John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
I dont experience fear in so far as I feel my skills are threatened. The commercial work I do relies heavily on the natural world, chance occurrances, lighting conditions, etc. etc. (and toss in my technique/vision/ideas/interpretation) and it is my opinion that this work could NEVER be created, with so much variety as nature can present, by digital methods in a computer. The work could easily be replicated - using my/your originals as a starting point. But computers in and of themselves dont (yet) work without input from human thought and influence. And to use that hoary old quote: There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. Maybe I am naaive but I still think crap is crap, and digital crap isn't any better. It might just be easier to make. WHAT I AM AFRAID OF: is not keeping apace of digital methods, both for imaging work and for the associated business advantages (cd storage, emailing pix files etc). To not keep up with this will be to watch my business become increasingly more disadvantaged. I know of one successful stock photography partnership that involves a very imaginative photographer and a skilled Photoshop artist. Equal craft ability, equal imagination, very good results. Both abilities the result of YEARS spent in their respective fields. And remember James ....your old fart may be someone else's breath of fresh air!
|
|
|
|
Matthew
(K=66) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
I am afraid of buying a camera that will be obsolete in six months time(If I'm lucky)
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
Ultimately, digital will equal what can be done through the standard photographic process as far as final output resolution. At this time, the prices are outrageous for owning equipment that makes anything that remotely looks like a real photograph. I don't like proofing something and sending it to a service bureau. I hate the process. My schedule becomes their schedule. If I want something done "NOW," and I feel like working all night in the darkroom -- it gets done now.
I have no problem with the digital "darkroom." But, it is not the same as working in a real darkroom. I do things to negatives and transparencies that cannot be easily translated digitally. They involve hand work, and much like the great failing of computer paint programs, there is no substitute for the actual stroke of the human hand controlling a tool on a surface. I don't hear people even remotely claiming that a digital output from a paint program looks like a real painting (of any type, oil, watercolor your choice). The reason is, with a real painting you are aware that a human was at work because you can see the brush strokes and that's part of what is being appreciated, and part of what makes up the "presence" of the painting. So I really think, that for some types of work, digital will never do it.
Look at the work by Joel Witkin. Joel spends a lot of time doing manipulations to the negatives, and to the prints as they are made. It is this "hand work" that makes his prints very unique. Each one is a little different because the hand work is not exactly repeatable. Again, that's what make his work unique. It's like a series of monotypes. No two monotypes are the same, it part of the process. That's the part that is missing in digital, is evidence of the process. Evidence that a human hand was at work.
The other problem (at this point) with doing something digitally is spontaneity. How do you make a spontaneous gesture with a computer? Grab the pull down menu quickly, click on the menu item, change the effect to _____ make the mark, grab the pull down menu, click on the menu item change the effect to ____? With real hand tools, I can put them within easy reach work as rapidly as I can put one down and pick the next one up.
Yes, I know there are computer pointing devices that respond to pressure on the tip etc. but the tablet does not have the same feedback back through the device to your hand that an actual tool working a surface has. There is no friction change, no roughness change, and no change in audible feedback from the surface as your hand/tool pressure makes minute changes.
Granted, this may be a "specialty" application, but it's how I work. I am not limited to the interface provided by the software manufacturer and the hardware manufacturer. I can, and do, devise my own interfaces to accomplish my end goals through the tools and materials that I
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
I'd like to add also that like any new tool such as Photoshop tends to be overused. I've seen photos that were hard to identify the "photoshopping" but the majority contain too many cuts and pastes and floats, to much gimmickery and destruction of the central subjects/theme by too many elements or unbalanced elements fighting for the eye's attention. Not to mention Pixels, probably the ugliest part of digital photography.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
It's what I think of as the "Spinal Tap" approach. Everybody else has volume controls that go up to "10". PhotoShop gives you "11".
The only thing I dread/fear is the continuing over population of the planet. It's at the root of all our problems... Think of how excessive we could be, if there were half as many of us. Sport utilities for EVERYBODY!
