>>> And digital is perfect? >>> Actually, in the real world, what rules is the media that the artist >>> feels most comfortable working with. This may be digital, it may equally >>> be oil paint or macrame. >>> >>> William Robb >> >> What 'digital' has done is put the entire range of the photographic >> process (capture through final image processing) within reach of the >> ordinary person. It's opened up the world of artistry to many more >> people who otherwise were/would have been constrained to mostly >> 'capture-time photography'. > > This is what was said about photography when the first Kodak hit the > market in the late 1800s, except the comparison was being made to painting. >
And it was true then as it is now. >> >> Many, if not most people interested in photography did not have the >> funds, space, or time to devote to a wet darkroom. The digital >> darkroom is easily obtainable and justifiable, taking up far less >> space and costing less money, and it doesn't have the continued >> consumable expense, aside from paper if/when printing. OK, occasional >> hardware/software upgrades. >> >> Before DSLR's, when I bought Photoshop 3.0 and a film scanner in the >> mid-90's, a whole new side of photography began to emerge. I wasn't >> just limited to the locked-in post-capture image on the slide or >> negative. The combination of digital capture and post-processing has >> improved my output considerably and I've gone from the belief that my >> 1st generation slide image was the ultimate, to believing that the >> ultimate image is achieved through post-capture fine-tuning and >> adjustment prior to displaying in whatever form. That, in retrospect, >> while a long journey, has been liberating. (I am woman hear me roar). >> >> I don't particularly like sitting in front of a computer adjusting >> images either (as opposed to being out seeing and capturing images). >> The learning curve with complex software tools can seem overwhelming >> at times, but I can imagine I far prefer it to standing in a darkroom >> for hours on end, messing with smelly chemicals, and suffering the >> aggravation of irrecoverably destroying a good potential image or >> having to redo processes over and over because I didn't get it quite >> right (all the while my eyeballs drying up and scaling over for lack >> of light). It's akin to the advantages of using a word processing >> program and spell checker as opposed to a typewriter ribbon, paper, >> and correcting fluid. > > I got into photography in the first place because I like working in a > darkroom. The camera wasn't the tool of choice for me, the enlarger was. > Even the final image is of secondary importance to me. > I like the process of making the image more than either capturing it on > film or sensor, or even the final print itself, which is just proof that > I've done something I enjoy doing. > I suppose its surprising that I've been as successful a photographer as > I have been, given that attitude. > If all that matters to you is the final image, and you don't care about > how you get there, I actually feel sorry for you. > You use the typewriter vs. word processor analogy, but consider a > different one for a moment. > I could jump on an aeroplane tomorrow morning and be in Boise in the > afternoon, and that would be that. I'd be in Boise. > If that was all that was important, then fair enough. But I'd miss > seeing the rivers, the wildlife and the mountains between here and there. > I'd miss the trip in favour of the destination. > I happen to prefer the trip, and am willing to take the extra time > required to make it in comfort rather than just arriving, smelly and in > a bad mood from being cooped up in a cattle car for 8 hours after being > strip searched by a large ugly person with a bad attitude. > > William Robb Where's Boise? What time will you be here? Should I put dinner on? I'd say the final image matters most. By way of your travel analogy, if you have a fun trip yet you end up some place you'd rather not be, then you have the good memories of the trip but you're stuck with the here and now. Or maybe it was a fun trip, but just took too long, so now there's not enough time at your destination. You needn't feel sorry for me because I didn't say I didn't care about "how you get there". And you know as well as I do that your argument is a straw man, because you know I like road trips and you know I care about the process of creating an end image... but hey, I don't mind punching one around. :-) I don't think there's a right vs. wrong, or good vs. bad when it comes to analog vs. digital. They are parallel methods of achieving a similar end and one's free to pursue the options. But I must ask, despite your over emotional reaction, why do you have, how many DSLR's is it? When's the last time you've spent a substantial amount of time in a wet darkroom vs. frying your eyeballs out looking at the computer monitor? I assume you purchased metal screws, nails, and power tools when remodeling your house as opposed to hand saws, and chisels to fabricate your own fasteners. Of course, it's just an assumption. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
