on PS is considered "art", I have to disagree. You can manipulate the original capture into something really creative using the full capability of PS, and I see superb presentations. Those are true "creative" arts but they depart from the photography and get into more of "graphic arts", don't they ? :-). Those people here who strongly argue that they are somehow the artists, with due respect, the actual photos they upload here once in a while do not at all exhibit it (now, I said something bad, I know, but I am trying to be honest :-). Are they really artists or just techno-geeks? :-). OTOH, there are few accomplished people in this list who obviously reached the point of artistry. I did not wish to name any particular name simply because there are others but Bruce (Dayton) for example comes to my mind. I really like his photos in terms of traditional excellent photography, picking good subjects, good composition, capturing the right moment under the right light conditions and enhancing it digitally (perhaps mildly) etc. But I am sure there are many cull shots behind those excellent shots exhibited. So, what he says has a convincing power yet he never claimed he is an "artist" :-). Anyway, I am not here to divide the world into black and white, good and evil. All I was saying was that, after the rushing of big tide of digital wave, now people have a chance to settle down a bit and started looking both film and digital. Some re-appreciate the film photography, although their main interest is still with the digital, started dusting off their film cameras and using them to their own inherent advantages. Their calm minds do not claim that either digital or film rules. They appreciate the thrill of making good shots with well considered composition, lighting adjustment and all that (and it's a one shot chance) which can now be done (and done better) later on computer. Some people think that's not all the fun. There is also a thrill of getting the print back (vs. an instant gratification). Those are indeed lost in the digitized world. Also, there are indeed some advantage in film renditions over digital but let's not get in there :-). And I might add that more are they experienced, the more humble they seem to be :-). And I digress. Cheers, Ken
