[pure-silver] Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: "Harry Lock" <harrylock@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:18:29 +0200
Hi All
No, this is not the bland , meaningless comparison that the title of my post
implies. I use both mediums and have a darkroom - although it is the only one
in a 50-mile radius. As Rob says ' it is where you want to go as a
photographer'.
But what really gets my goat is when digital camera users, blinded by, and in
awe of the new technology, speak as if they have just invented photography.
Up until now they have been happy with shoddy prints from the local mini-lab,
but now bundled with their camera is some software that allows basic darkroom
manipulation. They grin as if they have just discovered fire. Brightness and
contrast controls get them in a twitter, dodging and burning gets them drooling
and the black and white conversion button qualifies them as an artist.
As you can see - it gets be going. This is probably why my wife says I am a
candidate for the BBC-TV program "Grumpy old men."
Seriously though, I do believe that people with chemical stained finger-nails
who wear clothes that smell vaguely of fixer and walk with that familiar
developing tray stoop, do make better digital photographers. This is because we
know what is possible when we press the shutter button.
Someone asked me recently why I bother toning prints, because he has a sepia
setting on his computer that will make his print look the same. I asked him why
the thought people still bothered to learn to play the violin because they can
get a synthesized keyboard that sounds just the same.
He stared at me blankly, then went on to tell me about this neat new
photographic technique he discovered called cropping.
Harry
Other related posts:
