[rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:21:23 -0400
Two things... historically there has always been a great confusion
between the ability to operate the equipment and the ability to
produce inspired or artistic or worthwhile output with it. This has
been true every time a technology becomes available and afford to the
mass audience and is no longer the exclusive purview of the
craftsman/artist, including George Eastman's introduction of the film
camera to the common man...
Second, one of my major objections to digital anything is the lack of
archival characteristics and a general lack of awareness of the
temporal nature of digital storage and giclee output. The first
photograph ever made (by Niépce) survives still, and the original
recordings made by Edison do as well. Digital recording media, on the
other hand, cannot hope to meet any kind of archival standard for the
foreseeable future...
Eric Goldstein
--
On 7/24/07, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (snipped)
There are certainly many mediocre artists. Some of them
have become mediocre Photoshop operators. However, the
mediocracy is not in the medium. Even if a medium is
technically very difficult to work that fact does not
gurantee that someone who becomes proficient in its use will
be talented as an artist and produce interesting or moving
work. I believe that lack of technical skill or ability can
interfere with an artist with genuine talent but the
technical ability and the artistic talent are two different
things.
My only objection to digital or electronic photography
is that it has limited the materials available for chemical
photography, which I happen to enjoy doing and have spent
most of my life learning how to do decently. As long as I
can practice it I am fine with digital.
I will add that IMO photomechanical reproduction has
come leagues from the best quality available from
conventional half-tone or other (lithographic for instance)
reproduction. One has only to compare the best reproduction
of, say, fifty years ago, to the modern stuff to be
convinced. If you can find editions of _Fortune_ magazine
from any time up to about the 1950's you will see color and
B&W work that was about the best possible at the time.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
F�ez"��h��ez)b��y����n������%�襊�z����y���
"�.n�������������x"����b���'����y�k�Y^�X���������+-���a�{.n�������������x"����b�����)ޱ�����zƫy�ڊV��歆���X������z��Y^�X�
Other related posts:
