close
more_vert

No worries morfe lux! I think there's space for both disciplines, too. A personal theory is the old fashioned way of doing it will be a sought-after art form in its own right, given the fullness of time. In fact, I know a photographer who's fascinated by all the old techniques and recipes for chemistry, and she's going off to pursue photography using those techniques. We need people like her to keep things alive.

Obviously, there are times when digital has the edge - like I wish I had a digital camera, so that I could get pictures of the places I've visited actually up on this website; I have hundreds of negs to go through and print up, yet not enough time/money/resources to do so, currently. It's a real frustration. The speed is a real asset!

Horses for courses, but it'll all even out in the end. ;o)

treaclechops xx

I think any system is measured well by the output needs. Obviously photography for print is best done using digital SLR, digital backs etc (if they can be afforded) as the resultant 300 dpi magazine/book litho would only have been scanned from the negative anyway should film have been used. So-called 'fine art' photography is a specialist process and I'm conscious of having to work very hard to carve out a niche here for myself. It's not that I don't believe in the methods i use (i do, very much!) , it's that there is huge prejudice as to whether digital photography is cheating or not. I know that's a rubbish argument, because all the same rules apply whichever method one uses to capure the light, and any discerning eye can spot the equation: shit/incompetent effort inwards, shit/incompetent result outwards! Of course there's then the unmeasureable variable: vision, pre-emptive and actual, which in turn is divided by luck!

Onwards and upwards! Woe be to they who say photography isn't an art!

~o~ morfe