One of my teachers was talking about chemical photography and how it
was the only art form that's arc was really around a century long.
There were many pioneers in the field doing work (long) before the 20th
century, but chemical photography as a mainstream art form really
emerged at the start of the 20th century and began to wane at the start
of the 21st. The acceleration of technology, I guess.
I appreciate and enjoy a lot of the things that digital photography can
accomplish and even though I shoot my student films on Super-8, I have
them transferred to Mini-DV and edit them on my Apple. I also tend to
scan photos and use the "digital darkroom" of Photoshop to retouch
them, resize them for sharing via email and play with the images in
ways I'd never take the time to do if I was doing it all chemically and
optically.
My take is that both chemical and digital imaging still work pretty
well together. I'd hate to make do without either, personally. The day
will eventually come when film can't do anything that digital can't,
but that day isn't here yet and I don't imagine it will be here this
decade (or at least not in the hands of guys like me who can't drop
tens of thousands of dollars on cutting-edge Hollywood toys).
Sorry if this was too far OT. Just my two cents.
-Rob
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 08:21 AM, Dan Lau wrote:
But I think the two are completely different. Film cameras
have remained basically unchanged for decades. There is very
little improvement that can be added to it.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|