Richard:
Right you are. What it is down to is what tool(s) are used most
skillfully and COMFORTABLY by the artist. Naturally, the tools CAN
impose technical limitations (such as AG mentioned) which cannot be
overcomed. The artist who does not acknowledge these and stubbornly
refuses to use a more appropriately tool will ultimately fail to
communicate.
I think what Walt is really saying is that, for HIM, digital imposes
barriers which he cannot overcome. These primarily seem to be in the
interface and workflow. The fact that others either do not sense these
barriers or overcome them is of no relevance to Walt's work. Or to me.
As long as an OM or an SP helps me see and work better, it is better
than gigapixels.
Earl
Richard Lovison wrote:
>Heck, I might as well jump in and throw some fuel on the fire. 8-)
>REAL artists who work with images use a brush, paint and canvas.
>
>It is all so silly, isn't it? I have a feeling that if we didn't
>gather our self worth out of what we do or how we do it we could be
>more accepting of others and their personal expression. This world is
>a funny place... we have no idea as to why we're here or whether there
>is any place to go after death (even though many claim they know) and
>in the meantime, we do our best to judge the h*ll out of each other
>most of the time. :)
>
>Richard - out looking for any wonder I can find before I go totally
>insane
>
>--- Stephen Walker <stephenpwalker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>Just changing the subject line to more accurately
>>reflect how I feel about it.
>>
>>The only thing that matters is the light. What tools
>>you use to capture it (film, ccd, etc) is entirely up
>>to the photographer.
>>
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|