Bob W. wrote: > I've > seen hundreds of exhibitions by world-class photographers in > world-class venues of both digital and chemical prints. I'm convinced > that digital output is now as good as chemical printing, and in my opinion > more people can produce exhibition-quality photographs more easily using > digital output than ever could using chemical means.
I agree with this. You may or may not like the look of digital prints as well as conventional prints, but they're certainly viable. I've never liked certain processes but I still am able to keep an open mind with regard to whether they've been used successfully or not. I hate glossy Cibachrome but I've seen (if rarely!) good Cibachrome pictures. I really dislike slide film pushed way past its ability to record a subject brightness range, but I appreciate Alex Webb's work--nobody sees the way his film sees, but he takes the limitations of slide film and uses it as an artistic element. He makes it works. The whole idea of 6 mp being the holy grail and digital needing to duplicate the amount of information in a 35mm slide is a bunch of hoo-hah if you ask me. Heck, how much "information" is there in Capa's picture of the dying Spanish soldier, or Ernst Haas's blurred bullfighters, or a Michael Kenna nightscape? "Information" doesn't have anything to do with art. If it looks good, then artists can work with it. If artists work with it, then you have to judge whether it's successful--whether it works for you--based on the work itself. That's the bottom line. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