If we could just have a moratorium of baby making for 1 year out of every ten...right... t
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
Well, I think I had better not be afraid of the new technology. Thats how I make my living. I made the decision loong ago not to turn pro as a commercial photographer because I didn't want most or all my work to be done to satisfy some one else - I wanted to be my own boss. Maybe that froze my progress, because I still use cameras without autofocus, and rarely ever use my motor drive. Of course, if I did sports pix for a living it would be different. And that's the point. The new technology gives us new tools to do new things, or do old things differently. Just like film replaced glass plates. But if you know how, you can still make marvelous photos with an old glass plate camera, or even with ambrotypes, tintypes, or many other ancient processes. To me the risk is that in gaining new tools we may lose old ones which are still valuable. There are few if any printing processes today which can match the dye transfer process, or the carbro print. But who does them today?? Yet they have visual characteristics that are unique. Don't be afraid of new methods or techniques. If you prefer the old ones continue with them. Your current camera won't become obsolete as long as it still works and makes the pictures you want. The words "old" and "different" aren't good-bad value judgements, they are just descriptors. The vision that results in great photography isn't dependent on any one digital, analog, silver or other technology.
|
|
|
|
Tony Brent
(K=141) - Comment Date 3/26/1999
|
Might want to remember that photography itself was "that new fangled" technology not so long ago. I welcome the advances in the various digital technologies. I make my living using them to accomplish things that would have required a room full of typesetters, stripping tables, plate burners, and presses. I can now make salable printed pieces in my own home, with my computer and printer, using both digitally photographed and conventionally photographed images. It's not the technology but how it is used. Is a photo taken with a point-and-shoot any less of a photograph than one taken with a new 8 x 10 cherrywood and top of the line Schneider?
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/27/1999
|
I am not afraid of digital imaging...as a matter of fact, I am not even very interested in it. What I have seen so far of the glorious wave of the future has been pretty disapointing. I see digital imaging as a factory molded glass vase...perfect in every respect (and each copy an exact duplicate of the one before and the one after) silver based photography, on the other hand, I see as a hand blown vase...made entirely by hand..filled with tiny imperfections (no two alike) that add caracter and artistry. I don't see the time when digital can stand on its own...with no silver based photograph in the equation somewhere...purely digital from conception to finished image. Don't get me wrong, I love technology...and I love what computers have provided over the last few years...I am no Luddite, I love auto focus (and I truly love TTL flash) and I adore the newer cameras...they make life so much easier....I just haven't seen anything in the way of digital imaging that has really triggered an emotional response. I see a lot of photography...my persobnal library contains over 500 volumes of photography (mostly nature, fine art, photographic history, and work by individual photographers)...I know that equates to something of an obession with photographic images...but none of us are perfect. I know that my response will cause some rancor among the ranks of the digital fans...I mean no disrespect or condemnation....I just don't see what all the fuss is about...digital used to further silver based imaging seems logical and helpful...purely digital just seems flat and uninteresting IMHO.
|
|
|
|
ray tai
(K=310) - Comment Date 3/27/1999
|
I am not sure you can equate digital with the future anymore since the digital darkroom has been with us for years; just look at Pedro Meyer and Graham Nash's "outputs" (I am still not used to calling them "prints" yet). We have seen the future and it is still too damn expensive for a decent exhibit quality output larger than 8x10. If the perceived threat is a Nikon Coolscan and an Epson 700 then there is nothing to worry about, unless or course your idea of quality is snapshots with a P&S with a 28-135/4.5-9.7 zoom. The day digital output equals my Ilford Multigrades dollar per dollar I will gladly ditch my chemicals.
