> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:03:07 -0000
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS Regular vs Digital
>
> I would like to know your opinions regarding regular vs digital
> photography. By regular - I mean the traditional way of capturing
> images on photographic film vs the latest way of digital enhancing
> images.
There are worlds between shooting digital and
"enhancing the latest way". To me it is simply
different in handling the exposed disk instead
of an exposed film. The result should be the
same.
> Regular Photography serves as a true representation
> of life captured by a photographers agility and
> imagination.
True sportsmanship expressed in this funky little
sentence. But still, there's more to "regular"
photography than just reproductions of life.
> Whereas digital photography is a representation of
> an artists creative imagination.
The creative imagination does not come from the
memory card in my camera. Either you have it or
you don't. Digital speeds up workflow, it saves
cost on film, but else it is just photography.
> In regular photography a person is trying to capture
> an existing real life image on film in the best
> possible way. However, in digital photography, the
> image is captured and then it is polished by the
> artists creative imagination using sophisticated tools.
U-huh..... Have you ever seen someone dodge and burn,
use splitgrade heads, sepiatone or retouch with soft
pencils.... in a conventional darkroom?
> In regular photography the resulting image is entirely
> dependant on the situation and the talent of the
> photographer.
Yes, and in digital I paint a picture of the shooting
of the president if I happen to be in the wrong position
for a good picture.
> Not to mention the cost of equipment. The equipment used in regular
> photography has greater shelf longevity, which means you buy the
> stuff today and you won't feel that you were a jackass at the end of
> the year.
>From what I save on film the D30 pays for itself in
less than a year. I would feel a jackass having an
expensive camera and still neeeding to buy film....
> However, you spend money on digital equipment today by
> next christmas you feel your equipment is obsolete.
And paid in full by savings on film and
processing cost.
> Yes, Digital photo equipment sure does open up a lot
> of image sharing felxibility. But from the standpoint
> of photography as an art, what are you displaying
> by digitally enhancing images.
I think the basic misunderstanding is the
"enhancing" part.
> After having said all this, my question is which
> one is superior?
The photographer with a mind to see what makes a
good shot. No matter on which medium it is saved.
> My opinion is regular photography is always superior
> than digitally enhanced photography.
And I bet I could easily show you two sets of pictures
on the net and you won't be able to tell which was
shot digitally.
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.photoquack.de
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
