Re: Is it there yet?

["Rev. Sidney Flack" <sgflack@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alans Z & B have the right of it.  Regardless of perceived output 
quality, there is a fundamental difference between the two media of 
digital and film based photography.  Some day we will all understand and 
appreciate this as it becomes clearer that comparing the two is 
unproductive.

I heard another comparison this morning on NPR that seems relevant. 
With the explosion of word based material on the internet today, the 
great volumes of books that have been transcribed to digital format, the 
endless terabytes of information that exists for anyone with a computer 
and modem to access, books are still around.  There remains a tactile, 
esthetic quality to books that no amount of web resources will surpass 
nor duplicate.

While a digital print is tactile and thing that can be held in the hand 
or hung on a wall, it is still not the same as a fine, expressive black 
and white print or a cibachrome nor will it ever compare.  Digital may 
be "easier", but I doubt it.  Nor is that necessarily the point of it. 
It is just different and valid in its own right.

And so too is film base photography.  Paintings are here to stay.  Books 
are here to stay.  Film and silver halide are here to stay (or at least 
film is).

Peace!
Sidney