To diverge for a minute, I think photography from an industry perspective is very much a consumer pursuit, given the percentage of color print films sold. Now what incentives do computer hardware companies have fo them to develope beyond home inkjet quality if the potential serious amateur market is no larger than say 2 percent of photographic users, when pricey options for the pro market already exists?
|
|
|
|
Mark
(K=248) - Comment Date 3/27/1999
|
We are really into the heart-of-the-matter now....Howard said it well when he spoke of "perfect" images from digital. Is perfect better? Not if we take away the "human" element. I was recently dissapointed after buying Eric Claptons new release to read that all the drums are "drum-machine". They ARE perfect, but the human element is gone. There is nothing wrong(and no reason to fear)moving forward with new digital imaging, we just dont want to lose some of the human touches that make my photos different than yours !
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/28/1999
|
lotsa raging (and whimpering and whining) paranoia.
Why can't we live and let live? Check out this magazine and see what forward thinking looks like:
http://www.lenswork.com/
"I just don't see what all the fuss is about" ...Howard, I'm removing this text stream from it's context, and agreeing with it! (winking smiley face here)...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
Tom, many of us are familiar with Lenswork (the current version has some brilliant work by Oliver Gagliani...I love the white piano...and the beautiful underwater shots of the S.F. Ballet by Howard Schatz...the rest of it is pretty much ..who cares)..I don't think I would vote for forward thinking...unless you mean been there..done that...like "Jews of Greece" (didn't Nat Geo do a "Last Jews in Poland" piece?) or American Camp (boring minimalist centered junk) or Tibetan Portraits (one of the most colorful cultures on the planet...and what do we see...dull B&W backgrounds with washed out pastel faces...sort of "retro" avante garde...new age...fake hand colored junk...the Forelli portfolio...beautifully printed completely empty and unoriginal time exposures....and many of us have heard of Pedro Meyer (and seen his stuff)....so what? I don't have a problem with live and let live...I am just getting a little weary of all the hype about the glorious future of digital imaging...I have yet to see anything that compares with the work of Cartier-Bresson, Haas, Minor White, Eliot Porter, Wynn Bullock, etc., etc. There is a fine group of photographers working today...but they are not creating the "buzz" for something different that the art circuit inteligentsia demands each season...what we are seeing is a lot of crap masquerading as art. I look forward to the day that someone begins to make quality images digitally...new doesn't always equate with good (or bad) just as old doesn't always equate with classic (or passe)..mercifully, most bad photographers from earlier eras have been allowed to drift into well deserved obscurity...I'm afraid that we will have wait a while for todays tipped horizons, camera shake, blur, minimalist, lack of focus (pun intended), retro polaroid borders crap to follow art junk like Basquiat (sp) into the mist of forgotten fads...originality counts, quality counts (quality of vision far more than quality of printing), composition counts, and personal courage counts...if digital is the wave of the future, then I want to see the work...I don't want to hear any more hype....to paraphrase a recent film..."show me the goods....(insert smiley face here)
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
Howard-
"...if digital is the wave of the future, then I want to see the work. "
The digital work of John Paul Caponigro is very, very good. So far, he is about the only person that I have seen make real sense out using digital imaging.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
Steve, thanks for the tip...I was, of course, familiar with his father's work (and I like it) but I had only heard of the son in passing...after viewing some of his stuff on the web...I will review his books and probably buy one...I think you may be right...if anyone is going anywhere with digital imaging...John Paul Caponigro may be the guy who is able to put it all together....I was impressed with the small selection of images I was able to find...and I admit that Mr. Caponigro (the younger) has the ability to create art with digital imaging...considering his age, and his pedigree...John Paul Caponigro might end up being the Alfred Stieglitz of digital imaging.
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
Where do you draw the line between too much and too little. John Paul is treading too lightly on the latter I think. He should be just a little more forward... a little more brave. It is too much like Uelssmann in some and not enough huevos in the others. ROTM IHOP!
|
|
|
|
King Winkie
(K=186) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
The only thing that causes me to have a "fear" response is health related issues. Ive been a software engineer since 1980 and have constantly faced having my skill set out dated. Every time a new computer language was introduced it was supposed to make all others obsolete. So if you were an expert at one, it seemed like your skills were no longer valuable. The fact of the matter is that when technology changes things, it always builds on something that already existed. I took the attitude "seen one, seen em all" and whenever I get a new piece of technology, I never can work it at first. But I usually figure it out based on previous experience. The key is that you have to be willing to open your mind to learning new things.
