On Oct 16, 2011, at 07:08 PM, David Sadowski <dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The point is, it's a digital world we live in today, and being opposed to that is something akin to Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Things aren't simply going to reverse themselves and everybody go back to analog.
To "state the obvious" as you put it is not the same thing as being a "true believer," brainwashed, or whatever. I appreciate what film can do and I also appreciate what digital can do.
Being critical of digital photography on principle, as it seems some people are, is like saying, "I don't like this hammer or this screwdriver." All these things are is tools.
A tool can define its own utility in some at times very subtle ways. The Iphone, when introduced, did nothing novel, however its design for ease of use made it unique.
I have a strimmer, a sledge hammer, and an outsize leaf rake which I bought in home depot which frustrate me every time I use them, and I have a pry bar and crow bar from the same source which are both a total joy to use.
So I understand any one who says they don't like this hammer, or that screw driver.
These are subtle distinctions, and are hard to articulate, but they are at the back of the great turf wars of the photographic tradition, whether it is wet versus dry plate, Nikon vs Cannon, or Leica Vs. the world. Many of the issues are affective, an emotional attachment to German or American made technology, or an antipathy to all things Japanese.
They also distinguish themselves by being very rarely affected by rational argument, as the personal commitment involved is more emotional than rational.
As for it being a digital world, I personaly live in an analog world, which is in turn occupied by a number of digital artifacts. The digital artifacts are noteworthy for their transient nature and their ability to remind us of our increasing age, and our forthcoming mortality.
All the best
Laurence Cuffe
It's the photographer that takes the picture as much as the camera.
