Kevin Waterson wrote: > > [cut, snip] > >My problem is that photography has become more of a production line >than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed >and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. >All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely >different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement >and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems >to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > [cut, snip]
Let's try this again.... Chemical photography is just as buzz-word laden and technical as digital photography. It can be just as much of a "production-line" as work done on a computer. If you've decided that a digital workflow doesn't speak to you and a chemical one does, that's fine. It seems to me that you are saying that digital as a medium does not "scratch your itch". That's fine, too. You don't have to justify your decision by critizing digital for being "production line" and "buzzword" laden. "The mountain does not laugh at the river because it is lowly, nor does the river speak ill of the mountain because it cannot move about." --Mark
