Obsessing about which technology was used to make a photograph, especially when it leads to wholesale rejection of one technology is silly. It is equivalent to hearing an astonishing performance of a violin solo and then deciding that it really wasn\'t that good because \"a Guarneri can\'t match a Stradivarius.\" Even worse would be to decide ahead of time that one performance couldn\'t possible be as good, given the instrument used.
A thought experiment. Let\'s say that photographic technology did not exist. Simultaneously two methods of doing photography appear fully formed - neither has any prior history or tradition. One is represented by the current state of film-based chemical photography, developing, and optical printing processes. The other is represented by the current state of digital capture, digital post, and inkjet printing.
Let\'s ask two questions:
Without any previous history with either medium and considering all that is involved with each, which would photographers (as they would soon come to describe themselves) choose?
With the same caveat, would observers regularly select images produced by one over images produced by the other? Which would they select and why?
Don\'t be naive about the range of reasons photographers have for making statements about this or that photographic technology, or about their use of terms like \"filmlike\" or \"natural\" or \"digital\" and so forth. In the context of marketing themselves a number of photographers make such statements (\"I only photograph what I see and don\'t alter the image\") that turn out to be just plain obviously not true. Or only true if you accept a very narrow context for the statement. Even some very successful photographers engage in this. (The spectacle of anyone who has used Velvia speaking about unnatural post-processing is always good for a chuckle or two.)
Finally, my position is that it doesn\'t matter in any intrinsic way what technology you use to create photographs as long as the photographs you create represent your version of what photographs should look like. Why is (supposedly) looking like film a good thing?
Some want to believe that there is some magic technology that makes great photography. The news is that you have to master whatever technology you choose to use to make your photography (pick one!), but what technology that is ultimately matters little. What you create with it does. If you are looking for a technology to make your photography better or to define it, you are perhaps still at a very early stage in your development as a photographer.
Dan
Jun 14, 2010 at 09:07 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #8567343 « 5D2 looks "digital" compare to 5D? »