Digital photography is not something to worry about. It may bother you that you dont understand exactly how that picture is stored in those chips but thats the thing about technology. You dont need to know everything. I know a fairly good amount about computers and dont know how the data is stored in the flash ram myself. A lot of "fear" is just a feeling of unknowing. I now have an opportunity to photograph some "B" movie actresses and am more worried about setting up the lights then any other part of the process. Just because its my first time and I only get one shot at it. Im not "afraid" but Im sure I will feel a lot of pressure when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
stefan
(K=437) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
I think the thing written above by King Winkie is the wisest thing here.
You read so much about digital imaging being either the answer to all prayers or the end or creativity --- its just a new tool, a different tool.
As someone who works in both digital and conventional photo for a living, unless you shoot catalogues for fun or profit you will probably be using film for a long while yet. Digital may be more influential in replacing the snapshot camera, but I think film will around for at least another 70 years.
A dozen years ago no one sold records anymore --- everyone thought CDs were just better in every way. Now vinyl is back with a vengence. The ebb and flow will go on like this.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
So where on the internet can I see photographs by the "Alfred Steiglitz" of digital imaging?...t
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 3/29/1999
|
I also agree that this is nothing more than a new tool for seeing, and not a new tool for "new ways of seeing", I am sure that sometime way, way in the future, digital will completely take over, but in my opinion, it will never happened in black and white (for the professional anyway) I just don't think that there will ever be enough demand for digital black and white which has as much quality to it as the traditional methods, any thoughts?
One way some are going is to have a scan made of the "perfect" print and then outputting to a black and white negative, thus making straight prints which require no further manipulations to again achieve the "perfect" print. Opinions on that??
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
Tom, I actually said "might" end up being the Alfred Stieglitz of digital imaging (there were a number of other qualifiers as well) if you wish to see his work try http:///www.caponigroarts.com. Trib, one of the things that has really caused me the most disapointment in digital imaging is the lack of subtlety...I mean sometimes...less is more...restraint does not indicate a lack of huevos (such a testesterone laden reference) it might indicate a sense of proportion and balance...courage is not about "in your face", it is more about conviction and confidence in your vision, OITSOPB.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
I use the word "huevos" as an indication of bravado or chutzpah and never considered the word gender specific. Saying someones' got "eggs" as a way of attributing masculine agressiveness has always amused me...t
|
|
|
|
Arthur Gottschalk
(K=141) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
Sorry to say, I think the "digital revolution" is the death of photography as we know it. Silver and other photo-chemical images will soon become a craft exercise akin to weaving on a hand loom or some such. The worst is that whatever veracity (the idea that the camera does not lie) that remains in photograpy will vanish forever. I will miss it.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
Saw J.P. Cap's work, and even though I had plenty of out of body experience as a youth to draw on, I couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to stop seeing a bunch of glued together pictures. Uelsmans work is more satisfying in this genre to me, and I think better done.
And J.P.C's work is light years into the New Age ahead of Borges. I never thought of P.Borges portraits as "New Age". I did like them alot more when I thought they we monochromatic (from seeing them in lLensWork, a monochrome publication). The handcoloring really did take them down a notch, for me.
But I have only respect for his technique (the field work). An interesting combination of fashion-style light modification, photojournalistic field work and studio portrait post production. I thought it very respectful of the subjects. And working in Tibet and Somalia takes plenty "huevos" in my book.
Mark, I'm with you on the digital contact print as a fabulous utilization of digital technology. It's what I meant by forward thinking by Brooks Jensen of LensWork mag. The digital neg for contact printing showed up several years ago. An outfit called "Digital Pond" amongst others, will make negs on mylar with an Iris printer specifically constructed for platinum contact printing. But Brooks has gone a different route, offering prints from Scanned prints/ Film Recorder generated negs for sale at much lower costs than hand manipulated prints from in-camera negs demand. It's a good concept and everyone wins.
