String -- That\'s my feeling too. In most cases, film is ultimately just a different form of digital capture, based on its final outcome these days. It is a rather cumbersome and time consuming capture method, and consumers have ultimately voted to move to digital and gut the film industry. I really don\'t see much true photographic film work done any more. By that, I mean planned photos and developing along the line of the Zone System for B&W, then the same intensity of work with wet printing methods.
Carsten -- I see your point, but a painter must have a body of work to show to galleries and customers. So if each painting takes longer and is more expensive than a print, and the same number of finished pieces are necessary in both fields, I think my point is still made. Another think is that often photos are offered in limited editions, and that is simply how fast the printer will churn out additional copies, once the the settings are satisfactory. Paintings are each one unique, unless copies are made like prints, but then we are talking print making, not painting.
I\'m not trying to denigrate photography, or suggest it is easy to produce a masterful body of work in this field. It\'s just a discussion of relative effort, and ultimately perceived value to buyers and representatives.
Nov 28, 2012 at 04:22 PM
Previous versions of Gunzorro's message #11151195 « Did this camera save the film industry? »