I don't think digital manipulation is another way of "seeing" , it's another way of "doing" . John Paul Caponigro and Jerry Uelsman see in similar ways, but one "does" digital and the other "does" not...t
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
Whoa!! had to jump back in on this one.
I think you're absolutely right! "the death of photography as we know it"...an over crowded artform whose parameters are confused by the wide range of practical applications of it's technology.
I hope for nothing more than for digital imaging to clear the decks and leave traditional silver and platinum printing to those who love it for it's specific characteristics and not because of it's convienence.
To compare hand made silver gel prints to hand weaving is a wonderful comparison. I'm fine with that. Machine prints from LED printers and laser printers are like sweaters from those knitting machines. Adequate, but not art.
Maybe one day we'll look at our "prints" from our digital capture devices on little cards that contain the image data in micro circuitry that rearranges itself and displays the images in shifting molecules on its surface. Wallet sized. Then a selenium toned 8x10 will look like magic and be oh so rare!...t
|
|
|
|
King Winkie
(K=186) - Comment Date 3/31/1999
|
Just to add some sci-fi to the mix.
Right now, it seems like digital is the "state of the art" best way to control image capture and manipulation. Maybe 30 - 50 years from now there will be a camera with all the built in functions of Photoshop. Maybe it will not use a glass lens and be able to bend light using some other method as to allow the photographer to set the lens anywhere from 10 - 2000 mm. Maybe all darkroom procedures (toning etc.) will be simulated on a simple device. If photographers dont like it, it wont exist for long. This is an issue that a lot of entrepreneurs/inventors have to deal with. As "cool" as it may be, if no one will pay for it, it doesnt matter.
So what was my point? Oh yea, if chemical technology results in the closest approximation of what we (the photographer) envision, it will be around as long as it is desired. I can pretty much guarantee that Kodak will not stop making chemicals, paper and film until there is no demand for it. Even then they will try to create a demand. Thats just how the free market works. If we (the photographer) agree that some new method of image capture, manipulation and presentation is superior to the old method, Kodak may be in trouble (and unless they manufacture it, you can be damn sure they will do everything they can to keep it from us. Microsoft style).
From another perspective on fear, the camera I described above scares the crap out of me. As an inventor, I wouldnt have a clue how to build it and have been fixated on it for the past few days. Looking into the future, I can see my eight year old great grandson looking at digital (binary) devices of today and saying "Why did they build everything based on binary? Everyone knows that aquato is 10,000,0000,0000 times faster"
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/1/1999
|
Looks a lot like two opposing bandwagons...choose up sides and piss away a lot of time and energy fighting over this. To date, I am not much impressed with all the digital revolution hype...I just ain't seeing the results that everyone in the digital camp is claiming...as for the traditional camp...Tom makes some valid points...although I don't think digital will clear the decks. The brutal truth is that only a small per centage of all photographers/imagers, whether traditional or digital, have any sense of vision....the greatest majority of what you see (as is the case in every art form) is pure unadulterated crap....and Tom, that is not a bad thing...because it makes the good work so much more valuable...it makes the vision and talent of the truly good photographers so much clearer. What is important is to be able to discern what is good and why...to support the photographers who do quality work...and to make the commitment to do quality work ourselves....tools and methods be damned.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 4/1/1999
|
In your opinion. I for one see many very good photographers out there in the masses. And some of them are digital all the way. I subscribe to Graphis which is a graphics oriented commercial magazine. I think some of the stuff coming out of the minds of graphic artists is quite fabulous. They, like we, are in the visual arts and whether their stuff lasts one year or a thousand, it is still good art. May not be "your" style but it is still good. I have a friend who does mostly Polaroid transfers and manipulations. That's pretty much all he does. Does that make him less acceptable as an artist? Does that make his art "crap?" I think not. In my opinion. And humble it ain't. James
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/1/1999
|
James, of course it's an opinion...this is a forum about photographic philosophy...everything expressed here is an opinion. I too see a lot of good photography (and it is not limited to any one genre or style) The point I was making is that there is a tremendous amount of crap out there. What I said was, "
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/1/1999
|
"oops" James, of course it's an opinion...this is a forum about photographic philosophy...everything expressed here is an opinion. I too see a lot of good photography (and it is not limited to any one genre or style) The point I was making is that there is a tremendous amount of crap out there. What I said was, " What is important is to be able to discern what is good and why...to support photographers who do quality work....and to make the commitment to do quality work ourselves....tools and methods be damned" Looks to me as if you are indeed, "supporting photographers who do quality work" personally I don't care anything at all about medium or source...what I care about is encouraging quality photography. I don't think digital imaging is the salvation of photography...if you were a mediocre "traditional" photographer...then after you spend all the money and learn all the techniques...you are going to be a mediocre "digital" photographer. I just find myself tired of the continual bombardment of "digital is the wave of the future" hype. It certainly is not...it will never be any more than a tool to achieve your photographic goals....and if you lack photographic goals and vision...digital imaging (exactly like traditional methods) is only going to impress those who didn't get it anyway. To sum up my position (which is offered in a totally "unhumble" spirit) If you are/were a crummy "traditional" photographer...every computer and imaging program in the world is not going to make you a good "digital" photographer...on the other hand....if you were/are a talented photographer with vision, original ideas, and something to say/offer/share digital imaging offers another tool to help you realize your vision...nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 4/1/1999
|
"the greatest majority of what you see is pure unadulterated crap...." "...that is not a bad thing...it makes the vision and talent of the truly good photographers so much clearer."
I agree, but it also makes the good stuff harder to find. You have to wade through so much more mediocrity to find the gems, sometimes my visual cortex gets toasted and my patience, threadbare.
It's a price ultimately worth paying, though. I'd rather have people making mediocre art than not making art at all. If it means I have to look more closely and in unusual places and with more patience to find the good stuff, then these are endeavors I must learn to enjoy more.
The world will be better off with more people engaged in artistic pursuits. Less time for murder?
"I think some of the stuff coming out of the minds of graphic artists is quite fabulous"
Yep, some of the best creative minds in the world are wasted in advertising.
As far as that line about digital image making being "the wave of the future", I find this common sentiment to be the flip side of "nothing good since Weston, Bresson, Adams, Winogrand (name your favorite dead white guy)"... both tiresome generalities. I know too many photographers who think the only real work is done with Tri-X and a Leica. Period. End of Story. It's too conservative an outlook for me, too narrow a definition...t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/1/1999
|
Let's face it, advertising pays...photography you do for love. The more people engaged in art the better (even if 90 per cent of them are wasting their own and everyone else's time) because this creates a framework for the perpetuation of art. I am sure that none of us believes that Weston and others of his generation (and every other) didn't have contemporaries whose names and works have mercifully passed into obscurity...they may have been highly thought of in their day, but their work didn't stand the test of time....there is much wrong with the world, but one thing that is great, is that art lives...and crap eventually dies.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 4/2/1999
|
You know, a lot of great art was dismissed as crap at the time of it's creation...t
|
|
|
|
the big long schlong
(K=15) - Comment Date 4/3/1999
|
"The avant-garde is the about the search for new forms" I read this in the last issue of LensWork which contained an excerpt from On Being A Photographer. I was afraid of the digital revolution initially, not so much because I feared that my skills as an analogue photographer will be replaced by some punk with a P&S working on Photoshop but because I was afraid that in our rush to embrace the new, digital imaging, the false god that it is, will sound the death knell of analogue silver based photography as we know it.
I see digital imaging and its technology in a different light these days for it is a new tool for a new form. It is an adjunct to analogue photography but not its successor. As with the birth of any new forms, we will go through a nascent period of fumbling around with it in our quest to test its limits or potential. Someday, somewhere, someone will vindicate this new form and make art with it. It may even be one of us. Let's us not fear the new kid on the block. It has arrived and just like the paintbrush, analogue photography will co-exist with it.
|
|
|
|
